Bexhill Town Forum Agenda Item: 5

14 March 2006

Issues relating to Bexhill considered by Rother District Council Since Last Forum Meeting

This report has been prepared on the relevant matters that have been considered by the Council, Cabinet and Scrutiny Committees between 2 November 2005 and 6 February 2006.

1. LIVING LANDMARKS LOTTERY FUNDING On 14 November 2005, Cabinet were advised that the National Lottery had launched a new initiative called the “Living Landmarks” fund, which would provide substantial funding for major projects. The initiative was intended to inspire, transform, revitalise and regenerate communities. Two potential projects had been identified in the Rother area: the Bexhill Seafront Regeneration in line with the Tim Gale Study; and Robertsbridge Mill Creation and Enterprise Centre. These projects would tie in with the funding themes: community learning and creating opportunity; promoting community safety and cohesion; and promoting well being.

It was recommended that £10,000 be made available for each application in order to develop the bid(s), which could entail a community consultation or cost evaluation. It was also recommended that £1m be included in the Capital Programme as match- funding towards a bid. If the Council was successful in obtaining the minimum Lottery Grant of £10m, a minimum of £3.34m match funding would need to be identified from other partners.

Members were aware that an intensive amount of work would be required for submitting one application to maximise the chance of a successful bid. It was agreed that the Robertsbridge Mill Creation and Enterprise Centre would be given priority and assessed against the eligibility criteria. If it was not eligible, assessment would proceed on the Bexhill Seafront project. Council, on 19 December 2005, approved the recommendation.

2. LOCAL ACTION PLAN SUPPORT PROGRAMME Cabinet, on 14 November 2005, considered a report on the Local Action Plan Support Programme which would include Pebsham and Sidley. It was resolved that the Council would act as the lead authority in the management of the Second Homes Council Tax monies allocated in support of the development of the Local Action Plans Support Programme. It was also agreed that Action in rural Sussex and Rother Voluntary Action would be appointed as service providers in respect of the Local Action Plans Support Programme.

3. HERITAGE LOTTERY FUND GRANT – SOCIETY OF BEXHILL MUSEUMS The Council, in partnership with the Society of Bexhill Museums, had made a successful funding application to the Heritage Lottery Fund for an extended museum on a single integrated site at Egerton Park. Cabinet, on 14 November 2005, resolved to accept the Heritage Lottery Fund grant of £931,500 for Stage II work for the Bexhill Museums Renaissance Project and that Selective Tenders be invited for the works. It was noted that, by accepting the grant, the Council was committing itself to expending its own capital resources previously earmarked for this project and significant staff resources to oversee the project.

btf060314 – Issues Arising 1 4. SKATE PARK – SIDLEY RECREATION GROUND The Bexhill BMX Club, who provided a BMX race track at Sidley Recreation Ground, had sought permission to extend the current facility at this location by creating a permanent skate park on the adjoining area – they would be responsible for management and maintenance of this area. The project costs to date totalled £15,000 together with an additional £5,000 for the cost of the concrete base. The Club had managed their existing facility well with minimal negative feedback from local residents and other users of the recreation ground.

Cabinet, on 14 November 2005, supported the application and agreed to issue a licence to the Bexhill BMX Club, for the additional site at Sidley Recreation Ground as identified in the report. The grant application of £5,000 from the Bexhill Community Project Grant was also agreed.

5. EGERTON PARK REGENERATION PROJECT Cabinet, at its meeting on 14 November 2005, was asked to approve £5,000 initial match funding to support an application to the Heritage Lottery Fund for the Public Parks Initiative which would enable the development of Egerton Park. The estimated total project costs of £1.5m would be met by 70% maximum grant funding.

Infrastructure improvements would be needed in Egerton Park in the future and this bid provided an ideal opportunity to secure crucial inward investment to allow for this substantial and important work to be carried out. Should the bid be successful the social and leisure improvements to the quality of people’s lives would be significant. The improvements could also help alleviate other issues such as crime and disorder and anti social behaviour that might increase should the Park fall into disrepair.

