Agenda item - Written questions from Councillors.

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

Written questions from Councillors.

A list of the written questions submitted by Members has been included in the agenda papers.  This will be repeated along with the written answers received and will be taken as read as part of an addendum circulated separately at the meeting.

Minutes:

40.1         The Mayor confirmed 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 prior to the meeting as detailed below:

 

(1)      Councillor: Gibson

 

40.2         The answer to the below question was initially deferred till after the budget and then answered partially without revealing the modelling of actual costs for the specific schemes, so please provide the full answer to include all the specific schemes referred to in the question below?

 

“Can the new homes schemes modelled (in answer to question 8 to full council on April 19th 2018) as estimates (using estimates of borrowing and build costs) be modelled inputting the actual build cost and the actual capital charges (or if this is not easy to establish using the weighted average capital charge on actual borrowing taken out since 2015) of the loans used to fund the schemes over a 60 year period to establish the projected surplus/deficit based on more accurate inputs?”

 

Reply from Councillor Williams, Chair of the Housing Committee

 

 

The table below models each project updated using the current model and assumptions including actual costs and the average rate of borrowing during the period of 2.15%. Rental figures are based on the old LHA rates and previous Living Wage rates and are reduced by 1% over a 4-year period.

 

Average Cost of borrowing 2.17%

Treasury Green Book
3.5%

Scheme Name

Previous Subsidy / (Surplus)

60 Year Subsidy / (Surplus) LHA
£'000

60 Year Subsidy / (Surplus) 37.5%LW
£'000

60 Year Subsidy / (Surplus) LHA
£'000

60 Year Subsidy / (Surplus) 37.5%LW
£'000

Preston Road

                                76

(110)

                                        40

                    30

140

Manor Place (South)

                            329

              330

             580

              590

780

Manor Place (North)

                              107

(270)

(20)

(10)

180

Ardingly Street

                              286

(180)

                                   70

                    70

260

Guinness Garage Sites

                              385

(400)

                                   80

                  110

470

Kensington Street

                              570

(310)

              790

              810

1,170

Brooke Mead

        2,125

(80)

           1,500

           1,650

2,820

Findon Road

      1,302

(2,770)

              430

              330

2,710

Wellsbourne

           512

(1,350)

(80)

              140

1,090

Lynchet Close

(203)

(1,780)

(480)

(1,020)

(50)

Total(surplus)/deficit

5,489

(6,920)

2,910

2,700

9,570

 

The above table indicates that if the lower interest rate had been used when assessing the viability of these schemes, Wellsbourne (Hobby Place) and Lynchet Close may have been viable at 37.5% Living Wage Rents however, overall the schemes based on this rent level would be a net liability to the HRA and therefore a consistent approach is preferred to protect the HRA’s financial position and long-term viability.

In evaluating the viability of schemes, using the rate of borrowing does not assess the long-term risk of building new homes for rent and ensure the future viability of the HRA. The borrowing undertaken was at a time when rates were unprecedentedly low and therefore it would not be prudent to assume these rates in viability modelling.

The current model uses the Treasury Green Book discount factor to establish the Net Present Value of schemes.

This allows for a consistent approach in modelling viability. Over a 60-year life of these assets, many of the variables are subject to political and economic forces. E.g., rents may be reduced over a prolonged period; management and maintenance costs increase above normal inflation or interest rates for actual borrowing may be higher than expected in the model.

Finance would be happy to discuss the findings further with Cllr Gibson

 

(2)      Councillor Gibson

         

40.3         In the light of the recently announced changes to PWLB rates please can you update the costs provided in answer to the following question asked to Policy & Resources committee in February 2019;

 

Please provide a table showing the annual repayment required of BHCC on a loan at current PWLB rates for 5, 10, 20, 25, 30,35, 40 and 50 million pounds? (showing repayment periods of 30,40, 50, and 60 years for each loan).

 

Reply from Councillor Platts, Leader of the Council

 

The table below shows the annual financing costs of borrowing based on the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) published rates on 17 October 2019. These costs are subject to the government’s discount to local authorities. This is known as the ‘certainty rate’ which is 0.20% below the published maturity rate for standard new loans. These rates apply to maturity loans where the principal loan amount is repaid in one lump sum at the end of the loan period.

