Tag: brighton

Categories
current affairs

Last night’s Council Meeting on the Core Strategy

Last night saw an epic Full Council meeting in Brighton Town Hall… With about 90 amendments planned to go forward either from various individual parties or collectively from all the opposition parties together. Why so many? Because we were debating the ‘Core Strategy’ which is the document which defines our aims and visions for the city’s built environment over the next 10-15 years. It’s an important document which sets the shape development in the City should take.

All that being said, it’s only a part of the overall planning process, which includes local plans, masterplans for areas, supplementary planning documents and briefs plus the usual application process to the committee. So something being in this Core Strategy doesn’t guarantee that it will happen, but it certainly sets a direction of travel. (An appropriate turn of phrase given that the most contentious section by far was on transport!)

You’ll be relieved to know that I won’t be going through all the amendments here. I’m just going to highlight a few of particular interest to me, I expect others may well also blog their amendments of interest.

It has to be said that the Tories were not best pleased by the prospect of being outvoted by the opposition parties working together. So they kicked off the meeting with some pretty poorly chosen words attacking our joint working as somehow being undemocratic. If we could collectively agree issues and made up more of the council chamber than them, then surely that was exactly how representative democracy is supposed to work!

As was said many times in the long (very long) evening, if the Tories had taken the time and effort to involve the other parties much earlier in the process, many of the amendments might have been avoided — they could have been incorporated through consensus prior to the meeting. As a minority administration I’m astonished they thought they would be able to push through such a critical document without engaging with the other parties.

As the meeting wore on, it dawned on the Tories that they were going to have to get on with the job of collaborative working. Suddenly a 10 minute adjournment was called, which stretched to 90 minutes as the four party leaders went through the amendments and the Tories accepted a good number of them… except some of the critical ones about transport, of course, which they truly seem to be in denial about. Have they not seen the daily traffic jams and dire air quality reports?

Anyway I digress from my pet amendments which were all Green only amendments. They all related to plans for the Brighton Square and Churchill Square Area. In essence the plan is for Standard Life (owner of Churchill Square) to financially support the new Brighton Centre in return for being able to expand their shopping centre. My key amendment asked to delete the plans to add 20,000 square metres of retail space to Churchill Square. I don’t believe such space is needed, especially given the large number of vacant commercial properties across Regency Ward: In Churchill Square, Western Road, North Street, Ship Street etc. We don’t need more large chain stores and the retail study this plan is based on used wildly optimistic growth projections in population and disposable income which are already well out of kilter with reality and official predictions. Furthermore the Core Strategy on this part of the city absolutely fails to even mention residents — people actually live around there!

I was disappointed, but not surprised, to have that amendment ruled unsound by the planners. This meant it couldn’t be voted on because it would render the final document unsound in the eyes of a Government Planning Inspector and so would risk a central government plan being imposed on us instead of our own.

However two ‘sound’ Green amendments to help mitigate the growth of the Churchill carbuncle did get passed. These require additional car movements to be kept to the ‘minimum necessary’ and required ‘high quality public and sustainable transport facilities [to] serve new development’. Furthermore they add that ‘Car trips linked to large scale retail provision will be the minimum necessary.’

I had insisted on our amending language using ‘minimum’ instead of ‘minimise’ which is much softer and easier to talk around in my view. I hadn’t expected cross-party support for those amendments but we got it and they’re now in the Core Strategy. A win for Regency Ward I think.

Thanks to all the amendments we overall have a much better Core Strategy than it would otherwise have been. The process could have been less painful and chaotic on the night if the Tories had thought about their minority position more carefully instead of trying to brazen it out. It will take a Green council administration before we can really get the document where we want it to be though…

PS The Argus’ Andy Chiles has covered this whole affair in recent days here and here plus a centre spread in today’s paper.

Categories
current affairs

Primark Decision Notice: Not holding my breath

This afternoon I received a copy of the decision notice sent by the Council to Primark. The full backstory can be caught up in these previous posts. One minor victory – the cycle parking condition was amended to require that the parking is actually accessible and free from obstruction!

