Agenda item - Deputations from members of the public.
navigation and tools
Find it
You are here - Home : Council and Democracy : Councillors and Committees : Agenda item
Agenda item
Deputations from members of the public.
A list of deputations received by the due date of 12noon on the 18 October 2019 will be circulated separately as part of an addendum at the meeting.
Minutes:
37.1 The Mayor reported that three deputations had been received from members of the public and noted that there was a Notice of Motion listed at Item 45 (3), Home to School Transport – Policy Panel on the agenda which related to the first deputation. She was also aware of an amendment to the notice of motion from the Green Group and would therefore take the motion and the amendment directly after the deputation had been made and responded to.
(2) PRIDE PVP
37.3 Mr. Rolfe thanked the Mayor and stated that, On the 19th April 2018 The Kingscliffe Society made a deputation to B&HCC about Health & Safety concerns over the Pride PVP annual event. We were directed to the Tourism Development & Culture Committee and thence to Safer Communities who were to produce a Review in the form of a questionnaire as a public condition. They issued their questionnaire on the day before they surveyed/walked the St James's PVP Area with us (TKS) together with the St James's LAT group. Therefore, none of our issues pointed out during the survey could be included in the B&HCC questionnaire. The results from the questionnaire formed more a Popularity Poll than the Review as promised (which was to cover all residents & business concerns) but were presented as a factual outcome dealing full with all the issues raised.
We have, therefore, continued to pursue our H&S concerns and requirements at Council meetings and by emails, but all to no avail.
In the Agreement the B&HCC made with the Pride organisation in 2014 various clauses were included to improve the management of this event, specifically;
3.15 with the explicit intentions of creating a safer and welcoming event.
3.16 PVP format aimed at creating an event that achieves a better outcome/or attendees, businesses and local residents (ourunderlines)
3.19 Evaluation of the PVP by the Safety Advisory Group (including the councils emergency services) with regard to the event's objectives of delivering a safer and high-quality event was largely very positive. The evaluation process with local businesses and communities is ongoing at the time of report writing and any further information will be provided at meetings.
We dispute whether these objectives have ever been fully achieved.
In regard to 3.15. As the PVP does not commence until 6pm, many attendees arrive for the event already intoxicated or drug affected from the 'Party in the Park' where they have been indulging all afternoon.
In regard to 3.16. As the PVP has an overwhelming emphasis on over-loud music (up to 120 DPC inside homes) and the on-street alcohol consumption promoted by the demands of St James's abundant licensed premises. The wishes of residents & unlicensed traders are therefore given very low priority.
In regard to 3.19 During the last 2 years in St James St. Pride has estimated an attendance@ between 35,000 & 42,000 revellers in its narrow adjacent side streets, filled to overflowing with somewhat intoxicated revellers contained behind un-climbable barriers. With no public address system, emergency lighting, and escape signage and no pre-issued escape plan for residents or revellers to follow. The 2-meter-high non-climb barricades are erected from midday on the Friday until late night on the Sunday and for the last 2 years of PVP event and no pre or post PVP meetings have been organized so no relevant information is exchanged and actedupon.
It is recognised that the PVP is raising funds, one aspect of which is a social fund to reduce the effect it has on the wider community, but it is raised by imposing unreasonable distress and conditions on many local residents and non-licensed traders who are bearing the brunt of the true cost.
Any emergency is a tragedy waiting to happen.
With respect, we would ask the Council to withdraw the Pride PVP agreement and employ a Company that will comply with the Council's Requirements & those of Health and Safety.
37.4 Councillor Robins stated that he had a full response for the deputation and suggested that it be recorded in the minutes and sent to Mr. Scoble, but in the meantime wished to thank Mr. Rolfe for presenting the deputation.