 

PWLB rates are updated and published twice daily on banking days and can fluctuate substantially over time primarily due to changes to the Gilts market and the Bank of England Base Rate, and therefore the information in the table is indicative only, i.e. different interest rates would result in different costs.

 

The annual cost is based on the council’s Annuity Minimum Revenue Provision whereby the council sets aside repayments of the principle each year to meet the full loan repayment at the loan expiry date.

 

The parameters for the council’s investment and borrowing are set within the Treasury and Prudential Indicators. The 2019/20 indicators were agreed at Budget Council on 28 February 2019 as part of the Budget Report.

 

Period

30 years

40 years

50 Years

PWLB Certainty Rate

2.98%

2.88%

2.85%

Loan Amount

£'000

£'000

£'000

£5m

254

212

189

£10m

509

424

378

£20m

1,018

849

755

£25m

1,272

1,061

944

£30m

1,527

1,273

1,133

£35m

1,781

1,485

1,322

£40m

2,035

1,697

1,511

£50m

2,544

2,121

1,888

 

(3)      Councillor Clare

 

40.4         How many complaints arose from events in Brunswick and Adelaide Ward so far this year?

 

Reply from Councillor Yates, Deputy Chair (Finance) of the Policy & Resources Committee

 

There have been no complaints recorded by the Corporate Customer Experience Team regarding events in the Brunswick and Adelaide Ward since March 2019. There may have been informal enquiries or first stage complaints or received by individual services relating to a variety of incidents in the ward, but these are not recorded centrally and there is no mechanism to provide you will reliable date. If you have concerns about specific events or incidents, you can raise them with the relevant service and officers would be happy to supply you with the information.

 

(4)      Councillor Nemeth – King Alfred

 

40.5         Starting with Councillor Geoffrey Bowden, who proudly launched the King Alfred project whilst Chairing the Economic Development & Culture Committee, please provide a timeline of lead Members for the project since Councillor Bowden, finishing with whoever is leading now?

 

Reply from Councillor Robins, Chair of the Tourism, Equalities, Communities & Culture Committee

 

When the King Alfred project was re-established in 2012, it was overseen by a cross-party Project Board chaired by Cllr Bowden. He chaired the Board for almost 3 years, through to the May 2015 local elections, following which the role of chair was taken by Cllr Morgan, the then Leader of the Council, and I’m aware that this is the point at which Cllr Nemeth joined the Board.

 

As a result of revised governance arrangements, all Project Boards were disbanded in mid-2016. They were replaced by the Strategic Delivery Board, a cross-party Member Board chaired by the Leader of the Council. Cllr Morgan therefore provided the lead Member role between 2016 and 2018, at which point Cllr Yates took on the role as the new Leader of the Council, and since May 2019 the Strategic Delivery Board has been chaired by Cllr Platts.

 

The Strategic Delivery Board receives a written update on major projects at every meeting and, as one of the most significant projects, the King Alfred was the subject of many detailed updates and reports.

 

Updates on Major Projects form part of the regular business of the Tourism, Equalities, Communities & Culture Committee, and also its predecessor committee (TDC), again as a standing item, through which I am briefed ahead of such meetings. I also receive regular briefings from the Executive Director Economy, Environment & Culture and Ward Councillors are briefed at key stages of the process as required.

 

Moving forward, as agreed at last week’s Policy & Resources Committee meeting, a new Project Board is to be created for the next King Alfred project.

 

(5)       Councillor Miller – Madeira Terraces

 

40.6         When on current projections are all 147 arches likely to be restored by this failing Labour Administration? Would they prefer the Conservative group to take over and have work start on all of them within 24 months?

 

Reply from Councillor Robins, Chair of the Tourism, Equalities, Communities & Culture Committee

 

We will be bringing an update report to Tourism Equalities Communities & Culture Committee on 21.11.19.  The Administration has a business case which can unlock funding for the first 30 arches and an update on this will be provided for committee. This will include a timeline for the appointment of a full design team, funded by the council, to further progress the design and option analysis for the structure. 

