Agenda item - Member Involvement

To consider the following matters raised by Members:

 

(a)           Petitions: To receive any petitions;

 

(b)           Written Questions: To consider any written questions:

 

(i)       Brighton Centre Catering Concession - Councillor Robert Nemeth

(ii)      Shingle – Councillor Robert Nemeth

(iii)     Waterhall Golf Course – Councillor Robert Nemeth

(iv)     Self Build Register – Councillor Robert Nemeth

(v)      Ice Rink – Councillor Robert Nemeth

 

 

(c)           Letters: To consider any letters;

 

(d)           Notices of Motion: to consider any Notices of Motion referred from Full Council or submitted directly to the Committee.

 

(i)       Mary Clarke Statue

 

 

 

 

(b)    Written Questions

 (i)      Brighton Centre Catering Concession

 

53.1    Councillor Nemeth put the following question:

 

“At the last meeting of this committee, why was the item ‘Brighton Centre Catering Concession’ pulled from the agenda at the last moment and why is it not due to be considered at this meeting?”

 

53.2    The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“The item ‘Brighton Centre Catering Concession’ was deferred to a future TECC Ctte to enable further review of the commercial arrangements for that particular concession.  This is to ensure that the Council was obtaining best value from the contract. The Ctte paper ‘Brighton Centre Catering Concession’ is scheduled to be represented at a future TECC Committee”.

 

53.3    Councillor Nemeth put the following supplementary question:

 

“Please can you confirm the financial implications which will result in  deferring this report and what the subsequent officer time costs would be. I am concerned that this report may not come to fruition.” 

 

53.4    The Chair replied that the Report would come to Committee, and that a written response to this supplementary question would be provided.

 

53.5    Councillor Mears stated that a date was required in order to set up the new contract within the deadline required and the Chair responded that this was already being done within the deadline.

 

(ii)      Shingle

 

53.6    Councillor Nemeth put the following question:

 

          “What assessment has been made of, and what updated policies are now in place to counter, the impact of shingle on the promenade during the winter period to (i) disabled or elderly users of the seafront and (ii) those organising or participating in outdoor events?”

         

53.7    The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“The Seafront Office undertake daily patrols along the entire length of the Brighton & Hove coastline.  As part of these patrols they will identify areas where there has been shingle overtopping which may be causing access issues along the promenades.  In collaboration with the council’s Coastal Protection, Seafront and Cityclean teams, addressing a safe pedestrian route and clear cycle lane (where applicable) along the seafront promenades is prioritised.  Comprehensive clearance will be undertaken when forecasts provide a suitable period of stable weather and where the risk to continued overtopping has subsided.  Programming comprehensive clearance also takes into consideration the annual Outdoor Events calendar. This approach ensures the most efficient use of the councils’ limited resources across these three departments.  Officers are researching specialist equipment which could be purchased to enable council staff to clear and maintain a temporary pedestrian route and the cycle lane more efficiently. The long term management of beach profiles is also being researched by council officers. This is to determine whether a policy of micro management would provide improved coast protection as well as reducing the possible risk and frequency of overtopping.”

 

53.8    Councillor Nemeth put the following supplementary question:

 

“To clarify, do you recognise that this has got worse in recent years and whether complaints have mainly been from disabled beach users?  Could these two issues be looked at in parallel?”

 

53.9    The Chair replied that these two issues could be run in parallel.

 

(iii)     Waterhall Golf Course

 

53.10  Councillor Nemeth asked the following question:

 

“Given that Waterhall Golf Club will needlessly fold if a new operator does not take over the course immediately after the impending deadline, and that mothballing costs are potentially huge, will a TECC Urgency Sub-committee be formed imminently to consider options?”

 

53.11  The Chair gave the following response:

 

“This committee recommended to P&R that the Waterhall Golf Club was leased to a CIC for restoration and rewilding. It is not a matter of Waterhall Golf Club needlessly folding if a new operator does not take over the course at the end of the current management contract. There is not a long-term, financially viable option available that would enable the Golf Club to continue.  The council is still working with the proposed leaseholder for the Waterhall site to conclude the lease arrangements as agreed at Policy & Resources Committee. If the outcome of those discussions is not successful, engagement would then take place with elected members as appropriate.”

 

53.12  Councillor Nemeth asked the following supplementary question:

 

“The deadline is at the end of this month.  What will happen in the run up to this, if there is no successful negotiation with the new owner? I believe that they will lock the doors to the golf house, and that the club will fold unless people break in to the building.   The current owners will take it away so there will be no option to carry on as normal.”

53.13  Nick Hibberd, Executive Director  Economy, Environment & Tourism stated that the Council were aware of the timetable and were working together with the company on this issue.  He added that if any Members would like a briefing on the situation, he would be happy to offer this.  Cllr Nemeth confirmed that he would like to have a briefing on the matter.