Note: the full response is detailed below:
A review of the Pride Village Party was carried out in 2018 following a previous deputation from the Kingscliffe Society. Part of that review was a public consultation about the event continuing in the location of St James’ St. Nearly 3000 responses were received with support largely in favour of the event continuing to be held in the St James’ St area, many of those responses were from local residents and businesses and again there was a majority of support from those responding that it should remain where it is. The consultation was only part of that review, evidence was included in the committee report about complaints received about the event especially about noise and the report showed that there were very few, and also the event site plan which showed points of egress and ingress and the routes for emergency vehicle access.
The points that have been raised by the Kingscliffe Society about the Health and Safety arrangements were discussed at two independent safety advisory groups in July 2019 and it was felt by the group, made up of senior officers from the Council and emergency services that the risk assessments carried out by Pride Community Interest Company mitigated the risks and were compliant with current Health and Safety guidelines.
Public address systems can be taken over and used to make announcements. An exercise took place looking at evacuation following guidance around Safety in Public Places. 82,000 people can be evacuated from the area in under 10 minutes should the need arise. Every Road has security and stewards, in the event of an emergency the music systems / and security will be on hand to advise people to stay indoors or not depending on the situation.
During the run up to the event and after the event there are regular meetings to ensure that all mitigation to manage risks are in place and that any lessons learnt from the previous year are incorporated into the planning process for the following year. Pride CIC works with the statutory agencies throughout this to ensure that they put in place recommendations from the statutory agencies such as the police, fire service and the health and safety officers at the council. A detailed event management plan is produced and again this will be amended in light of recommendations from the safety advisory group and others.
During the event Pride are based in Dorset Gardens throughout the weekend, with regular Event liaison team meetings which are fed back to a multiagency Silver command and there is ongoing communication for the duration of the live event, over the whole weekend.
Pride hold regular meetings with residents in the run up to the event and officers are on site to check noise levels during the event and to ensure the safety of both residents and party goers.
We are satisfied that there are contingencies in place for the event to continue to be run by Pride CIC for 2020.
37.5 The Mayor thanked Mr. Rolfe for attending the meeting and speaking on behalf of the deputation. She explained that the points had been noted and the deputation would be referred to the Tourism, Equalities, Communities & Culture Committee for consideration. The persons forming the deputation would be invited to attend the meeting and would be informed subsequently of any action to be taken or proposed in relation to the matter set out in the deputation.
(1) Home to School Transport for Students with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND)
37.6 The Mayor then invited Ms. Pippa Hodge as the spokesperson for the first deputation to come forward and address the council.
37.7 Ms. Hodge thanked the Mayor and stated that, Children as young as 4 or 5 years old, rely on this Service to take them safely to/from the setting named in their Education, Health & Care Plan (EHCP) in line with Statutory Duties* (Appendix 2). Numbers are rising year on year. The previous 4-year Contractor Framework expired in August 2019. Several years of Contractor consistency created effective links between Schools/Colleges, Parent Carers (& their CYP) and the local Brighton Contractors (Community Transport take many of the children using wheelchairs, some with profound and multiple learning disabilities). Whilst not without glitches, the long-standing system centred around acquired SEND/Autism training & awareness, plus familiarity with pupils individually, which built trust and delivered a reliable service. Crucially:
Each child was recognised as an individual with discreet Core Support Needs, e.g. living between 2 parents’ homes, or being a child who regularly went to Respite (their Care package), or specialist clubs, to enhance Life Skills. This essential community cohesion was recognised as a fundamental factor in ‘Whole Child’ Wellness and Development, upholding Equalities and City CYP Key Principles
Drivers and Escorts, supported by back offices, used their common sense and route knowledge to minimise the stress for children, ensure that they arrived on time and ready to learn, and to enable working parents to meet their obligations, or get other young children to school.
When possible, Drivers and Escorts remained with their cohort of children, building up trust and assisting that difficult transition between home/school/home which many youngsters with SEND, especially those with Autism &/or Sensory Processing Difficulties, typically find overwhelming.
