HASTINGS BOROUGH COUNCIL AND ROTHER DISTRICT COUNCIL

JOINT MEMBERS’ MEETING

23 March 2007

At the Hastings Borough Council and Rother District Council Joint Members’ meeting held on 23 March 2007 in the Town Hall, Bexhill, there were present:

Rother District Council

Cllr Graham Gubby (Chairman), Cllr Mrs. Joy Hughes, Cllr Ian Jenkins, Derek Stevens, Joy Cooper, Tony Leonard, Frank Rallings and Rosemary Cruttenden.

Hastings Borough Council

Cllr Matthew Beaver, Cllr Jeremy Birch, Cllr Peter Chowney, Cllr Peter Finch, Cllr Peter Pragnell, Cllr Paul Smith, Roy Mawford, Richard Homewood, Simon Hubbard, Mike Marsh and Stephanie Smith (in place of Tim Cookson).

126.APOLOGIES

Apologies for absence were received from Rother Councillors Charles Clark, Brian Kentfield, Robin Patten, Robert White and Mrs Deirdre Williams, Hastings Councillor John Wilson and officer Neil Dart.

127.MINUTES

The minutes from the Joint Members’ meeting held on 20 October 2006 were approved as a true record, with the minute numbers amended to be continuous.

128.DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor
/ Minute / Interest
Councillor Gubby / 4) Matters relating to ESCC / Personal – is a CountyCouncillor
Councillor Birch / 4) Matters relating to ESCC / Personal – is a CountyCouncillor
Councillor Birch / 4) Future of Hospital Services / Personal – is a non-executive director of the Hastings and Rother Primary Care Trust

129.MATTERS ARISING FROM THE LAST MEETING

i) Future of Hospital Services

Roy Mawford reported that the respective Boards of the East Sussex Downs and Weald and the Hastings and Rother Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) had agreed four options to improve healthcare services, which would go out to public consultation. It was anticipated that this would commence on 26 March and run until early July. As well as the four options put forward for discussion, the PCTs were also inviting suggestions for alternative arrangements to be submitted for consideration. Once the proposals had been made public, a joint seminar would be arranged for Members in early June. The PCTs had arranged a programme of public meetings; three prior to the elections in May (including one in Hastings on 27 March), following which there would be a pause until after the elections, when a further nine meetings would be held throughout the district.

Concern was expressed that the nearest public meeting for residents in rural Rother was in Rye and this should be brought to the attention of the PCTs.

RESOLVED:That:

1) a Joint seminar be arranged for Members in early June to consider a response to the options put forward for public consultation by the Primary Care Trusts; and

2)Rother District Council writes to the Primary Care Trusts to highlight that the only one public meeting had been arranged for the whole of rural Rother, in Rye.

ii) Travellers and Gypsies

Cllr Finch reported that a forum meeting had taken place the previous day between representatives of the travelling community, ESCC and Councillors and officers from Hastings and Rother Councils. The travellers had been coherent in the actions they wished to see put in place but Members and officers were concerned that these should be balanced against the interests of the general public. It was felt that a pre-meeting between ESCC and the travelling community would have enabled the forum to have been more productive as it was imperative that the final solution was best for all concerned. Cllr Jenkins suggested that a representative from the PCT should attend the next meeting as there were issues with members of the travelling community being able to access health services, such as local GPs.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

iii) Regional Economic Strategy

It was confirmed that following the last Joint Member meeting a letter had been sent to SEEDA expressing concern at its future emphasis on ‘diamonds for growth’ to the likely detriment of ‘hubs’ such as that of Hastings and Bexhill. As a consequence, representatives from Hastings had been invited to attend the next meeting. Cllr Gubby added that he had raised the issue at the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) and was concerned that the LDF processes and the East Sussex AIF (with the associated funding), could be compromised should SEEDA, following its review of partnership structures, create a hierarchy which disadvantaged Hastings and Bexhill.

It was agreed that the strong economic identity of Hastings and Bexhill through partnership working should be emphasised whenever possible and that the Executive Director of Strategy & Sustainability at SEEDA, Paul Lovejoy,be asked for an assurance on the future position.

RESOLVED: That a letter be sent to Paul Lovejoy seeking an assurance that the Hastings and Bexhill ‘hub’ would not be marginalised in favour of the ‘diamonds for growth’.

iv) Waste in Schools

Tony Leonard reported that there had been no movement on this issue as ESCC continued to maintain that waste collected from schools was commercial waste, for which charges were made. The issue was difficult for officers to progress as it came down to the interpretation of the legislation, but the matter would be raised again at a forthcoming waste seminar in Hastings where ESCC officers would be in attendance. It was suggested that the local Youth MP be advised of the situation, having been involved with the schools’ campaign. Members were advised that if the waste was re-classed as domestic waste, there would be an associated cost in that the Councils would be obliged to collect it.