 

(6)       Councillor Miller – Private Schools

 

40.7         Does the Leader of the Council, and her colleague MP’s, agree with the Labour Party that successful schools in our city, educating many local pupils, such as Brighton College, Roedean, Lancing College and St. Christopher’s to name but a few: should be closed down, and stripped of their assets?  So as to increase the financial and land pressure on our local maintain, free and academy schools and ultimately lower standards and outcomes for all our city’s young people?

 

Reply from Councillor Platts, Leader of the Council

 

Across the city we have a well-established education partnership which has previously extended an invitation to a representative from the independent school sector. Some of our schools have been working in partnership directly with local independent schools and relationships have been positive.

 

I would encourage the Councillor to take another look at Labour Party national policy, as it makes no reference to closing down or asset-stripping independent schools, but rather to integrating them into the state sector.

 

What it does refer to is:

 

·           removing the VAT exemption on private school fees and using this to fund free school meals for all primary school children.

·           reversing swingeing Tory cuts to ensure our schools are properly resourced.

·           reducing class sizes to less than 30 for all five-, six-, and seven- year-olds.

·           tackling the teacher recruitment and retention crisis by ending the public-sector pay cap.

·           putting £150 million back into supporting our children in schools by scrapping the Conservatives’ nonsensical plans for schools to pay the apprenticeship levy.

 

On our local state sector provision, I’m proud that we are seeing improvements in standards of education across the city. Standards in the City including attainment at KS1, 2 and 4 are already higher than National Averages. The percentage of good or better schools in all phases are well above National Averages. In secondary 100% of schools are Good or better.

 

Whilst the Conservative Government tries to impose academisation on Moulsecoomb Primary School, against the expressed will of 96% of parents and Councillors of all stripes in this very chamber, we know that under local authority direction the school has readily improved. The council now have a significant amount of evidence of improvement demonstrating the school should no longer be classed as inadequate. This includes improved attendance and outcome data at all key stages. Notes of visits from National Leaders of Education and experienced school partnership advisers comment on improvements in teaching and learning and behaviour for learning. We are confident our statement of action has meant that the school has improved to such a place that academisation would be pointless.

 

This Labour administration is supporting the children and teachers and standing with the parents and carers who voted overwhelmingly to keep their local primary school in local authority control, and the government must listen to them.

 

(7)      Councillor Fishleigh

 

40.8         Is it possible for Cityclean to allocate two people to spend one day a week every week maintaining the area around Brighton train station so that this gateway into the city is more appealing to both residents and visitors with regular tasks to include painting over and scrubbing away graffiti, peeling off stickers and painting over the damage caused by them on lamp posts, repainting the black railings, weeding and tendering plant beds?

 

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

 

Brighton Station and Queens Road has one street cleaner on a daily basis, Monday – Sunday starting at 5am until 1pm.  They start at Brighton station and finish at the clock tower at the end of Queens Road. The responsibilities of the individual on duty are to sweep any litter and detritus and clear any weeds. We also have a Street Cleanser on an afternoon shift who will litter pick the above area.

 

We are removing all graffiti from council buildings and highway furniture. We have two operatives working on the removal of graffiti between Saltdean and Mile Oak. We need to treat offensive graffiti as a priority, so non-offensive graffiti will be removed in due course.

 

We are currently working on a new graffiti removal approach where we implement zones for certain areas, at the moment we are working on zone 1 which is the North Street area, zone 2 begins at Queens Road which we will be working on in the near future. This also includes the removal of stickers.

 

We are also checking the seating area in front of the station, and the area is treated with a high-pressure jet washer regularly.

 

With regards to the flower beds, we keep them tidy; however please do let Cityclean know if there are any concerns on the standard of them.

 

Unfortunately, we have limited funding for highways maintenance and this is prioritised to ensuring that we are able to maintain the highway, leaving little funding for the routine painting of railings and lampposts. 

 

As you may be aware, members of the community through the Tourism Alliance have been doing a good job in recent months of maintaining the area around the station, voluntarily planting flowers and replacing benches

 

Proposals for enhancing the area from the station to the seafront will be outlined in the Gateway to the Sea report which will be presented to ETS Committee in November.