In March 2019, a Dynamic Purchasing System/DPS (a bid-down system) to reduce Overspend was proposed by Edge Public Solutions (employed as Advisors in January 2019). A DPS approach had been discussed at Policy, Resource & Growth Committee (11/10/18*). Meeting minutes (Conclusion 7.2) authorised a new framework, but not a DPS (since the simulated desktop exercise did not prove the anticipated savings to the Committee’s satisfaction). Nevertheless, a DPS was approved, via Urgency Powers (March 2019) without passing back through PRG or CYP Committees. As a direct result of these changes the transport scheme is failing to safeguard our children.
We Request A Full Cross-Party Scrutiny Group So This Never Happens Again. We ask Councillors from each party to fulfil your Responsibilities and personally conduct a beginning to end scrutiny of events, in keeping with your stated civic duties as elected councillors.
We challenge the logic & validity of the Independent Review: this was again presented as a ‘fait accompli’; ‘Officers investigating Officers’ cannot be ‘independent’ (every LA is facing Transport issues); Parent Carers do not want to speak with yet more Officers from another Authority when they struggle with their own; Officers will leave once their report is submitted, and there will be no accountability for changes or a safe framework legacy. You are our Councillors & Moral Guardians of Civic Services. Please, put our City’s Children above local Politics. We must learn how this has gone so shockingly wrong. No more personal cost to our children’s physical safety, mental wellbeing and education; or to families; no more ‘wait and see if there are incidents’; no more financial cost of outsourcing to ‘3rd parties’ from our City Budget. Councillors, we are beyond apologies, please act.
37.8 Councillor Allcock replied, Thank you for your passionate and heartfelt deputation Pippa. Obviously, we have been in contact before today in person and by email, but I am glad to have your direct input at this meeting, as I am sure all elected members are.
I hope you are able to accept that there has been full recognition of the problems that some parents faced at the start of this term and I know that for some this is still ongoing. Arrangements certainly did not proceed as planned. This should not have happened, and no one wants this to happen again. I want to repeat this unreserved apology today. But I also want to reassure you and all parents and carers that we will not rest until this situation is completely resolved.
I understand we urgently need to re-build trust between the community and the local authority and therefore, as an Administration, we believe it is important that a review is carried out. A review that will be fully independent of the Council which will be asked to investigate all areas of the home to school transport function, including the initial decision-making process to change the arrangements. Lead reviewers have already been identified and a decision on this will be made by me in consultation with the Chair of the Audit & Standards Committee and PACC. In addition, following a suggestion from PACC, the review will be supported by a representative from Contact – a national charity working with the families of disabled children who will also get in touch with families directly. Contact is not a Local Authority service and is not staffed by council officers. We are also considering other ways to enable greater levels of parent/carer oversight of the review.
We want a level of scrutiny and challenge to make sure that we learn all there is to learn from this and so we can use that knowledge to make improvements. We know this will not be comfortable, but it needs to be done and done quicklyso that any improvements can be implemented as soon as they are identified. The final draft of the terms of reference for the Independent Review have now been agreed which, again, incorporates valuable input from the Parent and Carer Council as well as the suggestions of the Chair of the Audit & Standards Committee. At our request these are drawn as widely as possible. As Chair of this committee I promise you that I want every aspect looked at and when I say no stone unturned I mean it.
Representative groups, many of them here today, as well as individual families affected must and willhave the opportunity to share their views and experiences with the reviewers, as part of their work. I know that you, and others are asking for an internal, cross-party Member led Policy Panel, and we are more than happy to work with Members to provide this additional layer of scrutiny. But our first priority has always been to resolve the problems our young people and their families have faced, with the scrutiny and review now running alongside. Having an independent outsider working on this as well will, we hope, encourage greater openness and transparency.
Of course, we completely understand why other elected Members want answers to questions and a degree of oversight themselves. So, as well as encouraging councillors across the spectrum to engage with, and contribute to, the Member-led panel and the Independent Review, I have agreed that there could be a that a short report to provide a progress update on the independent review and the current situation with Home to school transport brought to the next meeting of the Children Young People & Skills Committee in November. Members will have an opportunity there to ask questions about the review.