The cycle parking hereby approved shall remain accessible and free from obstruction, and retained for use at all times

In their letter to Primark officers have added as strong a wording — in bold, no less — that they now can, for which I am grateful:

Please be advised that it is necessary to ensure that Primark Stores comply in full with the conditions above. I would particularly like to draw your attention to conditions 3, 4 and 5 which relate to delivery operations and delivery times. Please be advised that it is your responsibility to ensure that all these conditions are complied with at all times. Please ensure that you instruct all delivery drivers/refuse collectors etc. of the terms of these conditions and ensure that they are complied with in full and at all times.


You should be aware that if the requirements of the planning conditions are breached then the Council will have no other option than to pursue formal enforcement action for failure to comply with the terms of the planning approval. This is likely to take the form of a Breach of Conditions Notice (to which there is no right of appeal except in the High Court. The maximum fine upon conviction is £1000 for each and every subsequent offence.)


Finally I would like to state that it is not the intention of any party to be punitive or unnecessarily strict in this matter. It is in the best interests of all parties that the problems experienced on this site are resolved in an efficient and professional manner. In this regards I would like to encourage Primark Stores to liaise closely with the residents in close proximity to the store to ensure that potential and future problems can be avoided. I would also strongly encourage you to ensure that your staff are aware of the importance of compliance with the planning conditions and their responsibility to keep noise and disturbance to an absolute minimum, especially in the rear service yard.

They also did include the informative that some Councillors had requested but I wasn’t sure was passed by the full committee:

Additional Informative:

The applicant is advised that the Planning Committee is of the view that effective engagement and communication should take place with the local community regarding the operation of the store.

I hope that this serves it purpose and that Primark will now engage with their neighbours and reign in their deliveries. However today I heard that Marlborough Street was used for refuse collection, in contravention of their conditions, so I’m not holding my breath!

I’ve copied the full letter below, less the Planning officer’s name.

The Store Manager
Primark Stores Ltd
169-174 Western Road
Brighton
BN1 2BL

Dear Sir / Madam,

Re: Planning application BH2008/01052


As you should be aware planning application BH2008/01052 (Retrospective application for part second/third floor extension to incorporate storage space and staff facilities (amendment to Delivery and Servicing Statement to show a minimum of 6 deliveries per day and none on Sundays and Public Holidays) was approved by the Planning Committee of the Council on 25th November 2009.

The application was approved subject to 8 conditions. These conditions are:

1. All air handling units and plant located on the roof of the premises shall not operate between the hours of 23.00 and 07.00.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers and to comply with policies SU10 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

2. Noise associated with plant and machinery incorporated within the development shall be controlled such that the rating level, measured or calculated at 1 metre from the façade of the nearest noise sensitive premises shall not exceed a level of 5dB below the existing LA90 background noise level.  Rating level and existing background noise levels to be determined as per the guidance provided in BS 4142: 1997.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and to comply with policies SU10 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

3. No vehicle movements nor any loading or unloading of vehicles shall take place between the hours of 20.00 to 08.00.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and to comply with policies SU10 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

4. No deliveries, including the collection of refuse and recyclable materials, shall be taken at or dispatched from the site except from either the service yard to the rear of the application site accessed from Crown Street only or the front of the site along the designated section of footway in Western Road.

Reason: To safeguard traffic flows along Crown Street and Marlborough Street and not to prejudice highway safety in accordance with policies TR1 and TR7 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

5. No deliveries or unloading of vehicles shall take place on Sundays or Bank or other Public Holidays except using the designated section of footway in Western Road.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and to comply with policies SU10 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

6. The refuse and recycling storage facilities hereby approved shall be retained for use at all times.

Reason: To ensure the retention of satisfactory facilities for the storage of refuse and recycling and to comply with policies SU2 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

7. Access to the flat roof over the extension hereby approved shall be for maintenance or emergency purposes only and the flat roof shall not be used as a roof garden, terrace, patio or similar amenity area.

8. The cycle parking hereby approved shall remain accessible and free from obstruction, and retained for use at all times

Reason: To ensure that the facilities for the parking of cycles are retained and to encourage travel by means other than private motor vehicles and to comply with policy TR14 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Additional Informative:

The applicant is advised that the Planning Committee is of the view that effective engagement and communication should take place with the local community regarding the operation of the store.