 

We are also working with GTR to move the taxi rank to the back of the station next month which will reduce congestion, improve air quality and open up the front of the station making it a much nicer entrance to the city. 

 

(8)   Councillor Hugh-Jones

 

40.9         On 1 October 2019, the Government opened the consultation on Future Homes Standard by 2025. The consultation ends on 10 January 2020. The government withdrew the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) in March 2015 following which this Council had to fight hard to incorporate the equivalent of CSH Level 4 into City Plan Part 1.

 

Unsurprisingly, more recently, in its report on energy efficiency, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) Committee also described it as

nonsensical to be continuously making the problem worse by allowing new homes to be built that will also need to be retrofitted”.

 

In relation to existing housing stock, the Committee on Climate Change noted in its 2019 report to Parliament that:

Policies are not in place to deliver the Government's ambitions on energy efficiency … Building standards are not sufficiently enforced … Regulations for the private rented sector prioritise costs for landlords over running costs for renters. MHCLG must play its part, including minimum standards for social housing.

 

Does this administration plan to respond to the consultation? If so, and in light of the climate emergency, will the Council explore, as a matter of urgency:

1.         The adoption of the Scottish model of making zero interest or equity loans available to homeowners for energy efficiency improvements, or an equivalent model?

2.     Better enforcement of energy efficiency standards including, in the private rented sector, lobbying for the removal of the £3500 cap on landlord’s fuel efficiency improvements?

 

Reply from Councillor Williams, Chair of the Housing Committee Proposed response:

 

The Housing Committee Work Plan 2019 – 2023 agreed at Housing Committee on 18 September includes the following priorities:

 

·      Improving the quality of the private rented sector, including researching and reviewing an ethical loan scheme and developing the enforcement approach to private sector housing to reflect the full range of potential enforcement options available to improve and manage standards.

·      Achieving carbon reductions and sustainability in housing, including addressing fuel poverty and developing a policy to set out how we will work collaboratively to ensure housing contributes to making the city carbon neutral by 2030.

The council is already supporting the Warmer Sussex project with Retrofitworks, to improve the energy efficiency of homes across Brighton & Hove and the wider Sussex area.

 

The council will explore energy efficiency loan options and private rented sector enforcement and lobbying opportunities through the reports we are committed to bringing forward to Housing Committee under the Workplan.

 

The council will be responding to the consultation. We will use opportunities as they arise to respond to consultation and lobby government on elements of the regulations that we see as restricting improvements to energy sufficiency standards in the private rented sector.

 

(9)   Councillor Gibson

 

As of 1st if October 2019, please can you tell me, across Brighton and Hove how many:

-      CPZ permits were issued?

-      What the annual cost average charge per permit?

-      How many addresses have each of 2, 3, 4, 5 permits issued?

-      How many vehicles have permits for 2 zones?

 

Reply from Councillor O’Quinn, Chair of the Licensing Committee

 

i)      CPZ permits were issued?

 

There are currently 40379 valid permits, of which 38843 are resident permits.

 

ii)     What the annual cost average charge per permit?

 

The average cost of all current active permits is £136.06. This figure includes permits purchased for 3 months, so does not represent the annual cost per permit.

 

The annual costs of resident permits are as follows:

 

For zones A, C, E, F, G, H, J, M, N, O, Q, T, Y, Z;    £130 annual (£180 if paid quarterly)

 

For Zones U and W; £100.00 annual (£120.00 if paid 6 monthly).

 

There is a 50% discount for low emission vehicles and a 25% increase for high emission vehicles.

 

A full list of fees and charges for all permit types are available in this pdf document.

 

https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/sites/brighton-hove.gov.uk/files/Fees%20and%20Charges%202018%20-%2019.pdf

 

iii)   How many addresses have each of 2, 3, 4, 5 permits issued?

 

There are 22,708 addresses in the city with one permit, 4570 addresses with two permits, 927 addresses with three permits, 303 addresses with four permits and 136 addresses with five permits. There are a further 287 addresses with six or more permits, however these tend to be linked to large businesses, organisations, doctors’ surgeries or hospitals.

 

iv)       How many vehicles have permits for 2 zones?

 

We do not have any reports available that show how many vehicles have multiple permits issued to them.