Once the Independent Review is completed as planned, it is anticipated that a further, final report will be brought to the January meeting of the CYPS committee. The committee system in Brighton & Hove is designed to give opportunities for councillors to both set policy at committees and also to scrutinise the work of the council. I expect and hope that councillors will want to ask questions about any recommendations coming from the review and also to be assured that actions are in place to address these recommendations. Future meetings of the CYPS committee and reports from the policy panel will provide robust opportunities to scrutinise progress.
By its definition, an Independent Review ensures that all areas of the council’s work can be explored as part of the review without any party-political influence getting in the way of the changes that I’m sure families in the city would want for the future. If the CYPS committee or the Policy Panel continues to have concerns, then these can also be referred to a future meeting of Full Council. It is vital therefore that we learn from what went wrong and make changes for the future.
45. NOTICES OF MOTION
(3) Home to School Transport – Policy Panel
37.9 The Mayor then invited Councillor Mears to move the Notice of Motion, Item 45 (3) on the agenda.
37.10 Councillor Mears thanked the Mayor and Ms. Hodge for bringing her deputation to the meeting. She stated that all Members had a responsibility as corporate parents and to ensure that the home to school transport service met the needs of the children concerned. She acknowledged that all new contracts experienced teething troubles, but it was clear this contract was not fit for purpose. Members had raised questions at the committee and expressed concern over the lack of Member oversight for the contract. Hence the motion called for a cross-party Member Panel to review the process of issuing the contract and to feed into the Independent Review. She also confirmed that she was happy to accept the Green Group’s amendment.
37.11 Councillor Simson formally seconded the motion and reserved her right to speak in the debate.
37.12 Councillor Clare stated that she wished to thank the parents and children for attending today’s meeting and that she believed the changes to the contract had led to an unacceptable level of distress for them. She welcomed the proposal for an Independent Review but agreed that there was a need to begin reviewing the process as soon as possible and therefore the amendment sought to add to the notice of motion.
37.13 Councillor Hugh-Jones formally seconded the amendment.
37.14 Councillor Knight stated that no-one had wanted to be in the position that currently existed and fully supported the apology given by Councillor Allcock. However, there was a need to move forward and take action and to understand the decision-making process so that improvements could be made. She welcomed the cross-party panel as it would enable Members to review matters and provide transparency and accountability. She hoped that all councillors would work together to resolve the difficulties and to regain the trust of parents and the young people.
37.15 Councillor Bell expressed his concern over how the situation had been reached and his frustration that having raised questions previously at committee these had not been addressed. He believed it was appropriate to have a cross-party Member Panel and hoped that it could begin its review as soon as possible.
37.16 Councillor Simson noted that the value of the contract had meant it fell below the threshold for a report to have to come to committee, however she felt for such an important matter, Members should have had oversight. She questioned whether the Independent Review would be fully independent given that the decision to award the contract was taken under delegated powers. She fully supported the need for a cross-party Member Panel and hoped that lessons could be learnt in regard to the process of awarding the contract and a solution found to the current problems with the contract.
37.17 Councillor Mears noted the comments and stated that it was important for Members to be involved in the review process and the cross-party Member Panel would enable that. She hoped it would then be able to feed into the Independent Review and that all parties concerned would have the opportunity to input into the review process.
37.18 The Mayor thanked Ms. Hodge for attending the meeting and speaking on behalf of the deputation. She explained that the points had been noted and the deputation would be referred to the Children, Young People & Skills Committee for consideration. The persons forming the deputation would be invited to attend the meeting and would be informed subsequently of any action to be taken or proposed in relation to the matter set out in the deputation.
37.19 The Mayor then noted that the amendment to the Notice of Motion had been accepted and therefore put the following motion as amended to the vote:
This council resolves to ask the Children, Families & Skills Committee to urgently establish a cross-party Member led Policy Panel consisting of six Members, two from each political party, and chaired by a Member of the Opposition. It would have the remit to, inter alia, review and discuss solutions to resolving the current negative impact on schools, families, children and young people and generally the implementation of the home to school transport service; and oversee any results of the external investigation proposed by the Administration.