6. LEASE OF THE KIOSK Cabinet considered a confidential report at its meeting on 14 November 2005 on the lease arrangements for the Kiosk at West Parade, Bexhill. The kiosk was used for the sale or hire of beach goods and for the sale of non-alcoholic drinks and ice- cream. It was agreed that the revised rent, as negotiated with the lessees, be approved.

7. SIDLEY SURGERY, TURKEY ROAD, PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT Cabinet had previously supported in principle the redevelopment of Sidley Surgery, Turkey Road, Bexhill but had expressed concern over the extent of the loss of Public Open Space envisaged by the original plans. Outline planning approval had now been granted and no objections had been received. Although consideration had previously been given to the disposal of the land by way of a long-term lease, this had subsequently been ruled out. A price had been agreed with the developer, following protracted negotiations, subject to approval by Cabinet. However, some Members remained concerned over the loss of this public open space and were not willing to approve the disposal of the land by way of sale.

On 14 November 2005, Cabinet agreed that no further action be taken by way of sale to dispose of the land forming part of the Sidley House Public Open Space for the purposes of enlarging the Doctor’s Surgery. This decision was ‘called in’ by the Resources Overview and Scrutiny Committee and was considered at their meeting on 28 November 2005. The call in had been initiated as ‘the potential and avoidable ‘miss’ of a significant capital receipt and by not going ahead with the enlargement of the surgery, would be detrimental to the best interests of the residents of Sidley’.

The Committee considered what action, if any, should be taken. It was noted that the loss of public open space was 847 square metres at this site. If this surgery were to be built on any other Council owned site, the loss of public open space, allotments or btf060314 – Issues Arising 2 other public area would be a minimum of 2,200 square metres. The developer had now indicated that he was prepared to accept a 125-year lease at a peppercorn rent.

It was resolved that Cabinet be asked to reconsider their decision taken on 14 November as the developer was now prepared to accept a long-term lease rather than a freehold interest in the site, there was clear need for the additional facility and no objections had been received in response to the public notice.

On 5 December 2005, Cabinet again considered the issue. It was resolved that the land forming part of the Sidley House Public Open Space be offered on a 125 year lease for the purposes of enlarging the Doctors’ Surgery site on terms and conditions as the Chief Executive considers appropriate.

8. LAND BETWEEN NOS. 31/33 COOPER DRIVE, BEXHILL In 1998 the Council undertook a Large Scale Voluntary Transfer (LSVT) of its housing stock to Rother Homes. The agreement stated that the Council was entitled to receive 50% of the proceeds from any outright sale of land or buildings that were transferred to them. Rother Homes had asked the Council if it might keep the capital receipt from the sale of the land between the properties of 31/33 Cooper Drive. This would enable them to undertake improvements to their existing housing stock.

Cabinet resolved, on 14 November 2005, that the 50% capital receipt from the sale of the land between 31/33 Cooper Drive, Bexhill be passed to Rother District Council and used towards the provision of affordable housing.

9. AREA COMMITTEES The Resources Overview and Scrutiny Committee, on 28 November 2005, considered a report on Area Committees. The Committee had previously received presentations form Eastleigh Borough Council and the Area Committee Working Group.

This presentation consisted of a report back to the Committee on their recent visit to Cambridge City Council where the Working Group had attended both a meeting of an Area Committee and a meeting with Members of the Area Committee to find out more about Area Committees and how they functioned at Cambridge City Council. A decision on Area Committees had been deferred until this meeting to enable Parish and Town Councils and the Bexhill Town Forum time to report back to their respective authorities on the outcome of the investigations to date and receive further comments.

A list of Council functions that could be devolved to Parish and Town Councils was submitted and it was noted that this should have included ‘parking places’. As the delegations of functions to Parish and Town Council’s were linked to Area Committees they therefore needed to be considered alongside them. The Committee then undertook a SWOT Analysis of Area Committees and considered the capital, revenue and service implications of the devolvement of Council functions. A number of factors would need to be considered further in relation to the devolvement of a District Council function including skills and abilities, economies of scale and effectiveness, value for money and contractual considerations. A further report would be brought to the Committee’s March 2006 meeting.

