Rother District Council
CABINET
15 April 2013
Minutes of the Cabinet meeting held at the Town Hall, Bexhill-on-Sea on Monday 15
April 2013 at 11:00am.
Cabinet Members present: Councillors C.R. Maynard (Leader), Lord Ampthill, S.D.
Elford, A.E. Ganly, Mrs B.A. George, M.J. Kenward, R.H. Patten and R. White.
Other Members present: Councillors Mrs M.L. Barnes, A.E. Davies, P.R. Douart, R.V.
Elliston, Mrs J.M. Hughes, I.G.F. Jenkins, B. Kentfield, J.A Lee, P.G. Lendon, M.
Mooney, P.N. Osborne (in part), Mrs S.M. Prochak, S. Souster and Mrs F.M.
Winterborn.
Advisory Officers present: Chief Executive, Director of Resources, Director of
Services, Head of Housing, Head of Finance, Head of Human Resources and
Business Services, Head of Regeneration, Planning Lawyer (in part), Head of
Planning, Principal Planning Officer, Contracts Services Manager and Democratic
Services Officer.
Also present: 1 member of the press and 7 members of the public.
Publication Date: 17 April 2013
The decisions made under PART II will come into force on 25 April 2013 unless they
have been subject to the call-in procedure.
FLYING OF THE FLAG
The Leader of the Council confirmed that the Town Hall would be flying the flag at
half-mast on Wednesday 17 April to mark the funeral of the former Prime Minister,
Margaret Thatcher.
CB12/108.
MINUTES
The Chairman was authorised to sign the minutes of the meeting held
on 18 March 2013 as a correct record of the proceedings.
CB12/109.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
An apology for absence had been received from Councillor Johnson.
PART I – RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL – not subject to call-in procedure
under Rule 16 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules.
CB12/110.
(7.1)
SENIOR STAFF RESTRUCTURING
Cabinet received and gave consideration to the report of the Chief
Executive on the proposed restructuring of senior staff.
1
Rother District Council’s (RDC) core funding had been reducing since
2010/11 and by the end of 2014/15 its contribution from central
Government would have reduced by £3.3 million which equated to 50%
of the level of funding received in 2010/11. This reduction had created
substantial pressures on the Council’s finances and the subsidisation
of the General Fund from reserves that was currently necessary to
counteract this was not sustainable in the future.
As part of the budget setting process for 2013/14 full Council agreed a
package of spending reduction measures in order to meet the financial
challenges for the year ahead and a reduction in staff was one
measure that was identified.
A senior staffing reorganisation was recommended which required full
Council approval. It was proposed that the senior management
structure of the Council should be reduced from its current level of
Chief Executive, 2 Directors and 9 Heads of Service to 2 Executive
Directors overseeing 6 discrete management functions. The revised
structure was appended to the report for consideration and it was
expected that the proposal would deliver savings in excess of £200,000
per annum based on salary alone.
Members were saddened that the restructure was necessary but
accepted that the proposed structure was aimed to minimise disruption
to front line service delivery, although this would also be inevitable with
further cuts to follow. Members appreciated that the restructuring was
necessary in advance of future budget cuts thus avoiding panick
measures. There was discussion over the split of the Head of Paid
Service role and Members requested clarity on where each service
would sit in the new structure. During the discussion officers confirmed
that more detail of the functions under each service heading would be
available at full Council although subject to staff consultation. An
additional recommendation to amend the Constitution in light of the
new structure was also agreed.
RECOMMENDED: That:
1) the structure in Appendix 1 be approved as the outline senior
management structure of the Council;
2) £200,000 of revenue reserve be earmarked to meet the costs of
redundancies arising from the first phase of the restructuring
process; and
3) consequential amendments be made to the Constitution to reflect
the changes to the management structure.
COUNCILLOR PATTEN IN THE CHAIR
CB12/111.
(8.2)
LAND SWAP WITH EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL
In 2009, in preparation for the construction of the Bexhill-Hastings Link
Road, East Sussex County Council (ESCC) served notice of their
intention to compulsorily acquire land and premises owned by Rother
2
District Council (RDC). At the time Cabinet had determined that the
Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) would not be objected to and
delegated authority was given to the Director of Resources and the
Cabinet Portfolio holder for Value for Money to negotiate the disposals.