Please be advised that it is necessary to ensure that Primark Stores comply in full with the conditions above. I would particularly like to draw your attention to conditions 3, 4 and 5 which relate to delivery operations and delivery times. Please be advised that it is your responsibility to ensure that all these conditions are complied with at all times. Please ensure that you instruct all delivery drivers/refuse collectors etc. of the terms of these conditions and ensure that they are complied with in full and at all times.


You should be aware that if the requirements of the planning conditions are breached then the Council will have no other option than to pursue formal enforcement action for failure to comply with the terms of the planning approval. This is likely to take the form of a Breach of Conditions Notice (to which there is no right of appeal except in the High Court. The maximum fine upon conviction is £1000 for each and every subsequent offence.)


Finally I would like to state that it is not the intention of any party to be punitive or unnecessarily strict in this matter. It is in the best interests of all parties that the problems experienced on this site are resolved in an efficient and professional manner. In this regards I would like to encourage Primark Stores to liaise closely with the residents in close proximity to the store to ensure that potential and future problems can be avoided. I would also strongly encourage you to ensure that your staff are aware of the importance of compliance with the planning conditions and their responsibility to keep noise and disturbance to an absolute minimum, especially in the rear service yard.

I trust that the above is informative and if I can be of any further assistance or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours faithfully

[A.N. Officer]

Categories
notes from JK

Green response to Waste & Minerals Core Strategy

Today I submitted the Green Group of Councillor’s response to East Sussex and Brighton & Hove’s Waste & Minerals Core Strategy – Preferred Options consultation. In essence this consultation is a request for input on what the officers’ preferred strategies for handling waste and minerals in the area should be.

This strategy is highly dependent on Brighton & Hove’s own Municipal Waste Strategy which was also recently consulted on. It’s still in draft form, we don’t know what the City’s final strategy will look like. This summer we submitted our views on that strategy too.

In my view both of the drafts are deeply lacking in ambition. We could be making serious financial savings as well as reaping major environmental benefits, by a far more aggressive approach to waste. Simple things like garden green waste collections would shift up to 10% of municipal waste into the recycling column.

The Government are slowly beginning to get tougher on waste too… better late than never. They will be offering funds for ‘Zero Waste Areas’ as well as planning to ban certain materials from landfill altogether. We should be jumping onto that – we should have done years ago – again, better late than never!

The Green Group Waste & Minerals response [PDF]

Aiming for Zero Waste: Green Group response to the Municipal Waste Strategy [PDF]

You can view the Waste & Minerals Core Strategy either on the East Sussex Consultation Portal or in there Brighton & Hove Cabinet meeting papers [PDF]. The City’s draft Municipal Waste Strategy can be viewed here.

UPDATE: We didn’t address the issue of land raise specifically in the response, but I want to make clear that we do oppose the proposed introduction of land raise sites for waste disposal — especially in sensitive parts of our countryside as implied by the report.

Categories
current affairs

Post Licensing Committee thoughts

The other disappointment of the week was Licensing Committee, which stretched through Thursday afternoon and evening.

The agenda was packed (part 1 and part 2), I won’t rehearse all here, don’t worry!

Cab Conundrum

Certainly the most high profile item was the Hackney Carriage Unmet Demand Survey. Essentially this was about the taxis you can hail on the street (Private Hire are those you have to call to book), whether the city needs more and whether disabled users are being well served. I’d received detailed emails from various associations and the GMB union about this item. It’s evident from the report that at the moment disabled customers are not being well served by taxis, and there’s general agreement amongst drivers and taxi firms that something more has to be done. A wheelchair user has to wait on average 45 minutes for a taxi (11 minutes is the average non-wheelchair user wait) and can’t pre-book with some firms or get any taxi at all during certain periods of the day.

Whilst an independent survey found that despite a 40% increase in passenger journeys, there was little unmet demand requiring additional licenses, it seemed obvious to me that allowing a continuation of the 5 new licenses a year we currently have been offering would be useful because we could continue to require the licenses to be for wheelchair cabs. This would represent only a 1% increase on the overall Hackney Carriage licenses, so not threatening business for other drivers, but would be a significant boost in wheelchair capacity each year. Sadly, except for the Greens and the LibDem member, the other parties voted this down opting for only 2 new licenses a year.