10. BEXHILL COMMUNITY HELP POINT – ONE YEAR OF SERVICE On 28 November 2005, the Resources Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered a report on the Bexhill Community Help Point’s first year of service. An Access to East Sussex Public Information Point had recently been installed which provided a wide range of services including access to the Partnerships websites, and the ability to top up mobile phones and print digital photographs. btf060314 – Issues Arising 3 The information technology available at the Help Point provided detailed support and information to the officers that allowed for more comprehensive guidance and answers than previously available. Housing Needs and Planning officers were available every day to deal with the more complex and higher level housing enquiries. The number of enquiries that had been received each month had increased and was expected to continue as more residents became aware of the services provided.

Training was seen as key to the delivery of efficient and effective front line services and a full programme of training was now being drawn up to ensure the staff within Customer Services had the necessary abilities, knowledge and skills to perform their duties with increasing efficiency. A Customer Services Strategy was being developed and would set out proposals as to how the service could be extended to the more rural locations throughout the District.

11. MANAGEMENT OF LEISURE FACILITIES Cabinet, on 5 December 2005, considered a confidential report on the management of leisure facilities. In September of this year Council had approved the proposal from Freedom Leisure to take over the management of the Council’s three leisure facilities in Bexhill and Rye. Freedom Leisure is a not-for-profit trust that currently manages leisure centres in neighbouring local authorities and could offer annual revenue savings through the exemption of non-domestic rates (NNDR). The savings were to be shared between Freedom Leisure and the Council and would create the opportunity for additional investment into the centres and sports development across the District.

The original transfer date had not been achieved as negotiations between the current contractor and Freedom Leisure had taken longer to conclude. A revised proposal showing a reduction in the savings to be achieved in the short term had been submitted by Freedom Leisure. As the offer still represented a good opportunity to the Council to secure financial savings, albeit at a lesser degree than had originally been envisaged, the revised proposal was accepted. These proposals were subsequently approved at Council on 19 December 2005.

12. INVESTIGATIVE WORK, MARINA ARCADE AND THE COLONNADE, BEXHILL- ON-SEA On 5 December 2005, Cabinet considered a confidential report on the appointment of consultants to carry out investigative work: the creation of an open space in front of Marina Arcade, Bexhill-on-Sea; and improvements to The Colonnade area, including creating additional space behind the existing façade. SEEDA funding had been secured by the Council through the Area Investment Framework for development work aimed at promoting the evening economy in Bexhill.

A brief had been prepared as detailed site investigations were needed to assess the engineering considerations and prepare preliminary costings. It was recommended that the £55,000 needed be met from the Economic Regeneration Land Banking Fund to be funded by grant from the Hastings & Bexhill Area Investment Framework. Stephen Wilson Partnership would be appointed to undertake investigative work at Marina Arcade, Bexhill-on-Sea, and EAR Sheppard would be appointed to undertake investigative work at The Colonnade, Bexhill-on-Sea. The proposals were subsequently approved at Council on 19 December 2005.

13. PROPOSED 30mph SPEED LIMIT – B2182 COODEN DRIVE, BEXHILL-ON-SEA East Sussex County Council had been consulting on the proposed 30mph speed limit for the B2182, Cooden Drive, Bexhill-on-Sea. Although Cabinet were supportive of the reduction from 40mph to 30mph in principle, there were concerns over enforcement, better use of public money, proposed hatching down the centre of the btf060314 – Issues Arising 4 highway and cycle lanes leading to a narrower highway. Cabinet resolved on 5 December 2005 that the proposed 30pmh speed limit on the B2182 Cooden Drive be supported in principle.

14. THE GRAND HOTEL, BEXHILL-ON-SEA The Grand Hotel was partly demolished in 2003 following a fire and mesh fencing had been provided to the Sea Road and Jameson Road frontages. Although a 2 metre high hoarding to the Sea Road and Jameson Road frontages of the site had been erected, recent inclement weather had caused some of it to collapse. The owner had failed to arrange for reinstatement to be undertaken so a temporary barrier had been put in place by East Sussex County Council Highways Department.

On 5 December 2005, Cabinet resolved to serve a notice on the owners of The Grand in Sea Road, Bexhill, requiring the erection of a secure fence to the curtilage of property. If this were not done, the Council would arrange for the works to be undertaken on a rechargeable basis.