In September 2012 ESCC served ‘Notices to Treat’ on RDC and took
possession of the sites included in the CPO including: the former waste
depot at London Road; the undeveloped part of Sidley Goods Yard;
and part of the former railway line leading northwards from Ninfield
Road. In addition to this land, officers also discussed the transfer to
ESCC of certain additional plots of land that fell outside the scope of
the CPO and also held discussions on the possibility of RDC acquiring
the former Bexhill High School site at Down Road; with the view to
potentially expanding/ redeveloping the existing Bexhill Leisure Centre,
including
other
mixed
development
including
employment
opportunities.
Independent valuation advice had been jointly obtained by both
councils and the combined value of RDC’s assets and other statutory
compensation was assessed at £865,000. The value of the High
School site was assessed at £1,050,000 which reflected planning
policy guidance on the type of development that would be permitted in
the light of the RDC saved Local Plan policy BX9.
It was proposed that both councils transfer the sites at no net cost to
either authority (land swap) subject to an overage agreement, whereby
if future receipts were derived from the former High School site which
exceeded the £865,000 the value above this would be equally split
between ESCC and RDC.
A paper in relation to the future leisure centre requirements for Bexhill
would be presented to the June meeting of the Services Overview and
Scrutiny Committee and whilst the acquisition of the High School site
land did not anticipate the recommendations arising from the report it
would ensure that a suitable site would be within RDC’s control.
Members considered that in the event of a leisure centre scheme not
being progressed then the land would be considered for a mix of uses
in accordance with the Local Plan policy objectives.
Although no cash would be exchanged between the two councils it was
necessary for the Capital Programme to be increased by £865,000 to
be funded from the notional capital receipt which represented the value
of the land/property. This was necessary in accountancy terms as it
was required to be treated as a purchase of land.
RECOMMENDED: That the Capital Programme be increased by
£865,000, representing the purchase value of the former Bexhill High
School site. Funding to come from the notional capital receipt of
£865,000 representing the value of the land/property that the Council
would transfer to East Sussex County Council.
3
*RESOLVED: That:
1) the transfer of title in the land that has been compulsorily
purchased by East Sussex County Council be completed;
2) the ancillary land as submitted in Appendix 2 to the report be
transferred to East Sussex County Council;
3) the remaining land at the former Bexhill High School site as
submitted in Appendix 3 to the report be acquired by the
Council;
4) the above transactions take place with no financial
contribution by either party, subject to the terms of an
overage agreement as detailed in the report be approved;
and
5) the Chief Executive and Cabinet Portfolio Holder for the
Value for Money be given delegated authority to agree such
other terms as required.
*The RESOLVED part of this minute is subject to the call-in
procedure under Rule 16 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure
Rules.
(Councillor Maynard declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this
matter as an Executive Member of East Sussex County Council and in
accordance with the Members Code of Conduct left the room during
the consideration thereof.)
(Councillors Mrs Hughes and Kenward each declared a personal and
prejudicial interest in this matter as elected Members of East Sussex
County Council and in accordance with the Members Code of Conduct
left the room during the consideration thereof.)
COUNCILLOR MAYNARD IN THE CHAIR
CB12/112.
(9.2)
LOCAL AUTHORITY MORTGAGE SCHEME
The aim of the Local Authority Mortgage Scheme was to enable
council’s to support the local economy, pump prime the housing market
and to provide a means for an affordable entry onto the property ladder
for first time buyers. It was also considered that the scheme would
remove pressure on the demand for social housing by potentially
removing eligible first time buyers from the housing waiting lists.
The scheme was aimed at first time buyers and was designed to help
those who could afford the mortgage payments but not the initial
deposit to get onto the property ladder. Under the scheme the local
authority provided a top-up indemnity to the value of the difference
between the Loan to Value (LTV) i.e. 75% and a 95% LTV mortgage.
4
The potential buyer would obtain a 95% mortgage on similar terms as a
75% mortgage but without the need to provide the substantial deposit
usually required. RDC would be required to provide up to 20% of a
mortgage for potential home buyers who qualify for local authority
support and who meet the criteria set by the lender.
Under the scheme Rother District Council (RDC) could specify 3
qualifying criteria for applicants namely; qualifying criteria; the
maximum level of indemnity, the maximum loan size (based on 95% of
the maximum property valuation) and qualifying post codes.
The potential buyer would still be required to meet the strict credit
criteria applied by the lender and meet the criteria of the scheme as set
out by RDC in order to qualify; the scheme was designed to reduce the
value of deposit currently required.