But much worse, they absolutely refused to accept amendments put forward by my Green colleague Cllr Pete West. These amendments just asked for an officer report to look into how and if we should set a percentage quota of wheelchair accessible vehicles on the books of the larger Hackney Carriage firms and also whether a condition requiring wheelchair accessible vehicles should be added to all new private hire licenses.

The Council’s consultants had estimated we need roughly 400 more wheelchair accessible cabs to eliminate the difference in waiting time. It’s going to take 200 years to get there at the rate Labour and Tories have set and they’ve refused to explore the options for which we can see widespread support for in the trade. A clear missed opportunity to eliminate a systematic inequality in a vital transport system for those with disabilities. I’m so disappointed the other party members wouldn’t support even an officer report on the path forward.

Alcohol Disorder Zones

The Committee had received a request from the St James Street Local Action Team, supported by the Kingscliffe Society, to instigate an Alcohol Disorder Zone (ADZ) in their locality. This is a new legal tool which no council has yet used, but which would result in an action plan to bring together the Council and Police in tackling alcohol related disorder. In extreme cases it could force all licensed premises in the zone to pay for services to tackle the problems.

Sadly the Police and Council licensing officers didn’t seem very keen on the idea, the legislation may have some imperfections (what doesn’t) and were wary of the negative publicity in declaring a neighbourhood a ‘disorder zone’. However support from the city’s Director of Public Health was noticeable.

Again my colleague Cllr Pete West offered an amendment. The officer recommendation was for a Council policy where only the Chief of Police would be able to request such a zone from the Council, but Cllr West’s amendment expanded that to allow Local Action Teams and constituted community groups to make such requests… which seemed to be much more inclusive. Surely local groups would be those best able to judge if they needed to get help for alcohol disorder? Some areas feel dissatisfaction with the Police, so handing the power only to the Police Chief could well exacerbate that. Sadly, once again Labour and Tories wouldn’t support this.

I put forward an amendment that we accept the St James Street LAT’s request and begin the ADZ process for their area. They had formally requested it and no policy of Police Chief only had been agreed at the time of their submission, but I’m afraid again there was no support.

While I accept that ADZs aren’t perfect, clearly the Cumulative Impact Area in the city centre isn’t enough to counter-balance the over-liberal 2003 Licensing Act which is causing chaos for my constituents.

Health Impact Assessment of Licensing

This was a very powerful report showing the devastating impact alcohol is having on our city. The graphs showing a huge growth in alcohol-related hospital admissions since the new licensing law came into force are shocking, especially given that they don’t include A&E figures!

This report was good backing for why Dr Tom Scanlon, Director of Public Health for the city, is so keen for more action. The report is vital reading and will hopefully feed into a new city-wide licensing policy next year. Another of my Green colleagues on the committee, Cllr Georgia Wrighton, proposed some amendments which we did finally manage to get agreed. These included referring the report to the Environment & Community Safety Overview & Scrutiny Committee (dreadfully long name, I know), to the Full Council and also having the Chair of the Licensing Committee write to the relevant ministers, attaching the report and asking for ‘Impact on Public Health’ to be included as a licensing objective under the Licensing Act. This would then allow residents, the NHS and council to object to licensing applications on the basis of impact on health; which currently isn’t possible.

Finally some success!

The rest

There were other reports on street trading, gambling and alcohol harm to children but little dramatic emerged from them in the committee meeting itself so I shall leave the curious to find the minutes whenever they are published.

Some very disappointing outcomes. Reflecting on why there wasn’t support from Tories and Labour, I wonder if it’s because they don’t represent the inner city wards which suffer the direct impacts of the new Licensing Act… perhaps but that doesn’t excuse their failure to support disabled people’s needs on the taxi report. I’d like to hear an explanation for that one.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention one bit of good news that emerged at the Committee… Taxi marshalls for city centre ranks will be returning from this Friday night until March next year thanks to some Home Office funding. I believe they’ll be on for the peak nights and peak ranks only, but I know they really help to free up Police resources so are very welcome.

Categories
current affairs

The Primark Planning decision

Primark delivery jam in Crown Street
Primark delivery jam in Crown Street, with a buggy squeezing by.

