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 made

To approve the minutes of the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 3rd of December 2024, copies of which have been previously circulated.

The minutes of the meeting of the 03.12.2024 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman 

So as to provide the best opportunity for the Committee to provide the public with the fullest answer, questions from the public should be submitted by 12.00 noon on Thursday 23rd of January.

Where relevant notice of a question has not been given, the person presiding may either choose to give a response at the meeting or respond by undertaking to provide a written response within three working days.

Questions should be submitted to Democratic Services democratic.services@adur-worthing.gov.uk

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

There were no questions from the public

Councillors who are not members of this committee can ask questions under CPR 12  Questions should be relevant to the committee where the question is being asked and also relevant to an item on the agenda. Please contact Democratic Services for more information

Members question time is 30 minutes and questions should be submitted no later than 12.00 noon on Thursday 23rd of January 2024.

Questions should be submitted to Democratic Services democratic.services@adur-worthing.gov.uk

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

A Member asked, “In the course of the investigation and work to remedy and re-open the pier, has the actual cause of the damage been ascertained?”

The Member was informed that cracks were found in the piles hidden beneath the lower bull rail and tie clamps on both piles either side of the collapsed pile and was likely to have been the same on the collapsed pile. This pile bent and a single pile to the eastern side on the pile bent to the north were all of similar construction, not standard to the rest of the pier and likely replaced in the 1940’s in repair to the section removed in the war. 

When checked, post temporary structure installation, the single pile to the north east had been previously replaced with a steel pile, compared to the remaining pile bent of cast iron piles where the damage occurred. It is possible that this cracking was found previously and the pile replaced, but no records had been found relating to this work and had not been carried out in the last 40+ years. 

Based on the information at hand it was likely that the failed pile collapsed after being struck by flotsam or jetsams at high tide and that the collapse occurred due to the weakness in the pile from the cracking. The bottom of the pile where the crack was likely to have been was pushed full diameter off itself due to the impact. 

A Member asked “The HOPs report of 2019 identified that there is no national standard for the inspection of piers (such as the Worthing pier structure) the inspection they carried out is referred to as a “Principal Inspection” (PI) and was broadly carried out in accordance with the BD61/17 ‘Highways Structures: Inspection and Maintenance – Design Manual for Roads and Bridges’, which when reading BD61/17, includes the piers supporting bridges. In the report at 7.4.3 HOP's as the commissioned specialists recommended that and I quote: It is recommended that a Principal Inspection should be carried out once every 5 years and this should include as a minimum: a) A close-up visual inspection of members both at beach and high level, undertaken over a 5 to 10 day period; and b) Selected intrusive investigation and assessment to compliment and update the work already undertaken. Was that recommendation accepted by the Council and was the 5 year inspection conducted as recommended?”

The Member was informed the recommendation was seen to be as an overly high standard of inspection for a structure which was visually inspected close up at three monthly intervals and additionally when decking replacements occurred. No Principal Inspection had been carried out since the 2019 report.

A Member asked, “In correspondence between councillors and officers, officers have communicated that the HOPs recommendation for a '5-year inspection' is seen as and I quote: ' the gold standard'. Yet reading the HOPs report and BD61/17, I can find no mention of a gold standard, simply recommendations as to  ...  view the full minutes text for item JOSC/44/24-25

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

There were no urgent items

There were no call-ins

To consider a report by the Assistant Director Place & Economy, copy attached as item 8

The Committee had a report before it attached as item 8, which had been circulated to all Members and is attached to a signed copy of these minutes.

A Member asked, “On page 9. Were there any specific reasons or operational situations that caused the profile spend of 2020/21 to reduce by over 20% and the year on year spend since being increased, in 23/24 quite significantly so?"

Members were informed that the impact of Covid19 with lockdown and the subsequent workforce and supply chain resource issues in 2020 reduced the ability to undertake works on the pier substructure and eventually caused the Term Maintenance Contractor to cease undertaking the Term Maintenance Contract. The increase in costs year on year since 2020/21 was a combination of the remarkable rise in costs of materials and resources since Covid and the size and resource availability of the larger Term Maintenance Contractor compared to the smaller local contractors of previous years.

A Member asked, “On page 11, Paragraph 6.3, states that the Council has begun to explore wider options of how the pier might be funded in the future. The Sussex Bay option sounds a very sensible avenue to pursue. Have conversations about future funding considered how membership schemes can work for the preservation of piers, including groups such as the National Piers Society?"