37.20 The Mayor confirmed that the motion had been carried unanimously.
(3) Valley Gardens
37.21 The Mayor then invited Ms. Serena Burt as the spokesperson for the third deputation to come forward and address the council. She also stated that as Item 45 (4) Notice of Motion on Valley Gardens listed on the agenda referred to the same matter, she intended to take the motion immediately after the deputation had been presented and responded to.
37.22 Ms. Burt thanked the Mayor and stated that, I’m here today to briefly talk you through an alternative plan for Valley Gardens phase 3. This has been drawn up by leading architects, engineers and design professionals from our city - on behalf of us all.
The plan is based on the best elements of the Council’s own original design options. We don't consider it definitive and so further input is invited and welcomed. Our current version removes most of the transport disbenefits from the current council scheme, provides a much better cost benefit ratio with significantly closer alignment to Transport for the South East's stated strategy. It would achieve a more positive outcome on almost every measure than the current official one - identified as offering ‘low value for money’ by the Local Enterprise Partnership Coast 2 Capital.
Our core proposition achieves the following:
· The creation of city-wide routes to the centre for cyclists and pedestrians complete with better access to attractive new green spaces increasing biodiversity.
· The creation of a dedicated two-way bus and taxi lane to link North Street to a contiguous public transport corridor at Marlborough Place and retaining the city centre’s natural transport hub complete with the three iconic “deco” bus shelters.
· The creation of a 'mixed use' pedestrianised seafront gateway to explore the east of the city Instead of separating Kemptown from the centre with the current proposed scheme.
· The creation of a dedicated cycle hub at Pool Valley with a crossing to the seafront, safely clear of pedestrians at the front of the Pier as well as public transport and general traffic.
· Moving cycle lane away from the Steine gardens perimeter makes access better for the public realm and essential for use as event space.
· The creation of a remodelled roundabout to ensure the safest and most environmentally friendly free movement of general traffic - and removing the need to redevelop the junction at Duke's Mound.
Residents, businesses and public sector professionals across all sectors of the local economy have already offered valuable input. We genuinely believe that something close to this plan is one that the entire city can get behind.
We therefore respectfully ask Full Council to note our proposal and ask the ETS Committee to give full and proper consideration to this plan.
37.23 Councillor Pissaridou replied, thank you for bringing this deputation to Full Council this afternoon. I can see that you are representing a number of businesses and organisations today on behalf of the Valley Gardens Forum.
The deputation serves to underline that there is still a considerable amount of interest in this final phase of the Valley Gardens project, and that there is agreement that investment is urgently needed to assist in regenerating this city centre area. The benefits of doing so will also be felt in areas that are adjacent to it, such as St James’s Street and The Lanes.
Although it has been in the media, what I am pleased to be able to say personally today, is that the Local Enterprise Partnership (which is known as the LEP) completed its review and consideration of our Business Case earlier this month. In doing so, it has also taken into account a number of representations that it has received from various sources. The conclusion is that the LEP has finally approved the £6 million pounds worth of external funding for the project. That is a significant milestone for the city and the council, and everyone who has been involved so far.
Once we have entered into the Funding agreement with the LEP, the next stage will be to progress the development of the preferred design that was agreed by the council’s Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee over 8 months ago in February. This will involve the appointment of a new project team and carrying out further engagement with local people and communities, including the Valley Gardens Forum. Plus, the new Councillor Task & Finish Group that we have agreed to set up for Valley Gardens will have oversight of the next stages for Phase 3 and will include stakeholders in its meetings and discussions.
As an Administration, we are committed to implementing changes that will bring the biggest overall benefits to the most people. That does mean moving away from car usage in the city centre to improve air quality and reduce congestion; it does mean creating more green space to protect the local environment; and it does mean creating more public space to enhance the landmarks that draw people to the city, including the Royal Pavilion and the seafront.
