Agenda, decisions and minutes

Previously circulated.

The minutes of the meeting held on 8 February 2017 were submitted and approved and the chairman was authorised to sign them as a correct record.

The chairman welcomed Councillor John Ungar to membership of the cabinet.  He had appointed Councillor Ungar on 10 March 2017 with responsibility for community safety.  The appointment had been made in the light of the recent report on Sussex Police and concerns relating to their performance in dealing with domestic violence and anti-social behaviour and his wish that Councillor Ungar perform a ‘watchdog’ role on behalf of the council.  He emphasised the council’s continuing support for and partnership working with the police but highlighted concerns that reductions in government funding would have upon the ability of the police to effectively carry out their duties.

Declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) by members as required under Section 31 of the Localism Act and of other interests as required by the Code of Conduct and regulation 12(2)(d) of the 2012 Access to Information Regulations.  (Please see note at end of agenda).

Declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) by members as required under section 31 of the Localism Act and other interests as required by the council’s code of conduct and regulation 12(2)(d) of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012.

Councillors Tutt and Ungar both declared personal (and non-prejudicial interest) in matters relating to minute 85 (establishment of a joint housing investment partnership with Lewes District Counci) as they were council appointed non-executive directors of Eastbourne Housing Investment Co. Ltd.  They withdrew from the meeting for this item.

Report of Chief Executive. 

Cabinet lead members:  Councillors Gill Mattock and Troy Tester. 

(1) performance against national and local performance indicators and actions from the 2016/20 corporate plan agreed.

(2) General fund, housing revenue account and collection fund financial performance for quarter ended December 2016 agreed.

(3) Transfer from/to reserves agreed.

(4) Sale of downland farms removed from the council’s programme of schemes.

(5) Capital programme agreed subject to the necessary adjustment in light of resolution (4) above.

(5) Treasury management performance agreed.

(6) Write offs (exempt appendix) approved.

82.1 Councillor Di Cara addressed the cabinet and asked how confident were they that performance relating to call answering (indicators CS_010 and 011) would meet the predicted forecasts for quarter 4.  The director of service delivery responded saying that monitoring over the last 6 weeks showed performance within target (‘green’) and he expected this improved position to be maintained to quarter end.

82.2 Cabinet considered the report of the chief executive reviewing the council’s performance against corporate plan priority indicators and action targets; financial performance of general fund revenue expenditure, housing revenue account and capital programme and treasury management activities for the third quarter of 2016/17. 

82.3 Appendix 1 gave detailed information on non-financial performance indicators and highlighted those giving cause for concern as well as the best performing indicators in section 2 of the report.  Members were advised that the devolved budget scheme should be fully spent by year-end.  The chairman noted that it was a feature of this annual scheme that spending tended to be concentrated towards year-end given the time needed to develop and approve projects.  Members asked that their appreciation be recorded for the for the efforts of Customer First staff for their improved call answering performance and also for the continued fast response to fly-tipping incidents.

82.4 The position of the general fund at the end of December was a variance of £257,000 on net expenditure, representing 1.7% of the net budget.  Total service expenditure showed a variance of £83,000, including:-

82.5 The contingency fund currently stood at £116,000 and this would be required to fund the re-profiling of the joint transformation programme savings target for the year.  The overall projected outturn for the year showed a variance of £92,000.  This was within an acceptable tolerance level, however, management continued to monitor this position, to ensure that this final outturn position was maintained or improved.  Members’ approval was also sought for transfers from reserves and virements as set out in appendix 3.  These transfers were in line with the approved financial strategy.

82.6 Housing revenue account performance was currently above target by £180,000; mainly due to the new properties let at affordable rents not included in the budget(£48,000), a reduction required for the provision for bad debts (£76,000) and the slow take up of the under occupation scheme (£48.000).

82.7 The detailed capital programme was shown in appendix 4.  Actual expenditure was low compared to the programme.  This was mainly due to expected spend in quarter 4 for major purchases and the commencement of construction phase of the Devonshire Park project.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

Report of Director of Regeneration and Planning.

Lead cabinet member:  Councillor Steve Wallis.

(1) Statement of community involvement approved for publication for 8-week consultation period to receive representations and comments.

(2) Director of regeneration and planning given delegated authority, in consultation with lead cabinet member, to make minor amendments before the commencement of consultation period.