 

(10)      Councillor Osborne - Students and noise complaints in Coldean 

 

40.10      What is the council doing to put pressure on the bus companies, the university and other stakeholders to address the issues caused by anti-social behaviour in Coldean coming from the Varley Halls? 


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

 

Officers have had a meeting on site with representatives of Brighton & Hove buses, the University of Brighton, the students’ union, Sussex Police and the local community to discuss the issues and options which could improve access to the halls. 

 

Officers from the Community Safety team have also attended subsequent “round table” meetings and in response to recent reports have visited affected residents, met separately with the University and been in contact with the police and other residents and stakeholders including all the local councillors.

  

The bus company are currently unable to access the estate road because of the unsuitable camber of the estate road but this would require significant and expensive engineering measures to a private road which unfortunately the Council would be unable to fund because it has no obligation to do so and its spending priorities are focused on the public highway network.

 

Brighton and Hove Buses are currently unable to access the estate road because of the camber of the highway at the junction of the road. This would require significant and expensive engineering measures, mainly to the public highway. The University is currently commissioning work to assess what this would entail. While the Council is under no obligation to give permission or fund these works, we are keen to work together with all parties to try and find a solution. Discussions are also being had with Homes for Brighton and Hove to ensure that highway works done in connection to the recently approved development adjoining Varley Park contribute positively as much as possible to the resolution of these problems.

 

(11)   Councillor Osborne - Advertising- removing sugary/fatty foods and drinks 

 

40.11      Dame Sally Davies, Chief Medical Officer for England, recently announced that one of the best ways to tackle the obesity epidemic in children is to cut out advertising of unhealthy food and drink.

 

Does the council lease any land/property to advertising companies?  Does the council have powers to restrict advertising in places which it doesn’t own and does the council intend to use its authority as a licensing body to limit the advertising at events? 

 

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

 

The council has 3 licenses in situ on land/property with advertising company JC Decaux. 

         

              These produce minimal income for the council with limited restrictions on content. The restrictions relate to only displaying material that confirms with statute (including in particular the planning obscenity sexual and racial discrimination and health laws) and with the codes promulgated by the Advertising Standards Association (or any successor body) and which is not otherwise unlawful or offensive and immediately on demand to remove and replace any material displayed in breach of this sub-clause.

 

The council also owns 478 Bus shelters and 5 taxi shelters in the city (excluding Heritage style shelters, which are maintained by Cityclean and do not carry advertising).

 

Of these 223 are advertising shelters and the council grants a concession contract to Clear Channel UK to advertise on these shelters in return for an annual income and the cleaning and maintenance of the shelters.  Contract management is undertaken by the Public Transport Team.

 

Our contract with Clear Channel prohibits certain kinds of advertising e.g. tobacco and gambling, and restricts others, e.g. advertisements directed towards children.

 

Advertisements for alcoholic drinks should not feature in promotions directed at people under 18. Advertising for alcoholic beverages or fast food takeaways should not be sited within 100 meters of any school or youth club ,or NHS building or public sector building/premises/facility/park/leisure centre primarily used by those under the age of 18 (or their guardian or carers).

 

In regard to the advertising boards next to the King Alfred Car park this arrangement with Clear Channel is managed by the Traffic Control Centre. They are currently reviewing this arrangement and will ensure your concerns will be considered taking into account the issues outlined with other advertisement contracts.

 

(12)    Councillor West

 

40.12      Electric cars offer an opportunity to reduce air pollution, though will not address road congestion and the danger faced by active and vulnerable road users. While it is hoped electric cars will be powered with renewable energy, the energy levels required to power large scale use of electric cars will need a huge investment in generation, transmission and charging infrastructure. When account is also taken of the high level of embodied energy needed to produce electric cars, what overall carbon saving can be achieved through switching from conventionally powered to electrically powered private vehicles? Given the Labour administration shares the Green goal of the city being carbon neutral by 2030, does the Labour administration accept that electric cars are not a panacea for carbon neutrality and that instead there needs to be a rapid and major shift from car use to active and sustainable travel modes in the city?

 

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

 

I think your first question about the total amount of energy consumed by all of the processes associated with the production and use of electric vehicles and their associated infrastructure is probably better asked of the Government.