15. BEXHILL TOWN CENTRE: A FRAMEWORK FOR REGENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT On 20 December 2005, Cabinet heard that in the autumn of 2004 Sea Space had commissioned a visioning exercise for Bexhill town centre, led by economic consultants Locum and architects Ahrends, Burton and Koralek (ABK). This had resulted in the preparation of a Bexhill Town Centre Study setting out the principles upon which future investment could be based. Although the study had never been formally endorsed by the Council, many of its underlying principles were still valid and could be drawn upon, alongside other considerations, in developing future regeneration proposals.

In order to provide a framework for future investment a document had been drafted which consolidated elements of the Town Centre Study together with other relevant strategic documents such as the draft MBM Masterplan for Hastings & Bexhill, the Bexhill Seafront Study prepared by Tim Gale Associates, and the Hastings & Bexhill Seafront Strategy ‘Leading From the Front’.

Although the draft Framework summarised the actions that were already being led by the authority, the Council would have to demonstrate its long-term commitment to a clear strategic approach in order to attract funding. Cabinet approved the document, ‘Bexhill Town Centre: A Framework For Regeneration and Development’, and officers were authorised to pursue the development of an Implementation Plan in conjunction with other partners.

16. BEXHILL HIGH SCHOOL – NEW LEISURE FACILITY On 20 December 2005, Cabinet considered a report on the development of a new leisure facility at Bexhill High School. Cabinet had previously confirmed the partnership funding of £500,000 towards the new leisure facility subject to phases 2 and 3 being completed within 3 years of commencement of the project. The grant was now needed to fund Phase 1 of the project which was due to start in January 2006. A review of facilities had gone some way towards meeting this Council’s request for additional information but it did not meet the criteria of a comprehensive impact analysis as previously requested by Cabinet.

For the project to proceed this Council had to commit to £500,000 offered previously to match the £500,000 from the High School and £360,000 jointly from the Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) and the Sussex LTA. The Cabinet gave careful and detailed consideration to the request but were unable to support the release of funds for a number of reasons including: repayment guarantee; uncertainty of other funding btf060314 – Issues Arising 5 streams; no identified project manager; absence of robust revised business plan; and lack of clarity over future ownership of the site. Due to the lack of evidence and therefore confidence in this project, Cabinet were unable to support the request. It was resolved that no further action be taken.

Cabinet’s decision was called in by the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 11 January 2006 as “Cabinet made their decision based on insufficient information. It would be in the best interests of the residents of the District to ensure that additional supporting information is provided by Bexhill High School and considered by Members before the final decision is made to either support or not support the project”. Additional supporting papers had been supplied by Bexhill High School and were circulated to Members at the meeting.

The Committee considered the 11 reasons that had influenced Cabinet to decide not to release the funds for the project. It was confirmed that, should the Council support the release of funds for the project, Phase 1 was ready to commence. In addition, if Phase 2 were not completed within three years, £250k would be returned to the Council. Should it be successful, a financial return to each investor had been factored in to the project’s Business Plan and included an anonymous private investor that had pledged £200k. Although Governors at the school were confident that any financial burden placed on the school as a consequence of the project would be bearable, Members expressed concern about the possible implications for the education of the students. The Committee remained concerned that in the continuing absence of a full and detailed impact analysis, this remained uncertain and of great concern.

Members were advised that whilst the school would be financially responsible for ensuring that Phase 1 was completed, should a contract be entered into, the risk, financial responsibility and maintenance associated with Phase 2 would rest solely with the private finance company that had expressed an interest in operating the centre once completed. However, this company would not enter into a contract until Phase 1 of the project had commenced.

The Committee generally agreed that this was a worthy project but had reservations as it was no longer supported by ESCC or Sport England. Whilst additional information had been forthcoming at the meeting in relation to all of the issues identified by Cabinet, the Committee still had a number of reservations in relation to the financial viability of the project and the potential impact on other leisure facilities within the area. The Committee was also mindful of the Council’s financial position and the current underfunding of the Capital Programme in considering the matter. As such, the Committee concurred with the decision of Cabinet and resolved to take no further action.