This final phase of the Valley Gardens project will form a vital part of our move to become a carbon-neutral city by 2030 through investment in a safe, accessible, sustainable and high-quality transport network that supports walking, cycling, and public transport. It will also give public space back to the local community, allowing the city’s residents and visitors the opportunity to enjoy this area of our city once more.
What I am sure you are aware of, and must emphasise again today, is that the decision made in February was arrived at following considerable debate and discussion by councillors at many council meetings. That debate, and discussion has been informed by thorough public consultation, and heavy scrutiny and challenge. Therefore, the design that has been agreed by the council will be the starting point for the next stage of design, and the final design will need to take into account the budget, time and resources that we have available to complete it.
Undoubtedly, things will change as the design is worked on, but we must remain true to the overall vision for the area and the core objectives that the council has agreed. If we are serious about addressing climate change, improving air quality and future-proofing the city for the years to come, then we must be bold in our vision and we must act now.
I have noted that the proposed option that you have put forward in the deputation includes a considerable number of changes to the agreed design, including: -
· a roundabout at the Palace Pier;
· two extra traffic signal junctions near the Royal Pavilion;
· significant changes to Pool Valley;
· a new crossing on the A259.
Whilst I acknowledge your claims within the deputation, the implications of some of these changes do not appear to have been technically assessed or fully quantified, but we will consider whether any of the ideas put forward can help further support the improvements within the agreed design, while maintaining value for money.
I do recognise that this deputation will be discussed and considered further at the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee next month, but thank you again for presenting it today. I hope that my response has helped to explain the point that we have now reached, and how we intend to move forward with this exciting project.
45. NOTICES OF MOTION
(4) Valley Gardens
37.24 The Mayor then invited Councillor Miller to move the Notice of Motion on behalf of the Conservative Group.
37.25 Councillor Miller stated that the need for the redevelopment of Valley Gardens was recognised however, the current scheme was flawed, and he believed would be a waste of public money. The funding from the LEP was welcome but he felt that further consultation was needed to resolve the traffic issue as well as a full environmental impact assessment (EIA). There had been a lack of consultation with the residents affected and he believed the process should be put on hold until other options could be considered.
37.26 Councillor Nemeth formally seconded the motion and stated that plans had been drawn up behind closed doors and there was a need for public involvement. The Valley Gardens Forum had raised a number of valid points and they knew what they were talking about, but their concerns had not been taken into consideration. He supported the need to pause the process and take the opportunity to improve the eco credentials of the project.
37.27 Councillor Bell stated that the scheme had been railroaded through with concerns raised by businesses, communities and residents ignored and a lack of consultation. There was a need for a joined-up scheme that was supported collectively by all affected and hoped this could be achieved.
37.28 Councillor Fishleigh stated that there was a need for an environmental impact assessment and a new transport infrastructure to take account of the Town & Country Planning regulations. She believed there was a need to look beyond party politics, in order to be able to agree a viable scheme that would benefit the city. She also asked for a recorded vote on the motion and hoped this request would be supported.
37.29 The Mayor noted that it was Councillor Fishleigh’s maiden speech and congratulated her on behalf of the council.
37.30 Councillor West stated that it had taken time, but the project’s completion was in sight and would provide better facilities for everyone in the city. There would be an opportunity to comment on the final design stage and the Member Stakeholder Working Group was due to reconvene which would enable a broader conversation on the proposals. He reminded the council of the objective for the city to be carbon neutral by 2020 and hoped that councillors would support the scheme going forward.
37.31 Councillor Pissaridou stated that she understood the concerns raised in relation to the EIA but noted that the new scheme had been assessed and there was no requirement for a full EIA. However, the situation would continue to be reviewed during the development of the Scheme and design process. There would be further consultation and the configuration of traffic signals and movement of traffic taken into account as part of any engagement during Phase 3.
37.32 Councillor Peltzer Dunn noted the comments and queried if the actions being referred to in the motion were being taken into consideration as part of the process, why then the Notice of Motion could not be supported.