 

Regarding your second question, I don’t think that any political party would describe electric vehicles as a panacea to the global climate emergency that is now at the forefront of so many people’s thoughts and actions, and which is now the driver for many policies and priorities. 

 

However, electric vehicles can undoubtedly reduce harmful emissions from transport in local areas and communities; and for those people who can drive and can afford to switch, it is good that they have that choice and it is a sensible decision to make.

 

The city’s fantastic bus services provide people with a great opportunity to travel over distance, and we aim to do more with them as part of our Quality Bus Partnership.  More electric buses on routes crossing the city will make a significance difference in the city centre and the local neighbourhoods they connect.

 

We have eight train stations in the city – potentially untapped capacity for people in some parts of the city to get around more easily. 

 

And the added benefits to people’s health of walking and cycling must not be underestimated either, and that is why we are working on the development of a Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan, so that we can make those forms of transport the first choice for as many local journeys as possible.

 

As you are also aware the Council is developing its next Local Transport Plan where reducing carbon and improving air quality will be a significant consideration in its inception.

 

(13)    Councillor Mac Cafferty - Communal Bins

 

40.13      Can you please tabulate: 

(1) the quantity of complaints about communal bin collections;

(2) the quantity of complaints about the state of communal bins and; 

(3) the age of each communal bin, 

on each street in Brunswick and Adelaide Ward for the past five years?

 

 

 

 

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

 

This information is not available as complaints have not been recorded in this way. There has been a recent change to how complaints are recorded and “issue with a communal bin” has been included.

 

The communal bin audit currently taking place is capturing a number of details for the bins, including their condition.  This will help us determine whether any repair work is needed, or if a bin needs replacing.

 

(14)    Councillor Mac Cafferty – Pavement Parking

 

40.14      Further to Scottish Parliament legislation and the Commons' Transport Committee recommendation to implement a ban on pavement parking in England, what will be done ahead of legislation in the meanwhile to enable our council to sign up to the Living Streets “Pavements for People” charter?

 

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

 

The Commons’ Transport Select Committee has recommended in the short-term allowing councils outside London to enforce against ‘unnecessary obstruction’ to combat the worst incidents of pavement parking. Longer term it has recommended that central government should work towards introducing a complete pavement parking ban unless signed to allow pavement parking.

 

In advance of any pavement parking ban the council would need to carry out a survey of all streets in the city to decide in which streets pavement parking was to be allowed in the city. Consultation with residents in streets where pavement parking is widespread would also be necessary before a decision on whether the pavement parking ban would apply to that street.

 

So ahead of the legislation, enforcement officers currently issue warning notices to vehicles parked on the pavement where a Penalty Charge Notice cannot be issued to discourage pavement parking.

 

We look forward to hearing the government’s response to the Transport Select Committee’s recommendations and will be ready to carry out citywide surveys if a pavement parking ban is agreed.

 

 

(15)    Councillor Mac Cafferty – Licensing Complaints

 

40.15      Can you please tabulate the quantity of complaints about licensed premises for each street in Brunswick and Adelaide Ward in the past five years?

 

Reply from Councillor O’Quinn – Chair of the Licensing Committee

 

Street Name

Count

Brunswick Street East

7

Church Road

6

First Avenue

1

Holland Road

5

Lower Market Street

1

Montpelier Place

1

Norfolk Place

3

Queens Place

3

Upper Market Street

1

Waterloo Street

8

Western Road

38

Total

 

74

 

(16)    Councillor Mac Cafferty – Anti-Social Behaviour Policy

 

40.16      Can you please tabulate the quantity of anti-social behaviour incidents for each street in Brunswick and Adelaide Ward in the past five years?

 

Reply from Councillor Childs – Lead Member for Community Safety

 

The Community Safety Casework Team has only kept records by ward since 2018/2019.

 

During 2018/2019 the Community Safety Casework Team received 50 new reports of or enquiries regarding ASB in Brunswick and Adelaide ward. Some of these reports will lead to the Community Safety team opening a case and co-ordinating a multi-agency response to the problem, during which further reports of ASB may be received e.g. Norfolk Sq, Brunswick Sq, Waterloo St

 

During the first two quarters of 2019/2020 the Community Safety Casework Team received 10 new reports of or enquiries regarding ASB in Brunswick and Adelaide ward.