The past few days have brought some bitter disappointments in the Council’s committee rooms.

On Thursday I attended the Planning Committee to support residents objecting to Primark’s application which would give them the right to virtually unlimited deliveries between 8am and 8pm. The current level of disturbance is too much for them, any growth would be wholly unacceptable. I have documented more on the problems previously.

I have been working on this application for nearly 2 years — it was submitted in March 2008 as, incredibly, the seventh application by Primark for this building. Over this period it was made very clear to me by council officers that some of Primark’s bad behaviour (e.g. vehicles coming in via Marlborough St) was un-enforceable until this new application went to the committee. This was because the existing conditions were unclear following a number of applications and a partial success (for Primark) at an appeal.

So I had been chasing and chasing the application, getting residents to write in to the planning officers and so on, in the hope we could soon get enforcement action. Sadly this all fell apart at the committee meeting. Firstly the officer presenting the application to the committee was not well briefed, for example claiming Primark deliver through Western Road when in fact they don’t. Officers appeared to be surprised to hear that Primark were servicing via Marlborough Street when they shouldn’t have been (enforcement officers have been told this for years); they were also surprised to be told that Primark’s yard had never been used for deliveries by previous tenants Littlewood and C&A. And so on…

Fortunately the photos I circulated to all members raised questions about how well the current setup was working for traffic flows. Additionally the pictures of clearly unusable cycle parking drew comments of enforcement action being needed from another officer. But after nearly TWO YEARS of being told this by residents and councillors why were officers showing surprise on the day? I can tell you, the galleries gasped and tutted.

To add to the dismay officers also told us that the report (can I mention again, nearly two years in gestation) had incorrect conditions and so amended them verbally to allow Sunday and Public holiday deliveries – admittedly via Western Road only – but still not something the published conditions would have allowed at all. Furthermore officers emphasised that this application was only about Primark’s failure to discharge conditions about (inaccessible) cycle parking, putting up security gates without prior agreement and sustainability issues.

Chris Naylor-Smith spoke very well on behalf of the residents. A spokeswoman from Primark’s agents offered a canned speech which didn’t reflect reality, then as Committee member Cllr Amy Kennedy has commented, was unable to answer any questions whatsoever. I then spoke but was probably showed how furious I was about the way the application was unfolding, completely contrary to how residents and I had been told it would by officers.

To their credit, committee members generally showed concern about the failings of the current delivery arrangements, the problems it caused Crown St and Marlborough St residents and Primark’s clear failure to act responsibly to its neighbours… let alone engage with them.

Green Cllr Amy Kennedy offered some excellent conditions, requiring all deliveries via Western Road and rubberising the yard and cages to reduce noise. Labour Cllr Juliet McCaffery offered to second the rubberising conditions. However officers made it very clear that these were not acceptable as they did not relate to the matters of cycle parking, security gates and sustainability conditions. This advice put an end to the kinds of conditions residents had been hoping for.

Sadly, other than the Green committee members who chose to vote down the application and one Tory abstention the remainder of the Committee (Conservatives and Labour) all followed officer advice and voted through the application. It’s not entirely clear to me if a condition requiring the cycle parking to be accessible and a formal notification to Primark requesting that they engage with their neighbours will be included in the formal decision notice. We shall see.

It was an extremely disappointing event, not just because I couldn’t get the result residents were hoping for, but because the terms of the whole application shifted so dramatically from what we had been previously led to believe. This isn’t over though, I’ll be following this up with the Council and Primark as will residents, I’m sure.

My letter to the Planning Comittee

Photo dossier

Webcast of the Committee meeting (From memory, Primark came about 2.5 hours into the meeting)

UPDATED: Having reviewed the webcast I realised I had wrongly attributed the abstention to Labour, in fact it was Cllr Mrs Theobald, Conservative.

Categories
current affairs

Brighton Primark Protest

This morning I had an early start to get out to Crown Street in Regency ward. I was joining residents who live around the large Brighton Primark on Western Road. For nearly two years their life has been blighted by deliveries through their small residential cul-de-sacs. Whilst most other businesses on Western Road take deliveries through loading bays at the front of their stores, Primark insist on using these side roads causing noise, vibrations and congestion.

