Agenda and draft minutes

Members and officers must declare any disclosable pecuniary interests in relation to any business on the agenda.  Declarations should also be made at any stage such an interest becomes apparent during the meeting. 

If in doubt contact the Legal or Democratic Services representative for this meeting.

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve the minutes of the Joint Strategic Committee meeting held on 10 December 2024, copies of which have previously been circulated.

Resolved that the minutes from the Joint Strategic Committee meeting held on 10 December 2024

To receive any questions from members of the public.

Questions should be submitted by noon on Thursday 9 January 2025 to  Democratic Services, democratic.services@adur-worthing.gov.uk   

(Note: Public Question Time will operate for a maximum of 30 minutes.)

A member of the public asked a question about devolution, how the public would be informed about the process  and what measures would be taken concerning consultation

The Leaders responded that there was an intention to protect local identities in the devolution and that when more information came from Central Government consultation would be a key part of the process moving forward

A member of the public asked why the public were not involved in the decision to apply for the priority programme, it was commented that consultation should be valid, detailed and inclusive.

The Leaders responded that the decision to apply for the priority programme was for the Upper Tier authorities to make and Boroughs and Districts did not have a voice in this. It was believed that the Districts and Boroughs would have a much bigger voice in the following stages.

A member of the public commented about the request made by upper tier authorities to suspend elections for 2026 and commented that the process was being carried out with haste. There were a lot of unknowns including what voting systems would look like.

The Leaders responded that there was an assessment of the requirements of the changes needed. In relation to the suspension of County elections this was a question for West Sussex County Council.

Pre-submitted Members questions are pursuant to rule 12 of the Council & Committee Procedure Rules.

Questions should be submitted by noon on Thursday 9 January 2025 to  Democratic Services, democratic.services@adur-worthing.gov.uk    

(Note: Member Question Time will operate for a maximum of 30 minutes.)

A Member asked the following question

What were the reasons for the council to enter a joint venture agreement rather than a sale agreement with Roffey in 2023?

Response:

The structure of the proposed Joint Venture would create a 50/50 risk liability, equity stake and profit share for the partnership.

The intent of the Joint Venture had been to deliver capital receipts for the Council and for Roffey, that could (in the case of the receipts to the Council) be utilised to support the delivery and maintenance of new infrastructure.

A Member asked the following question

The report on Union Place is bereft of details of the potential financial position of the council if this proposal is approved today and the transaction comes to completion. Unlike the similar stage report for the abandonment of the Council's influence in delivering Teville Gate; it does not indicate if the Council will be able to recover in full the funds it has invested in this site since 2019.

It is public record that the Council spent £3.676m to acquire this site,  £3.5m of which came from the Local Growth Fund. We also know that the council committed circa £540,000 to the many studies that have been produced and a further £150,000 on legal fees. In assembling this site it also spent £6 million on acquiring ownership of the adjoining NCP car park site. This report also outlines that the council will need to spend a further £542,000 to acquire ownership of one further piece of land from LCR. Additionally the whole site also comes with a number of other known risks, which if engaged, the financial burden of them will be borne by the council.

So simply for the public record can the cabinet member please advise the residents of Worthing, given the costs incurred so far, and the costs that have to still be met; will the council see a direct financial return from this recommendation for all its work and officer energy in bringing this site forward.

Response

The shift from a JV approach to a land sale is a strategic decision that reflects not just the financial position of the Council, which has changed over time due to the stark reality of local government finances, but also this council’s commitment to manage the risks of major projects responsibly.

A JV would require significant and continued resource commitments from the Council at a time when financial pressures mean we are facing hard and difficult choices of prioritisation.  Given the financial position of the council and its internal capacity, our risk appetite has had to change.

This pivot allows us to unlock the potential of the site without exposing the Council to unsustainable financial risks.

The redevelopment of Union Place has been complex and has taken considerable energy, time and cost to prepare.

The unlocking of this site is only possible because of the Local Growth Fund and efforts across the council to assemble and transform it from a derelict site  ...  view the full minutes text for item JSC/66/23-24

To consider any items the Chairman of the meeting considers to be urgent.