A maximum limit for indemnities would be set and would be either
unfunded or “cash-backed” dependant on the requirements of the
lender. If the indemnity was unfunded the local authority would receive
a premium of £500 for each mortgage completion. If it was “cashbacked” the authority would be required to place a 5-year deposit for
the term of the indemnity (usually 5 years, with the possibility of a
further 2 year extension, if the mortgage was in arrears) at the start of
the scheme for the full value of the indemnity being offered and a 5
year commercial deposit rate plus a premium.
The Housing Act 1985 (as amended) provided the statutory framework
for such a scheme and specified that it was an “indemnity” that the
local authority must give. It also specified that the scheme needed to
be adopted by the Council as part of its housing strategy which would
then become part of its wider policy and budgetary framework. It was
expected that around 33 applications would be supported through this
scheme which could potentially mean reducing RDC’s housing waiting
list.
The report detailed that the limit of deposit in this scheme at any one
time with any one authority was set at £2million and East Sussex
County Council had offered the Districts and Boroughs 50% of the
funding in each area for the “cash-backed” scheme. The deposit would
be classed as capital expenditure and would commit the Council’s
financial resources for 5 years. It was proposed that the funding for this
scheme would come from the Housing Earmarked Reserves and it
would be necessary to amend the Council’s 2013/14 Capital
Programme and Treasury Management Statement/Annual Investment
strategy to reflect the proposed scheme.
RDC was required to provide the only lender in East Sussex, Lloyds
TSB Bank Plc and Lloyds TSB Scotland PLC with an Opinion Letter
that confirmed that the authority has the power to enter into, observe
and perform the terms and obligations required of it under the scheme.
It was possible that this could be provided by the Head of Paid Service,
Chief Financial Officer, Monitoring Officer or provided by an
independent firm of solicitors. Should the Head of Paid Service, Chief
5
Financial Officer or Monitoring Officer provide this, they would be
required to be indemnified in respect of any personal liability.
RECOMMENDED: That:
1)
the adoption of a Local Authority Mortgage Scheme as
submitted be approved;
2)
the Chief Executive be authorised to enter into a Service Level
Agreement with East Sussex County Council regarding their
contribution to the Local Authority Mortgage Scheme;
3)
the Chief Executive be authorised in consultation with the
Cabinet Portfolio Holders for Housing and Finance to agree the
maximum value of loan and the legal agreements associated
with such a scheme;
4)
the qualifying post codes will include all post codes within the
Local Authority boundary area and will exclude any that cross
the boundary into a neighbouring authority. The qualifying post
codes will be provided to the lender(s) in a schedule to the
indemnity deed;
5)
provision be made in the Capital Programme for £2m in 2013/14
funded from equal amounts of Earmarked Reserves and
contributions from East Sussex County Council;
6)
the Housing Strategy be updated to reflect the provision of the
scheme;
7)
the Treasury Management Statement and Annual Investment
Strategy be amended to include provision for the scheme;
8)
the Head of Paid Service, Monitoring Officer and Chief Financial
Officer be authorised to provide an Opinion Letter in whatever
form they consider appropriate; and
9)
approval be given to the District Council indemnifying the Head
of Paid Service, Monitoring Officer and Chief Financial officer in
respect of any personal liability that he or she may incur by
providing an opinion and providing the lender with an opinion
letter in relation to each and every scheme that the Council
enters into.
(Councillor Maynard declared a personal interest in this matter as an
Executive Member of East Sussex County Council and in accordance
with the Members Code of Conduct remained in the room during the
consideration thereof.)
(Councillors Mrs Hughes and Kenward each declared a personal
interest in this matter as elected Members of East Sussex County
Council and in accordance with the Members Code of Conduct
remained in the room during the consideration thereof.)
6
PART II – EXECUTIVE DECISIONS – subject to call-in procedure under Rule 16 of
the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules by no later than 4:00pm on 24 April
2013.
CB12/113. PROPOSED SEASIDE PLEASURE BOATS BYELAWS
(6.1)
Members received and considered Minute S12/50 arising from
Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 25 March 2013.
The Boat Byelaws Working Group (BBWG) was tasked with
investigating what further revisions, if any, needed to be made to the
existing Seaside Pleasure Boats Byelaws (SPBB) and to consider
whether they met current needs and any arising issues.