Primark’s management have refused to enter into dialogue with residents or councillors. We’d had enough so decided to blockade their 8am Saturday morning product delivery. We hope to raise the profile of these issues ahead of a planning application from Primark being decided by the council’s planning committee this Wednesday 25th November, which includes delivery issues. We’re asking for a condition forcing Primark to take deliveries from the front like everyone else. Please lobby your councillors using WriteToThem.

See how our protest went:

A short report from BBC South East:

Update:
Some pictures of the protest by local resident Jane Dallaway are now on Flickr.

Categories
current affairs

Brighton O-K or O-no?

A mockup of the Brighton O as provided by their PR agency
A mockup of the Brighton O as provided by their PR agency

One of the joys and challenges of representing Regency ward is the number of major projects proposed for the area from redevelopment of the Brighton Centre to building on the site of the old Royal Alex Children’s Hospital and what do with the site of the West Pier.

The latest proposal is a temporary observation wheel known as the “Brighton O” which unusually is a spokeless design. If built the wheel would apparently move to another city once construction of the i360 tower was to commence (another classic Regency ward project saga).

I’m getting very mixed views from residents and businesses on the Brighton O. Many think the wheel would be superb for rejuvenating a part of the seafront which is in need of attention and greater footfall. Others believe it will be excessively disruptive to an already crowded area affecting the sailing club, businesses and residents of buildings it will overshadow.

The case for the O is at www.brightono.com and the case against is at www.brightonno.org.uk

I’d very much like to hear more views on this. Do you think the project will make a positive contribution to the city with an unusual design or is it an invitation for people to look in resident’s bedroom windows? Let me know.

If you’d like to register your views with the planning committee, send your views to Chris.A.Wright@brighton-hove.gov.uk

Categories
current affairs

Back from my Halloween Horror

On the Saturday of Halloween I had an unexpected tour of the Royal Sussex County’s Accident & Emergency department. Not that there is an ideal time, but Halloween night is not a good time to be in A&E, it was busy! My Halloween horror was a nasty concussion and back injury after a garage door came down on my head at speed. It hurt. Through my blurry vision I could see zombie face-painted people in the hospital waiting room, most surreal.

Two weeks of doctor enforced rest and I’m now getting back up to speed. I’m not 100% better, but good enough to get back into the blogosphere. I’ll be relying on my osteopath to get me over the last of the symptoms.

So I’m sorry to disappoint readers like Dan Wilson that I wasn’t able to cover the CityClean strikes, but I was laid up. The strikes are suspended and we’re still awaiting full resolution of the detailed issues at hand. I know Green colleagues were working hard on supporting the unions, but I’m not up to speed on the details.

Meanwhile the selection for the new Tory candidate for Brighton Pavilion continues, with Brighton Politics Blogger stirring up an unprecedented number of Tory comments to his/her blog. Good luck to the candidates, selections are a nerve wracking process. I must flag one issue I have with this process which is still being promoted as an ‘open primary’ when in fact it is an ‘open caucus’. The difference? With a primary anyone in the constituency can register to vote resulting in a larger turnout and so greater representation. A caucus is a meeting where those attending the meeting can vote after presentations from the candidates – it’s a much smaller scale affair and so less inclusive. Regardless, I think open primaries are gimmick which don’t solve fundamental issues with politics.

Attacking other parties for not having selected their candidates in that way is pretty weak in my view. How about having a go at policy differences?!

One of the Tory hopefuls, Scott Digby, has a pop at Greens with the rather tired ‘watermelon’ joke which local Tories having been chortling about for rather too long. But Digby rather misses the point, the joke is that we’re supposed to be ‘Communists’ as Tory cabinet member Cllr Ayas Fallon-Khan likes to allege, not Labour! We couldn’t be more different than Labour, disagreeing on: ID cards, privatisation, education, taxation, wars in Iraq & Afghanistan… I could go on!

Categories
current affairs

Less alcohol than ever at Sainsbury’s, Western Road? I don’t think so

Half-price wine offer as you walk into Sainsbury's Western Road
Half-price wine offer as you walk into Sainsbury's Western Road - is this responsible?

