The Conservatives have criticised a “spurious” decision to prevent the public’s concerns about three “greenfield” sites in Brighton and Hove being aired at a council meeting.
Councillor Steve Bell is so angry that he has written an open letter about it to Geoff Raw, the chief executive of Brighton and Hove City Council.
He said that the three petitions had each garnered more than 1,250 signatures and should be presented at the next full council meeting on Thursday 22 October.
They relate to sites in Benfield Valley, Whitehawk Hill, including Ingleside Stables, and land in Patcham at Horsdean Recreation Ground and Ladies Mile.
But, according to the letter, mayor Alan Robins has refused to accept the petitions about the council’s strategic blueprint – known as City Plan Part 2 – on advice from officials.
In his letter to Mr Raw, Councillor Bell wrote: “We are advised that one of the reasons was that ‘planning issues are not normally debated at council as there are other avenues for concerns to be raised and considered’.
“This is an unconstitutional reason to refuse the petitions. The petition scheme only excludes petitions that apply to a planning application. City Plan Part 2 is not a planning application. It is a policy document.
“You authorised and convened a special council meeting on Thursday 23 April that was dedicated to City Plan Part 2.
“Petitions instigated as a consequence of that council meeting should not be refused debate unless it is now deemed that the April special council was inappropriate to hold and as such should render the decisions taken as unlawful and invalid.
“Another reason given to us was that council had already approved City Plan Part 2. That, respectfully, is a nonsense.
“Council approved consultation. It did not approve the plan as presented unless of course there is now an admission that the consultation is merely a ‘tick box’ process because the council has no interest in the consultation outcome.
“In any respect, it contradicts the position that council does not consider ‘planning issues’.
“It was also advised that the petitions had been rejected because a consultation process was in progress. That again is a nonsense. Petitions are part of public engagement.
“Council has many questions, letters, deputations and petitions presented to it (including debates) on subjects that are in a consultation phase.
“Are you in all seriousness advising that if the council is engaged in consultation that, during that process, no member or public engagement at council will be permitted?”
Councillor Bell also said that the decision to refuse to receive the petitions was “entirely inappropriate and unconstitutional and will only be viewed as having no foundation and undemocratic”.
In the interests of fairness the Mayor should allow these petitions, otherwise I would question his political neutrality – feels only right to let the thousands who have signed these petitions a chance to be heard.
Unfortunately, seems the council, officers and councillors, are attempting to close ranks and close down debate on this. If this is a meeting about City Plan Part 2 this is exactly where this issue should be debated.
Why not do a bit of compulsory purchase on the big gardens in Dyke Rd. Pete West lives up there I’m sure he won’t mind. It would be much more equitable😊
The Mayor should allow this petitions, as we are a democracy?
This appears to me to be the height of arrogance and political bias.
We, who pay the councillor’s and mayor’s expenses, should be allowed to have our say in a democratic society.