83.1 Cabinet considered the report of the director of regeneration and planning seeking approval for a public consultation on an updated statement of community involvement.  The statement set out the council’s approach to consulting the local community and other stakeholders on planning matters within the local planning authority boundary.  The existing statement was now considered to be out of date as a result of changes in legislation and national policy since it was adopted in 2006. 

83.2 A new statement was being prepared to guide public consultation in the preparation of a new local plan for the town.  The draft statement was appended to the report.  Past experience, best practice, the geo-demographic profile of the town and results from the Resident Consultation Survey (2015) and Community Survey on Participation in Planning Consultation (2016) had identified issues that had been addressed within the SCI.

83.3 It was proposed that public consultation on the draft statement should take place for an 8-week period between 24 March and 19 May 2017.  Following consultation, comments would be considered and adoption was anticipated for July 2017.

83.4 Resolved (key decision): (1) That the statement of community involvement be approved for publication for an 8-week consultation period to receive representations and comments.

(2) That the director of regeneration and planning be given delegated authority, in consultation with the lead cabinet member, to make minor amendments before the commencement of the consultation period.

Report of Director of Service Delivery.

Lead Cabinet member:  Councillor Alan Shuttleworth

(1) BID proposal approved and conformity with relevant council plans and policies confirmed.

(2) Director of service delivery given delegated authority, in consultation with lead cabinet member for community, to approve formal BID proposal (including business plan and operating agreement) when received subject to it being in line with the draft submitted and to then instruct the council’s returning officer (as ‘ballot holder) to proceed with the ballot and require the lead officer for revenues, benefits and service support to supply up to date rating list information in suitable format to the ballot contractor.

(3) Chief finance officer given delegated authority –

(i)      to determine the statement of baseline services and baseline agreement and to review the agreement annually; and

(ii)     if the ballot is successful, to operate a BID revenue account and pass over monies to the BID company.

(4) Expected costs of ballot (c.£3,500) to be met by the council.

(5) Director of service delivery given delegated authority –

(i)      to vote in favour of the BID in respect of business heriditaments held by the council within the BID area; and

(ii)     if the ballot is successful, to administer, bill, collect and enforce levies under the BID scheme .

(6) Noted that council’s returning officer is permitted to delegate his responsibilities to others and that he has engaged the services of Electoral Reform Services Ltd to undertake the ballot on his behalf.

(7) Agreed that initial ‘one-off’ software costs required to collect the levy (c.£20,000) will be met by the council.

(8) Noted that the council’s reasonable costs of collecting the levy and the associated financial management costs will be recoverable from the BID levy monies as outlined in paragraph 8.4 of report.

84.1 Cabinet considered the report of the director of service delivery detailing proposals submitted to the council for the establishment of a business improvement district (BID) covering Eastbourne’s town centre.  BIDs were business led partnerships which are created through a ballot process to deliver additional services to local businesses.  The statutory framework for establishing and operating a BID was provided for in Part 4 of the Local Government Act 2003 and the Business Improvement Districts (England) Regulations 2004. 

84.2 A BID was a defined area in which a levy was charged on all business rate payers in addition to the business rates bill.  This levy would be used to develop projects which would benefit businesses in the local area.  There was no limit on what projects or services could be provided through a BID.  The only requirement was that it should be something that was in addition to services provided by local authorities.  The BID proposer was required to develop a proposal and submit this to the local authority, along with a business plan.  Businesses that were subject to the levy, as set out in the proposals, vote in a ballot. This determined whether the scheme went ahead.  A successful vote was one that has a simple majority both in votes cast and in rateable value of votes cast.  The maximum period that a BID levy could be charged was for 5 years.  Once the term was completed the BID would automatically cease.  If the BID company wanted to continue its activities it must hold a new ballot.  Changes could be made to the arrangements without a ballot, but only where the original arrangements contain provision to this effect and only where the change would not alter the geographical boundary of the BID, increase the levy or cause anyone to pay the levy who had not previously been liable.

84.3 A BID steering group had been established with representation from a wide range of businesses in the town centre.  Since 2015 they had been developing a BID proposal with a view to a ballot being held this coming May and for the BID levy to apply for 2017/18 and future years.  The proposal was for a levy of 1.5% on each business in the defined area with an annual rateable value of £6,000 or more.  This was expected to raise £300,000 a year.  A copy of the BID business plan was appended to the report.  The plan, as well as describing the BID proposals, included a map of the BID area and spending plans.