17. BEXHILL RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY On 20 December 2005, Cabinet considered a confidential report on the Bexhill Rail Corridor Study. The Council had commissioned a study with consultants into the development of the ‘Rail Corridor’. This Study had assessed the likely future growth in demand for retail and office accommodation in Bexhill Town Centre up to 2016. It had also provided options as to how the ‘Rail Corridor’ site could be developed in the future in order to meet demand.

Cabinet resolved that the Director of Services, in consultation with the relevant portfolio holder forward the Study to the Hastings and Bexhill Task Force in connection with future strategy development and funding. It was also agreed that officers approach SEEDA, J Sainsbury, British Land, Network Rail and East Sussex County Council to establish a stakeholder group. An initial valuation and appraisal exercise for the area would be undertaken and would be funded from the AIF programme. The preparation of a Development Brief for the area would also be included within the forthcoming review of the Local Development Scheme. btf060314 – Issues Arising 6 18. COMMUNITY PROJECTS GRANTS – CRITERIA The Council currently provided two community project grant schemes for rural Rother (£10,000) and Bexhill (£15,000), which were very successful in assisting organisations to bring various projects to fruition. Cabinet, on 16 January 2006, considered reviewing the method of reporting, evaluating and approving criteria for these grants be reviewed and changed to better reflect the nature and objectives of the Council and to ensure that the most relevant and deserving projects received funding. Although the qualifying criteria were based on a points system it was agreed that, to ensure optimum use of the Council’s resources, the criteria pertaining to the Council’s aims must be met as well as demonstrating value for money.

19. PUBLIC CONVENIENCES On 23 January 2006, the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered a report on public conveniences in the District. The Public Conveniences Working Group had been reviewing the existing provision of public conveniences and the options available to the Council for future management and provision. Parish and Town Councils were contacted to ascertain their views on managing the service themselves and an in-depth analysis of the contract specification had also been undertaken by the Group.

With Gershon efficiency savings in mind, Members had considered the options available and had recommended options for each facility in the District. The Council would make a financial contribution, subject to negotiation, to a Parish or Town Council (or another organisation) wishing to take on the responsibility for a facility. Members were keen to ensure that organisations such as the Hastings and Rother Disability Forum were consulted on issues such as the future of public conveniences.

The Committee resolved to support the Working Group’s recommendations and to ask officers to report back on the actions taken to the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee at a future meeting. It was also agreed that Cabinet would be asked reopen the Channel View East public conveniences and identify money to finance them. Cabinet, on 20 February 2006, agreed to reopen the Channel View East public conveniences.

20. ALLOTMENTS – REPRESENTATION OF ALLOTMENT ASSOCIATIONS On 23 January 2006, the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee welcomed Mr Dick Lancaster, Chairman of the Bexhill Gardens and Allotments Association, to the meeting. Allotment holders were aggrieved at the proposed increase in allotment fees (the largest plots would be increased from £27.50 to £40 per annum and would continue to include water charges). It was noted that, although the allotment holders had previously been consulted on the bi-annual rent reviews, this consultation had not taken place this time. Although the percentage increase in the charges did appear high, the overall cost for the largest of the plots had risen from just 53p to 77p per week. Although the allotments in Rother raised £4,640 in rent, they cost the Council £42,000 to maintain. The comments of both the Bexhill and Rye Allotment representatives were noted.

21. PROMENADES, BEXHILL – BYELAWS RE. SKATEBOARDING, CYCLING AND OTHER MATTERS On 6 February 2006, Cabinet considered the introduction of new byelaws relating to skateboarding, cycling and other activities on the Bexhill Promenades. It was agreed that consideration of the proposed new byelaws be deferred and the matter referred to the Seafront Strategy Working Group. btf060314 – Issues Arising 7 22. SIDLEY GOODS YARD – SITE APPRAISAL Cabinet, on 6 February 2006, considered a confidential report on the Sidley Goods Yard site which had been identified through the Regeneration Sites Working Group as having priority for further action towards securing redevelopment. Area Investment Framework (AIF) funding had been secured to further assess the site’s redevelopment potential and Cabinet resolved to appoint EAR Sheppard & Partners to undertake the work. It was agreed that the consultants report could advise Members to consider the use of the site as potential depot facilities for the new Waste Management Services Contract.

Trevor Elliott District Secretary

btf060314 – Issues Arising 8