RESOLVED: That a letter be sent to the Hastings & Rother Youth MP, Luke Springthorpe, explaining the current position.

130.TASK FORCE UPDATE

Simon Hubbard gave a verbal update on the developments of the Task Force. A planning application had been submitted for the development of the Hastings Town Centre ‘Priory Quarter’ plan, which it was anticipated would include new high quality offices, a multi-screen cinema, public squares and additional premises for the UCH. Planning approval had also been given for the Hastings and RotherNewCollege to be operational from September 2009, with a second, vocational site in OreValley. The increase in student numbers would have a large impact on the area as a whole as well as on Hastings town centre. The new Hastings Marina Pavilion was due to open in May this year, and the Hastings Innovation Centre now had an 80% occupancy of units. Arrangements for the development of a business park at Queensway South were not yet complete and the Task Force would need to consider whether to look to a more commercial use of this area. In preparation of the settlement at the end of the current spending round, the Task Force would need to clarify its priorities on development projects.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

131.HASTINGS TO BEXHILL LINK ROAD

Members received a report, introduced by Simon Hubbard, providing an update on the progress towards the construction of the link road. ESCC had carried out or was completing a number of key studies required to underpin the case for the road, and had established that the benefits of the scheme outweighed the costs by a ratio of 4 to 1. The key factors for successfully arguing for the road were:

  • Regeneration – the impact it would have upon Bexhill, Hastings and a wider area.
  • Environmental – an assessment of the scheme had found that the additional steps taken to ameliorate the impact of the road had resulted in there being a neutral impact on the environment. Recent guidance under Planning Policy PPG17 directed Authorities to assess a community’s needs for recreational space, level of provision and deficiencies, which in the link road scheme would be further enhanced with the development of the Pebsham Countryside Park.
  • Housing – the road would open up the northern areas of both Hastings and Bexhill which would ease congestion, improve access to employment opportunities and allow for housing growth as required within the SE Plan.

It was anticipated that ESCC would be submitting the planning application in Spring 2007, following which there would almost certainly be a public Inquiry at which the benefits of the road would have to be clearly demonstrated. Some concern was raised that little thought had been given by ESCC to a contingency plan, should the Government fail to deliver the promised funding. As well as the loss of opportunities, as detailed, there would be added pressure to release alternative sites outside of the main towns of Hastings and Bexhill for housing development. These were issues which the RDA and the three Councils would need to discuss further.

Members agreed that it was important to win the decision and that John Shaw (Task Force) should be advised to include all available regeneration and environmental arguments in the case for supporting the road, to ensure that the evidence is as compelling as possible.

RESOLVED: That John Shaw be advised of the environmental issues and assessment results for inclusion in the case to support the link road.

132.PEBSHAMCOUNTRYSIDEPARK

Frank Rallings outlined the report to Members and explained that the Pebsham Countryside Park Steering Group had considered and approved a Development Strategy and Business Plan for submission to the relevant Cabinets of ESCC, RotherDC and HastingsBC for ratification. Public consultation had shown support for the Park and both Hastings and Rother Councils’ adopted Local Plans had the area allocated as a CountrysidePark and strategic gap. This would be tested at the link road planning application stage and with any ensuing Inquiry. The areas of Pebsham and Bulverhythe presently failed when tested against PPG17 (see minute 131) in terms of the community’s need to access open space which had a recreational value. At its meeting on 19 March, Rother’s Cabinet had confirmed its commitment to developing the Park and had approved the use of the Development Strategy and Business Plan as the most appropriate way of taking the PebshamCountrysidePark project forward.

However, Mike Marsh responded that, although the idea of the Park was supported in principle by HastingsBC, concerns had been expressed at the financial projections within the Business Plan and therefore it had not been submitted to the Council’s Cabinet for ratification. As the major land owner, HastingsBC was still considering its position and there were financial issues to be resolved, particularly in respect of Upper Wilting, before the project could be taken any further. Rother Members expressed their real concern at a suggested ‘pause’, particularly as the Park supported the case for the link road and no delay could be afforded in this respect.

After some discussion Members agreed that the two Councils should promote their shared aspirations for the Park and a strategic gap, as stated within the respective adopted Local Plans. The LDF process was important and should be reflected in the supporting case for the link road, which should show the two Councils’ commitment to the scheme. It would be for officers to meet and resolve issues surrounding Upper Wilting and elements within the Business Plan which might need further consideration, but that this should not delay the process moving forward.