There were no urgent items

To consider a report by the Assistant Director for Place and Economy, copy attached as item 7

Before the Committee was a report by the Assistant Director for Place and Economy, copies of which had been circulated to all Members and a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of these minutes as Item 6.

This report provided the Committee with an overview of the benefits Adur and Worthing have gained from the Councils’ membership of the Greater Brighton Economic Board, this included:

·        securing funding through the Local Growth Fund;

·        advocating for local infrastructure issues at regional and national level;

·        promoting economic development as part of the Greater Brighton region.

To further strengthen the Board’s position as a voice for economic development across the Greater Brighton region (advocating at local, regional, national and international level) the report also sought approval from the Joint Strategic Committee that NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board (ICB) were confirmed as members of the Greater Brighton Economic Board

Decision:

1.     That  the contents of the report and the ongoing benefits gained from Membership of the Greater Brighton Economic Board be noted

2.     The proposed additional member of the Greater Brighton Economic Board be authorised, being NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board (ICB);

3.     The required consequential amendments to the Greater Brighton Economic Board’s Head of Terms (Attachment A) be acknowledged and approved relating to NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board (ICB) becoming a member

4.     The Monitoring Officer be authorised to make any consequential amendments to the Constitutions to reflect the new membership and changes to the Heads of Terms after they have been formally approved by all the constituent authorities.

5.     That it be noted that changes to the membership and Heads of Terms are dependent on the decision of all the local authorities represented on the Joint Committee agreeing that the new member be appointed.

Call In: The call-in deadline for decisions will be 5.00pm on 24 January 2025

To consider a report by the Assistant Director for Regenerative Development copy attached as item 7

Before the Committee was a report by the Assistant Director for Regenerative Development, copies of which had been circulated to all Members and a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of these minutes as Item 7.

The report outlined the progress made with the Union Place project and the next steps needed to enable commencement of delivery of the construction programme. The report set out the background to the proposed transition from a Joint Venture agreement to a Sale Agreement for Union Place, parcels A,B,C (Appendix 1) with Roffey Homes Ltd. 

Approval from members was being sought to enter into a Sale Agreement with Roffey Homes Ltd, to enable the development of Union Place to proceed. The Council intended to acquire Parcel C from London & Continental Railways Ltd and thereafter to sell through a land transfer (Parcels A, B and C as detailed in Appendix 1) to Roffey Homes Ltd to enable construction and redevelopment of the Union Place site.

Members were updated on Homes England’s agreement to provide development funding to Roffey Homes to enable the construction and redevelopment of the Union Place site. The proposed sale agreement to Roffey would facilitate the development in accordance with existing planning permission.

During discussion of the item the Committee went into an exempt session and re-opened the meeting to make its decisions. It passed the following resolution to move into exempt session 'that under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting from the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the paragraph of Part 3 of Schedule 12 A to the Act indicated against the item'

Decision:

1.     That the following be noted

a)     the draft commercial Heads of Terms for the proposed land transactions between the Council and Roffey Homes Ltd (Roffey) (in exempt Appendix 1);

b)     the reasoning for why a Sale Agreement (SA) is the appropriate option for the Council and Roffey, rather than a Joint Venture Agreement between those parties for proposed development of Union Place (as set out in Paragraph 4 below);

c)     The further advice and comments in exempt Appendix 3;

d)     The SA is proposed to be conditional on:

                           I.          Development funding being agreed with Roffey to enable delivery of the construction and redevelopment of the Union Place site;

                         II.          the Council has complied as appropriate with its obligations in respect of procurement and subsidy control; and

                        III.          commercial advice that the Council has complied with its obligations under Section 123 Local Government Act 1972 (Best Consideration).

2.     That authority be delegated to the Assistant Director for Regenerative Development in consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Regeneration to:

a)     Negotiate, finalise and agree the commercial heads of terms for the proposed Sale Agreement and transfers of the Council’s land at Union Place to Roffey in the Phases set out  ...  view the full minutes text for item JSC/69/23-24

In the opinion of the Proper Officer the press and public should be excluded from the meeting for consideration of the following items. Therefore the meeting is asked to consider passing the following resolution:

'that under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting from the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the paragraph of Part 3 of Schedule 12 A to the Act indicated against the item'.

Exempt appendix to item 7