84.4 The stated priorities and goals of the proposed BID were:

1.   Bringing more customers to Eastbourne.

2.   Attracting more businesses and jobs to Eastbourne.

3.   Creating a lively and attractive alternative to on-line shopping.

4.   Promoting Eastbourne as a place that residents and visitors will want to come back to time and again.

5.   Delivering all of these ambitions, whilst at the same time reducing your business costs.

The BID promoters had promised that in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

Report of Director of Service Delivery.

Lead Cabinet member:  Councillor Alan Shuttleworth.

(1) Governance structure for new Eastbourne and Lewes Joint Investment Partnership (JHIP) incorporated and agreed in line with section 2 of report and director of service delivery and the assistant director of legal and democratic services authorised to take all such step as are necessary to establish the same limited liability partnership (LLP).

(2) Up to £30m allocated in the council’s capital programme, as described  in section 4 of the report, and delegated authority arrangements, as set out in report, be approved to progress the first phase of delivery for both EHICL and the new JHIP.

85.1 Cabinet considered the report of the director of service delivery up-dating members on progress with the establishment of a joint housing and regeneration investment vehicle with Lewes District Council as previously approved by cabinet at their meeting on 13 December 2016.  Work to set up the new joint vehicle had been ongoing with a target incorporation date of 1 April 2017.  In parallel Lewes District Council had also been taking steps to establish their own housing investment company – Lewes Housing Investment Company (LHICL).  With EHICL this meant that, across the two authorities, there would be three similar wholly owned subsidiaries working in association to each other:-

·         Eastbourne Housing Investment Company (EHICL)

·         Lewes Housing Investment Company (LHICL)

·         Joint Housing Investment Partnership (JHIP)

85.2 The relationship between the three new housing investment vehicles had been further explored and external legal advice obtained to ensure that the potential benefits of the new vehicles could be best realised.  The report provided:-

·         The business case to support the proposal for the two new vehicles.

·         Detail on how the joint partnership and EHICL would operate.

·         An explanation of their respective primary focus and inter-relationship.

·         For approval an associated set of governance arrangements and financial delegations so that first phase delivery could be progressed.

The initial cost of setting up the proposed JHIP, developing the business case and investment proposals were expected to be £30,000 per authority. 

85.3 The scale of potential new housing development required new vehicles, and a new structure, if the council wanted to maximise housing delivery and associated regeneration beyond the constraints of the housing revenue account (HRA).  Over the last 3 years the council had brought forward and largely completed a 97 unit mainly affordable programme of new housing via the HRA which had utilised available headroom capacity.  This had placed the council ahead of many other local authorities in terms of experience and associated resources.  The potential for a much more ambitious programme of new housing delivery in Eastbourne had been assessed by the EHIC board and comprised:-

·         An EHICL 5-year development pipeline to incorporate approved schemes such as Bedfordwell Road and potential future developments of 265 new homes with a projected gross development cost of £51m and a net borrowing requirement of £18.7m.

·         Transfer to JHIP of the affordable housing elements of EHICL delivery required under planning policy, Section 106 and delivery of affordable schemes beyond the capacity of the HRA where the council wanted to take a direct enabling and place shaping role.  70 new homes with a projected gross development cost of £13m and a net borrowing requirement of £5.5m.

The scale and focus of overall investment, and decisions on larger individual schemes, would remain matters for cabinet approval.

85.4 Previous delegations gave authority to deliver different elements of the new housing as follows:-

·         Feb 2013 Cabinet delegation of £20m of borrowing within the 5 year capital programme for the delivery of the new HRA housing – the new HRA housing has been delivered for around  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

Report of Director of Service Delivery.

Lead Cabinet member:  Councillor Alan Shuttleworth.

Director of service delivery granted delegated authority to:(i) subject to obtaining of necessary consent of Secretary of State pursuant to s.19 of the Housing Act 1985, to appropriate the 8, one-bedroom flats at 3 Hartfield Road, currently held in the housing revenue account, to the general fund for provision (pursuant to s.120 of the Local Government Act 1972) of emergency accommodation to meet the council’s statutory homelessness duty under s.188 of the 1996 Housing Act; (ii) to add £250,000 to the council’s capital program to bring Hartfield Road back into a lettable state for use as temporary accommodation and (iii) to further consult about sale of the freeholds with freeholders of the properties listed and dispose of the garage blocks listed in appendix.

86.1 Cabinet considered the report of the director of service delivery providing an update on a change in demand for emergency accommodation options in Eastbourne due to an increase in homelessness.  To mitigate some of the impact the report sought cabinet approval to dispose of a number of assets held within the housing revenue account (HRA) to enable the council to meet its strategic priorities; providing more housing options and the right housing for residents of the town.