RESOLVED: That officers from HastingsBC and RotherDC should meet without delay to resolve the issues concerning PebshamCountrysidePark to enable the Business Plan and Development Strategy to be ratified by HastingsBC.

133.LDF CORE STRATEGIES JOINT WORKING ARRANGEMENTS

Frank Rallings advised Members that on 19 March Rother’s Cabinet had approved for submission to the Secretary of State the Council’s Local Development Scheme for the delivery of the LDF. This had brought into line the timetables (as agreed with GOSE) for the programmes of both Authorities, and would allow for joint working. It would be important for ESCC to have a clear view of the timetable and aspirations of this area of the county, especially as it also encompassed a major programme of work through the LSP with Parish and Town Councils to produce Local Action Plans (LAPs), reflecting engagement with the local communities on development in their area.

In order to progress the respective LDF Core Strategies and carry forward the spatial elements of the two Councils’ Community Plans, Members were advised that a more specific liaison arrangement was needed between the two Authorities. It was suggested that:

  • meetings be on a quarterly basis
  • progress notes or minutes be produced for all Members
  • a standing item be placed on this agenda to enable regular reporting back

Decision making would still rest with each Council and be subject to its own scrutiny procedures. Members considered the two options put before them in the report and resolved to proceed with option B:

Key Member Liaison: This would involve a number of “key” Members from each Authority. It would most logically be the Cabinet portfolio holders for the most significant areas of common policy interest. This would include regeneration, housing, environment and possibly social/cultural services. It could involve the lead Member concerned with community engagement. It may be formed as a sub-group of the Joint Members Meeting. To be effective, it would likely involve no more than 8-10 Members.

Members agreed that the Steering Group should be cross-party as it would be grossly inappropriate to politicise it. Cllr Gubby added that the Parish and Town Councils in Rother which had produced or were working to produce Local Action Plans met through a Network Meeting and a standing item on the agenda was the LDF, so it would be appropriate to consult with this Network. Certainly Parishes on the rural fringe, such as Crowhurst, should also be involved in the Steering Group.

RESOLVED: That a report be presented to the respective Cabinets to:

1)approve the creation of a Key Member Liaison Steering Group to work jointly to progress the LDF Core Strategies; and

2)appoint Members to the Steering Group as an approved duty.

134.EAST SUSSEX JOINT IMPROVEMENT PLAN (JIP)

Joy Cooper gave a verbal update on the progress with joint working. For Hastings and Rother, shared fraud services relating to Revenues and Benefits was potentially a quick-win, in that resources could be shared quite easily and a business case for progressing this was now being put together. On a wider scale, the Pan-Sussex Partnership was looking to deliver a joint Revenues and Benefits service across the five Authorities, it would be a ‘first’ nationally. One clear advantage would be the issue of resilience within the service as it took 18 months to train up an assessor. Presently consideration was being given to alternative models for service delivery, including where that service would be delivered from, to see where joint working could be implemented. Even if certain areas were found to be difficult to progress, the exercise of business process mapping meant that each Authority would be able to use that information to improve its own services.

Cllr Gubby added that he was the East Sussex representative on the Pan-Sussex Partnership and also the representative for the whole of Sussex on the Executive Board and had contributed to a recent national conference in London for a strategy for the regions to share services. There was presently £450k available for joint improvement, although one issue which had emerged was that there could be tensions at a local level if procurement moved to a bigger scale. At county level there were already links between ESCC and Brighton & Hove City Council and the Pan-Sussex partnership there was preparing a robust business plan to support bids for funding.

Cllr Birch suggested that Hastings and Rother Councils could consider whether there were other services – both discreet and statutory - where joint working could result in both financial benefits and added resilience. Such areas could include Environmental Health checks and sharing equipment; accommodation and I.T. systems. Work was already in hand to progress joint working on Emergency Planning and Election Services. It was agreed to place this item on the next agenda.

RESOLVED: That an item be placed on the agenda for the next meeting.

135.ANY OTHER BUSINESS

i) GOVERNMENT OFFICE FOR THE SOUTH EAST (GOSE)

Cllr Gubby highlighted that Hastings and Rother had always had a good partnership arrangement with GOSE, particularly through the LSPs. However, GOSE had indicated that it would be reducing its support in this respect and focussing time and attention on upper tier Authorities. He urged the Chief Executives of Rother and Hastings to speak out on this to try and maintain the valuable links that had been established.