The members of the BBWG had raised concerns over the noise
caused by some users of Personal Water Craft (PWC) on the Bexhill
seashore and it was confirmed that Byelaw 11 of the Bexhill seashore
Byelaws (and Byelaw 5 of the Fairlight, Pett and Icklesham Byelaws)
would prevent the landing or launching of PWC (including jet skis) from
the beach. PWC (Jet skis) could not be legally classified as a specific
category of ‘boat’ and the draft SPBB could only deal with boats (and
not jet skis). Members noted that concerns over the boat lanes had
been discussed and the Members of the BBWG had considered that it
was appropriate to keep the boat lanes in the proposed SPBB in order
for PWC to be policed rather than having craft launching and landing
anywhere on the foreshore. A copy of the proposed SPBB was
appended to the report for consideration.
Cabinet agreed with the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee
recommendation that the proposed SPBB be approved for formal
consultation.
RESOLVED: That the Director of Resources be authorised to advertise
the proposed Seaside Pleasure Boats Byelaws text and designated
areas for public consultation and report back to the Services Overview
and Scrutiny Committee on responses received as submitted.
CB12/114.
(6.2)
CAMBER CAR PARKS
Members received and considered Minute S12/49 arising from the
meeting of the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 25
March 2013.
The Scrutiny Committee had considered and agreed the
recommendations of the Car Parking Review Working Group report on
a number of suggested improvements for the three Camber Car Parks,
Central, Western and Old Lydd Road.
Members approved the proposed charges to a more simplified
arrangement, the plans to double up staff on the manual cash points
and the consideration of signs on the approach to the cars parks to
enable visitors to have payment at the ready.
Members also
considered that the suggestion of signage further afield such as on the
A21 would help to inform those travelling to Camber of the traffic
situation and ease the traffic in the area on very busy days.
7
RESOLVED: That the amendments to the operation management and
car parking charges at Camber’s car parks be approved as follows:
1)
that the simplified pricing structure demonstrated below and
operated at Central, Old Lydd Road and Western Car Parks in
Camber be adopted:
TIME
Up to 1 hour
1-3 hours
3-6 hours
Over 6 hours
SUMMER (£)
1.50
5.00
10.00
12.00
WINTER £)
1.00
3.00
5.00
6.00
2)
that East Sussex County Council be contacted with regard to
Rother District Council installing signage along the approach
road to Camber which would give advanced notice of the car
parking charges and request that motorists had the correct
money available before entering the car parks;
3)
the use of electronic multi-message signage be investigated to
display a number of messages on a rolling programme to update
motorists on changing situations;
4)
staff to be ‘doubled up’ at the manual cash collection points to
assist in reducing waiting times;
5)
a pay and display machine to be installed in the surfaced section
of Western car park over the winter season; and
6)
the Director of Services be authorised to take all necessary
measures to implement the proposals as soon as practicable for
the forthcoming season.
(Councillor Maynard declared a personal interest in this matter as an
Executive Member of East Sussex County Council and in accordance
with the Members Code of Conduct remained in the room during the
consideration thereof.)
(Councillors Mrs Hughes and Kenward each declared a personal
interest in this matter as elected Members of East Sussex County
Council and in accordance with the Members Code of Conduct
remained in the room during the consideration thereof.)
CB12/115.
(8.1)
REVOCATION OF THE SOUTH EAST PLAN – IMPLICATIONS FOR
THE LOCAL PLAN CORE STRATEGY
Cabinet received and gave consideration to the Director of Services
report on the revocation of the South East Plan and the implications of
this for the Local Plan Core Strategy.
The South East Plan provided the basis for the district housing targets
taking into consideration the potential for sustainable growth across the
region. On a local level the housing target took into account the poor
economic performance of the Sussex Coast especially in Hastings and
8
Bexhill and concluded that economic regeneration was the priority and
that housing levels growth should be consistent with supporting
economic growth. It also identified that in Rother the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) was also a constraint for potential
housing growth. As a result of these factors the housing target was
adjusted and was less than the market would have normally sought.
On 25 March 2013 the South East Plan was revoked and the National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) now provided the basis for
determining housing provision within the Core Strategy. In real terms
this meant that Rother would be expected to provide for 584
households per year compared to the 280 dwellings in the South East
Plan; this equated to an additional c5,000 homes on top of the South
East Plan figures (by 2028).
The Inspector had advised RDC that it should revisit its assessment of
housing in the Core Strategy in the light of the even greater weight
given to the NPPF. RDC and Hastings Borough Council needed to
work together to establish the ‘objectively assessed need’ and explore
the option of accommodating this to its logical conclusion (i.e. as far as
is consistent with policies in the NPPF), and if necessary to seek help
from other Councils under the Duty to Co-operate.