Street name

New reports of or enquiries regarding ASB

Adelaide Crescent

6

Bedford Place

1

Boundary Passage

1

Brunswick Place

2

Brunswick Rd

1

Brunswick Sq

10

Brunswick Street East

2

Cambridge Rd

4

Farman St

4

First Avenue

1

Holland Rd

2

Hove Lawns

4

Lansdowne St

3

Norfolk Sq

2

Palmeira Avenue

1

Palmeira Yard

1

Upper Market Street

3

Waterloo St

7

Western Rd

1

Wilbury Villas

2

York Rd

2

 

(17)    Councillor Mac Cafferty - Fixed Penalty Notices for Environmental Offences

 

40.17      Can you please tabulate the quantity of fixed penalty notices for environmental offences of littering, graffiti, fly posting and fly tipping respectively for the last five years across the city?

 

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

 

Littering

Graffiti

Fly Posting

Fly Tipping*

Total FPNs

8382

27

75

1734

10,218

 

Statistics provide in the table above are from 01/03/2016 to 17/10/2019. We do not have data before this date

 

*Fly Tipping total includes both residential and commercial Fly Tipping.

 

(18)    Councillor Hills

 

40.18      Residents in my ward are keen to recycle as effectively as they can, but it can be difficult to access information about the whole range of what they can recycle and where. One comprehensive digital map that contains all public recycling points, as well as other non-council recycling services, would be really helpful. There are maps on the council website that show where specific materials/items can be collected, that is, cartons, electricals and textiles/clothes/shoes.  But would great if all recycling points could be on one map, with pull down options so users can look up recycling facilities for specific items or materials. It is particularly difficult for residents to find out about non-council recycling options and it would be great if these could be included on the map too. Recycling services such as the Green Centre collect a wide number of materials but only at specific locations on particular days, and it would really help residents if information on services such as this could be available in the same place as council information. It could help residents to locate supermarkets that collect plastic bags, and garden centres that take plant pots too. The A-Z on there at the moment is useful but the provision would be better if such a map were available too, as people generally respond better to information presented visually. I’m sure my residents would really appreciate this as many don’t have cars and would prefer to recycle as locally as they can.

 

When do we expect a food waste collection service be available in the city?

 

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

 

We are making improvements to help residents recycle more easily through the Increasingly Recycling Project within the Modernisation Programme. This includes:

·         Improving the content on the website

·         Improving the communal bin system to include colour coding and better signage

·         Improving the quality and frequency of recycling communication sent to residents; this started over the summer and will pick up again over Christmas; (different communications are being prepared for different stakeholders)

·         A programme of work with crews on how to manage contaminated waste receptacles

·         Closer working with other council services in regular contact with residents

·         Monthly attendance at the Green Centre to support their recycling initiatives

 

We are looking to bring an options paper to Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee in 2020/21 regarding a food waste collection service. Introducing a food waste collection service will be costly to the Local Authority. The government is considering introducing mandatory food waste collection by 2023. The government has said that it will provide funding to assist Local Authorities to introduce this. However, in the interim we will continue to explore options to introduce a food waste collection service prior to 2023.

 

The options for a food waste collection need to be considered in the context of the wider work being completed on round restructures. The experience of other councils shows that the positive impact of a food waste collection service is maximised when kerbside refuse collections are moved to fortnightly and recycling collections moved to weekly. Food waste is then collected with recycling. These options will be explored during the engagement on round restructures.

 

The council can provide compost bins, wormeries and Jennys for recycling food waste at a reduced price. These can be purchased via the council’s website.

 

The Brighton & Hove Food Partnership administer a community composting scheme for residents who do not have a garden but would like to compost their food waste. This scheme has been partly funded by the council and we are exploring options with B&H Food Partnership to extend the scheme further.

Supporting documents:

 


Brighton & Hove City Council | Hove Town Hall | Hove | BN3 3BQ | Tel: (01273) 290000 | Mail: info@brighton-hove.gov.uk | how to find us | comments & complaints