Members were informed that work over the next 6 to 9 months would include development of a funding strategy. The hope was that the energy and enthusiasm shown for the pier could be harnessed so Worthing residents were involved in plans for how the Council looked at Worthing seafront, including the pier and the lido, and this process would inevitably lead to a long term asset plan. The Council would consider if a membership scheme formed part of a funding plan and we the Cabinet Member for Regeneration had looked at the National Pier Society and thought joining would be a good idea as pier owners, to gain access to a network of other pier owners. 

A Member asked, “Given that the extent of future repair will be reliant on the findings of the piled foundation testing, and that external funding may be needed for maintenance of the pier at a time of real financial challenge for the Council, does the Council foresee the possibility that WBC may not be able to provide any capital spending necessary to cover the costs of ongoing repairs?

Members were informed that developing the funding strategy was the main aim for the first part of the year, but this would need to be supplemented with external funding and the Council would continue to review the capital programme each year for improvements, whilst also reviewing revenue spend for general maintenance but this was of course a challenge within the overall budgets

A Member asked, “The Council has begun to explore wider options for how the pier might be funded in the future, including heritage funds and models of community involvement. The report also  ...  view the full minutes text for item JOSC/47/24-25

To consider a report by the Director for Sustainability and Resources, report to follow.

The Committee had a report before it attached as item 10, which had been circulated to all Members and is attached to a signed copy of these minutes. 

Members asked about the split between Cabinet portfolio and Director responsibility, the timescale of central government’s response to Worthing Borough Council’s request for exceptional financial support, government support for the increase in National Insurance payments and any idea of what the budget setting programme might look like over the next couple of years if the area was accepted into the priority devolution programme.

Members were informed that joint services were not broken down by Cabinet Member portfolio but were taken by internal, officer directorate taken by officers but once those budgets were moved in to Adur and Worthing they went into respective Cabinet Portfolios; that there was no definitive date for a response from central government but there were indications that they would make an announcement to that effect at the end of February; that there was an indication that a contribution would be made towards the rise in NI but no assumption that it would mitigate the entire cost and that there was no way to know at that time, what devolution would mean for financial budget setting.

Members thanked officers for their hard work over a tough and trying year and also discussed the impact of Worthing applying for exceptional funding might have on officer time. Members were assured that most of the regulatory services provided by the Councils sat as a joint service and that the exceptional funding should be seen as a chance for WBC to recalibrate, with no effect on Adur.

Resolved:

The Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered and noted the report.

To consider a report from the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Working Group, copy attached as item 10.

The Committee had a report before it attached as item 9, which had been circulated to all Members and is attached to a signed copy of these minutes.

Resolved: 

The Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee:

• Noted the work undertaken by the JOSC Budget Scrutiny Working Group and supported the recommendations from the Working Group set out in Section 7 of the report to ensure the continued scrutiny of the budget and financial monitoring process.
• Acknowledged the ongoing commitment of the Chief Financial Officer to the Working Group and thanked the officer for their time and attendance at the Working Group meetings enabling Members to have greater confidence over the scrutiny in the budget setting process.

To consider a report by the Director for Sustainability and Resources, copy attached as item 11

The Committee had a report before it attached as item 10, which had been circulated to all Members and is attached to a signed copy of these minutes.

Members asked if the implementation of AI in the workforce had been discussed and were informed that while there hadn’t been much room for it, the new work programme would soon be looked at and the discussion could be a place for that.

Members were also informed about the work the group had done on engagement with Trade Unions, showing the positive relationship between management and the Trade Unions and their involvement.

Resolved

The Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered the report and recommendations from the Overview and Scrutiny Working Group and referred the recommendations to the Joint Strategic Committee as appropriate for consideration.

To consider a report by the Director for Sustainability and Resources, copy attached as item 12

The Committee had a report before it attached as item 10, which had been circulated to all Members and is attached to a signed copy of these minutes.

Members discussed how the Risks and Opportunities report could be made more accessible, user friendly and informative. They recognised that the document was an important one for monitoring governance and mitigating risks.

Resolved

The Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee recommended that the Joint Audit and Governance Committee considered how Risks and Opportunities were published and how Risks and Opportunities relating to Devolution could be included when the Council was clearer on the timelines involved.

To consider a report by the Director for Sustainability and Resources, copy attached as item 13

The Committee had a report before it attached as item 10, which had been circulated to all Members and is attached to a signed copy of these minutes.

Members discussed how over the past year JOSC had sought to involve a broader group of stakeholders with the housing themed meeting a good example of that and that JOSC should endeavour to continue seeking out voices from the community to be involved. Members were reminded that the next JOSC meeting would be discussing Council communications strategy and public engagement and how working groups were a great resource that could be continued to be utilised.

Resolved

The Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered and reviewed the progress with the delivery of its Work  Programme for 2024/25 including the review of the Forward plan of Key decisions.