 

(iv)     Self Build Register

 

53.14  The Chair stated that since the question and answer for Cllr Nemeth’s question was long and complex that instead of reading it out, he would send the answer via email, circulate this to everyone and publish these in the Minutes.  The question and answer are as follows:

 

53.15  Councillor Nemeth asked the following question:

 

          “Please supply the following figures in advance of City Plan Part Two

discussions:

(i)             How many people are currently on the Self-Build Register which is maintained by the Council?

(ii)            How many have joined each year since its creation?

(iii)          How many communications have been made with its members?

(iv)          How many sites have been put forward by the Council?

(v)           How many homes are known to have been built as a result of the Council’s work in this area?

 

53.16            The Chair issued the following response:

 

(i)             How many people are currently on the Self-Build Register which is maintained by the Council?

193 individuals and 12 groups (as at 24 February 2020).

 

(ii)            How many have joined each year since its creation? 

 

At Oct 16                     1 individual and 2 groups

Oct 16 – Oct 17          41 individuals and 4 groups

Oct 17 – Oct 18          84 individuals and 6 groups

Oct 18 – Oct 19          55 individuals and 0 groups

Oct 19 – Feb 20          12 individuals and 0 groups

 

(iii)          How many communications have been made with its members? 

Communications are made on an individual basis with applicants as they register or when they have requested an update.  All applicants are advised that the council will be in contact when details of serviced plots for sale are available.  

 

(iv)          How many sites have been put forward by the Council?

 

There haven’t been any plots identified to date to offer to those on the register. We are negotiating with developers to include self/custom build plots within s106 agreements where practicable and viable.  If the council are aware of any other plots that become available for sale we will contact all members of the register so interested applicants can liaise with the owners/developers direct.

 

(v)           How many homes are known to have been built as a result of the Council’s work in this area?

 

Brighton & Hove City Council (BHCC) has a long history of working with housing co-operatives and supporting community led housing to build new homes on council or privately owned land.  At present Bunker Housing Co-operative are building two homes on a former council owned site at Plumpton Road.  Working in partnership with the Brighton & Hove Community Land Trust a number of additional council owned sites have been identified for community led housing schemes at Coldean Lane and Dunster Close with plans to deliver homes in the next couple of years.  Further work is being undertaken to identify other suitable sites in the city. City Plan Part Two includes specific policy references promoting self and custom build housing as part of the general housing mix and specifically on the urban fringe housing sites.

 

The council is also looking into identifying and monitoring individual planning approvals for self and custom build developments.  Self-build homes will also be exempt from Community Infrastructure Levy and its introduction presents a further opportunity to collect information on self-build in the city. Applicants for self/custom-build will be required to submit a specific form to claim CIL exemption which will allow us to identify these developments for monitoring purposes (which has been difficult previously).

 

53.17  Councillor Nemeth asked the following supplementary question:

 

          “Are you happy with the approach of the Selfield ?

 

53.18  Liz Hobden, Head of Planning stated that she would email a written response which would be circulated after the meeting.

 

v)      Ice Rink

 

53.19  Councillor Nemeth asked the following question:

 

“Following numerous promises that were made to members of the public campaigning for an ice rink in the city, what progress has been made in finding a site and making the idea a reality?”

 

53.20  The Chair gave the following response:

“The council has not made any promises with regard to the provision of an ice rink in the city. The council undertook a soft market testing exercise  inviting potential designers, builders and operators to work with the council to identify whether the provision of a new permanent ice rink is feasible in the city. This exercise was not successful in identifying any feasible proposal for an ice rink in the city.”

 

53.21  Councillor Nemeth did not have a supplementary question.

 

53 d)             Notices of Motion

 

i)                  Mary Clarke Statue

 

53.22            The Chair introduced the Notice of Motion which went to Full Council on 30 January 2020 and was referred to this Committee for consideration.  The Chair confirmed that he had attended the Double Standards concert featuring Lianne Carroll and Claire Martin which had already raised over £4,500 for the Statue Appeal.

 

53.23            Councillor Nemeth queried whether there would be a report from Full Council on this Notice of Motion.

 

53.24            Councillor Hill stated that from recommendation 21 on page 31, it could instead be noted

 

53.25            Councillor Simson stated that she felt strongly about this issue.

 

53.26            The Chair stated that the issue was fully supported and that there was no avoidance on the issue and that a report could be brought to the next meeting, if required.

53.27            Councillor Mears stated that Full Council’s wishes had to be recognised and followed.  The Cha

 

53.28            The Chair concluded that a written update would be given to a future TECC Committee meeting, in order to resolve the issue.

 

53.29            RESOLVED: That the Committee agreed to a report and written update being presented to the next TECC Committee meeting.