As the Inspectors advice was viewed as reflecting current Government
policy it was necessary for the Council to take on board the Inspectors
advice in order to test the housing needs provision and to present an
effective and robust case in light of the NPPF. The following actions
were proposed:Work with East Sussex County Council’s Research and
Information Team to merge the ONS projections with the local
understanding of household formation rates, migration trends.
Extend the previous work on the Strategic Housing Market
Assessment to give further consideration of the findings of the
above and the additional work on the housing market potential
of Bexhill and Hastings and of the economic growth potential of
the area.
Review the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment to
determine any further capacity.
Consult with neighbouring authorities on their ability to
accommodate any unmet need.
In the event of any further housing potential being identified it would be
necessary to undertake a further Sustainability Appraisal and Habitat
Regulations Assessments which could be a substantial and lengthy
process for the Council.
In addition Cabinet were also requested to endorse the response to be
made in relation to the consultation on the impact of the revocation of
the South East Plan which were detailed within the report.
Members expressed concern over the number of houses (c10,000) that
RDC was expected to provide by 2028 in light of the revocation of the
South East Plan. They requested that the case made to the inspector
9
highlight concerns over the infrastructure of the area, including jobs,
roads, railways, schools, hospital and in particular the water supply, as
a major issue in delivering this number of houses, as well as the
preservation of the AONB. Members were particularly concerned
about the preservation of the AONB as 80% of the Rother District was
designed as an AONB; it was felt that this was under threat should the
new housing numbers be accepted in full, removing the reason why
people wanted to move to the area. Members were also concerned
over the sustainability of the proposed number of houses and the
impact this would have on commercial/business sites; large dormitory
villages were something that the Council wanted to avoid. The Council
was committed to sustainable economic growth and considered that
housing needs and economic growth should go hand in hand.
Officers were commended for the work that they had undertaken to
date and Members recognised the amount of work that was required to
ensure that the Core Strategy was updated.
RESOLVED: That:
1) the inspector conducting the Examination of the Core Strategy be
advised of the Council’s consideration of the implications of the
revocation of the South East Plan be approved, as set out in the
report; and
2) the additional work proposed to address matters raised by the
Inspector be noted, and the findings be reported to a future meeting
of the Cabinet.
CB12/116.
(9.1)
AMICUSHORIZON – DISPOSAL OF LAND
Consideration was given to the report of the Director of Resources on
the disposal of land which had been transferred to AmicusHorizon by
Rother District Council.
The parcel of land owned by AmicusHorizon in Darvel Down,
Netherfield, abutted a piece of land that had been identified as site NE1
in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. Site NE1 was
privately owned and was suitable for the development of approximately
30 homes and the piece of land owned by AmicusHorizon was the only
feasible access point to any future development on site NE1.
A developer had shown interest in purchasing site NE1 with a view to
building houses on the land and wanted to establish the access prior to
obtaining any planning permission on the land. AmicusHorizon was
willing to enter into an option agreement that would grant the sale of
the access strip to the adjoining land which would be conditional upon
planning permission being granted and the use of the strip being
restricted to access purposes only.
The value of the piece of land would be determined when and if
planning permission was granted and would be based on the value of
the additional uplift in value that the land owner would receive for an
accessible site with the benefit of planning permission; the sale monies
10
would be re-invested in other affordable development or improvement
projects in the district.
Members were requested to give permission for AmicusHorizon to
enter into an option agreement to sell the land and for delegation to be
given to the Director of Resources, in conjunction with the Portfolio
Holders for Finance and Housing, to agree to the final disposal once a
sale price was agreed.
RESOLVED: That:
1) authority be granted to AmicusHorizon to enter into an option
agreement to sell the parcel of land at Darvel Down, Netherfield
abutting Site NE1 (as identified in the Strategic Housing Land
Availability Assessment) for the purpose of allowing access to
future development land; and
2) the Director of Resources be given delegated authority to approve,
in consultation with the Portfolio Holders for Finance and Housing,
on the final disposal of the land at Darvel Down, Netherfield once a
sale price had been agreed.
CHAIRMAN
The meeting closed at 12:15pm
cb130415.lec
11
Executive
Director
for
Resource
s (Head of
Paid
Service)
Corporate
Core
Executive
Director
for
Business
Operation
s (Head of
Paid
Service)
Finance and
Welfare
Corporate
and Human
Resources
ICT and
Customer
Services
Strategy, Policy
and Planning
Environmental
Services and
Licensing
12
Community and
Economy
Appendix 1