86.2 The number of people needing housing advice and options was increasing in Eastbourne.  This trend was common across East Sussex and nationally with a significant rise in households making homeless applications to local councils.  One of the council’s key priorities was to consider the availability of existing accommodation options and how they could adapt to meet changes in demand.

86.3 The cost to the council of providing emergency accommodation was rising.  The numbers of households in temporary accommodation currently stood at 71 as at 7 February 2017, as compared to an average in 2015/16 of 22.  The cost to the council in housing benefit expenditure unable to be reclaimed through housing benefit subsidy had been rising.  In 2014/15 it was £72,000, in 2015/16 it was £132,000 and was likely to be higher 2016/17.  Furthermore, the reduction in the benefit cap from November, the pending removal of the £60 housing management fee and the rollout of the universal credit digital service in 2017 would lead to more pressure on the council’s finances. 

86.4 The report reviewed homelessness prevention activities currently undertaken or planned.  These included partnerships with other Sussex councils utilising funding from government under their homelessness prevention programme targeting rough sleepers as well as local initiatives under the council’s homelessness strategy (published January 2017).

86.5 It was proposed to ‘appropriate’ 3 Hartfield Road (block of 8, one-bedroom flats with a recent valuation of £545,000) from the housing revenue account to the general fund to provide emergency accommodation.  An initial survey had estimated that repairs would cost approximately £250,000 for the building to be brought back to a lettable standard and provide white goods for each of the flats.  Taking account of current costs of providing emergency accommodation to 8 households who require self-contained accommodation the use of Hartfield Road would mitigate an overspend of £82,000 annually to the existing budget.

86.6 Cabinet had previously authorised the disposal of certain freeholds where the council no longer had a leasehold interest to residents of the block.  Four such freeholds were currently in the process of being sold.  It was now recommended that leaseholders of the following blocks, where the council only held a freehold interest, be consulted about the potential sale of their freeholds on the open market:-

·         14-16 Harebell Close

·         10 Hyde Gardens

·         28-30 Larkspur Drive

·         10-16 Mulberry Close

·         1-3 Pembury Road

·         29-35 Rye Street

·         10-16 Sumach Close

The sale of the freeholds should bring a capital receipt into the housing revenue account of £50,700. 

86.7 Eastbourne Homes Ltd (EHL), on behalf  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

Report of Director of Service Delivery.

Lead Cabinet member:  Councillor Alan Shuttleworth.

Proposed variation in the terms of the grant offered to the Bridgemere Centre approved.

87.1 Cabinet considered the report of the director of service delivery seeking approval for a variation in the terms of an allocation of a capital funding to the Bridgemere Centre.  Cabinet, on 13 December 2016, had approved a contribution of £20,000 towards the purchase of the freehold by the trustees of the centre with the aim of ensuring the future financial viability of the centre and the community activities and services.

87.2 The trustees had now asked that the terms be changed to protect against the eventuality that they, or their successors as managers of the community centre, were unable to continue managing the centre or sell it and recoup the value of the council’s investment.   They also wished to allow for the possibility of alternative premises becoming available in the future which offered better facilities.  They had therefore asked that the period within which they were required to repay the £20,000 was reduced from 40 to 20 years, and that the sum to be repaid was reduced by £1,000 each year.

87.3 The contribution would allow the Bridgemere Centre Ltd. to run the centre on a sustainable financial footing in the future and would remove the need for continued grants to support the centre, freeing up an average of £3,000 a year, thereby covering the costs of this investment within 7 years.

87.4 Resolved:  That the proposed variation in the terms of the grant offered to the Bridgemere Centre, as set out in the report, be approved.

The Chief Executive considers that discussion of the following item is likely to disclose exempt information as defined in Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 and may therefore need to take place in private session.  The exempt information reason is shown beneath the item listed below.  Furthermore, in relation to paragraph 10 of Schedule 12A, it is considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. (The requisite notices having been given under regulation 5 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012.)

(Note: Exempt papers are printed on pink paper).

Resolved:  That the public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting as otherwise there was a likelihood of disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.  The relevant paragraph of schedule 12A and a description of the exempt information is shown at paragraph 82.10 above (re. debt write-offs - corporate performance - quarter 3 2016/17).  (The requisite notice having been given under regulation 5 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012.)