37.33 Councillor Robins stated that he believed the matter had been through various stages at committee and noted that a previous Opposition Spokesperson had championed the Scheme and therefore questioned the opposition to it.
37.34 Councillor Miller stated that the current Scheme was not right for Valley Gardens and cost benefit ratio was questionable. There was a clear need for further consultation and to take on board the views of the local community, local businesses and the residents deserved more. He hoped that the motion would be supported.
37.35 The Mayor thanked Ms. Burt for attending the meeting and speaking on behalf of the deputation. She explained that the points had been noted and the deputation would be referred to the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee for consideration. The persons forming the deputation would be invited to attend the meeting and would be informed subsequently of any action to be taken or proposed in relation to the matter set out in the deputation.
37.36 The Mayor noted that Councillor Fishleigh had requested a recorded vote and sought the support of the Council to the request which was confirmed. She therefore asked for a recorded vote to be undertaken on the following motion:
This council requests the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee to:
(1) Ensure that Valley Gardens Phase 3 is subject to a full environmental impact assessment; and
(2) That the Duke’s Mound junction proposal will be subject to a full public consultation in the context that it not only impacts Valley Gardens Phase 3 but also impacts on the A259 coastal road and the Waterfront/Blackrock development.
37.37 The Head of Democratic Services undertook a recorded vote, the results of which are detailed below:
|
|
|
For |
Against |
Abstain |
|
|
For |
Against |
Abstain |
|
1 |
Allcock |
|
? |
|
28 |
Lewry |
x |
|
|
|
2 |
|
Not Present |
29 |
|
Not present |
||||
|
3 |
|
Not present |
30 |
Lloyd |
|
? |
|
||
|
4 |
Bagaeen |
x |
|
|
31 |
MacCafferty |
|
? |
|
|
5 |
Barnett |
x |
|
|
32 |
Mcnair |
x |
|
|
|
6 |
Bell |
x |
|
|
33 |
Mears |
x |
|
|
|
7 |
Brennan |
|
? |
|
34 |
Miller |
x |
|
|
|
8 |
Brown |
x |
|
|
35 |
Moonan |
|
? |
|
|
9 |
Childs |
|
? |
|
36 |
Nemeth |
x |
|
|
|
10 |
Clare |
|
? |
|
37 |
Nield |
|
? |
|
|
11 |
Davis |
|
? |
|
38 |
O’Quinn |
|
? |
|
|
12 |
Deane |
|
? |
|
39 |
Osborne |
|
? |
|
|
13 |
Druitt |
|
|
Ab |
40 |
Peltzer Dunn |
x |
|
|
|
14 |
Gibson |
|
? |
|
41 |
Phillips |
|
|
Ab |
|
15 |
Grimshaw |
|
? |
|
42 |
Pissaridou |
|
? |
|
|
16 |
Ebel |
|
? |
|
43 |
Powell |
|
? |
|
|
17 |
Evans |
|
? |
|
44 |
Platts |
|
? |
|
|
18 |
Fishleigh |
x |
|
|
45 |
Rainey |
|
? |
|
|
19 |
Fowler |
|
? |
|
46 |
Robins |
|
? |
|
|
20 |
Hamilton |
|
? |
|
47 |
Shanks |
|
? |
|
|
21 |
Heley |
|
? |
|
48 |
Simson |
x |
|
|
|
22 |
Henry |
Not present |
49 |
Theobald C |
x |
|
|
||
|
23 |
Hill |
|
? |
|
50 |
|
Not present |
||
|
24 |
Hills |
|
? |
|
51 |
Wilkinson |
|
? |
|
|
25 |
Hugh-Jones |
|
? |
|
52 |
Williams |
|
? |
|
|
26 |
Janio |
x |
|
|
53 |
West |
|
? |
|
|
27 |
Knight |
|
? |
|
54 |
Yates |
Not present |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
32 |
2 |
37.38 The Mayor confirmed that the motion was lost by 14 votes to 32 with 2 abstentions.
Supporting documents:
PDF 766 KB