A while ago I spoke on behalf of residents to a licensing panel considering an application from Sainsbury’s. The supermarket, a very short way from Waitrose, wanted to double its size and so needed to apply for a new license to sell alchohol.

Residents and I were concerned given that the area already has an abundance of places from which alcohol can be bought. Residents suffer from noise, anti-social behaviour, violence and more. It has got significantly worse since the new 2003 Licensing Act came into force.

However despite residents’ objections and my strenuous arguments that the license should be strictly curtailed if approved at all, it was granted. The Sainsbury’s lies right on the border of the ‘Cumulative Impact Area’ for licensing but that made no difference. Sainsbury’s barrister successfully prevented me from debating the low prices at which the supermarket sells alcohol. He also claimed that overall the new twice as big shop would have less space devoted to alcohol sales than previously.

Sadly the shop was boarded up and under expansion then so I couldn’t do ‘before and after’ shots. But I went in recently to take a look and there seemed to me to be a very significant space devoted to alcohol – see all the pictures on Flickr. The first shelf to greet you on entering the store was promoting half price bottles of wine.

In August this year, while I was on holiday, Sainsbury’s put in to extend the hours of alcohol sales to almost 24 hours. Unfortunately nobody objected to this other than the Council’s Trading Standards*. This is not surprising because beyond a small piece of paper in the window, there is NO requirement to notify people living near premises applying for a license or wishing to vary an existing one. Trading Standards’ concern related to underage drinking, but once a “Challenge 21” scheme was agreed to by Sainsbury’s (a fairly standard condition) the objection was withdrawn and the licensing panel meeting was cancelled.

However the online licensing register still shows the extended license as not having been granted because checks are outstanding. I’m trying to find out what that means but it seems likely that very soon we are going to have a virtually 24hr off-license selling at supermarket prices. The licensing law is completely failing residents and this city – we seem unable to stop the spread of cheap booze nor the harm it is causing people directly or indirectly. When will our MPs step up to push the change my constituents are crying out for?

Find out more:
Sadly I can’t link directly to licenses, but at least there is now a web-based register. Enter the reference codes below into the search at http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=c1204374

Application to open bigger store: 1445/3/2009/00059/LAPREN (minutes of that panel)
Application to extend hours: 1445/3/2009/01692/LAPREV (papers for cancelled panel)

* As a councillor I can only object to an application if either I personally live or have a business close to the premises in question, or a constituent close by asks me to speak on their behalf. Otherwise I am unable to participate or speak to a licensing panel meeting. This is extremely frustrating.

UPDATE: I have now received confirmation from council officers that the license indeed has been granted to allow sale of alcohol from 6am until midnight and late night refreshment (i.e. hot food) from 23 until midnight. I also clarified the text above to make it clear it won’t be open a full 24hrs a day as the license currently stands. (13/11/09)

Categories
notes from JK

Dealing with green waste: Brighton & Hove vs the world

bulldozer_in_landfillI’m asking you to support a council-run green waste collection in Brighton & Hove with a pledge.

As some have noticed from my blogs and press work, I’m passionate about waste and recycling. I want to see Brighton & Hove at the forefront of best practice, aiming for zero waste. Unfortunately at the moment this is not the case, the city’s draft waste strategy has us planning to come in under the national targets for recycling and composting.

The first small step in trying to turn that around is arguing for a green waste collection in our city. This is something many people have called for, including the Older People’s Council, who rightly argue that many don’t have space to home compost, don’t have a car to drive waste to a collection point and can’t afford private pick-ups on a regular basis.

Based on what other councils provide, I expect we can provide a collection for a fee of around £50 a year. This would mean only those needing the service pay, it wouldn’t be supported by council tax, thus ensuring those without gardens aren’t paying for a service they can’t use.

To help convince the powers that be that this can be done I’m calling on everyone who’d like to use this service to pledge that they will sign up if we get the collections launched. Please signup at pledgebank.com/greenwaste and spread the word. Pledgebank wouldn’t let me specify the full area covered by the city, but if you live in Portslade, Hove, Brighton, Kemptown or Rottingdean then you can sign up.

To provide some context on what’s happening elsewhere and add to the pressure on the Council administration, here are some links: