Agenda item

Members question time under Council Procedure Rule 12

Members question time will last up to 30 minutes, questions will be taken in order of receipt, in rotation from each political group on the Council. The deadline for submission of questions is Tuesday 26 October at 12 noon. Questions to be submitted to democratic.services@adur-worthing.gov.uk

 

Questions received can be asked of the following:

 

a)        The Chairman

b)        A Member of the Executive

c)        The Chairman of any Committee

d)        The Councils representative on any outside body

 

Questions cannot be asked on the following

 

a)        A specific planning or licensing application

b)        A specific staffing appointment, appeal or Standards determination

Minutes:

Question from Councillor Sharon Sluman for the Executive Member for Regeneration

 

Since ADCs major project for carbon offsetting of district heat network didn’t gain its grant funding and this being noted as a major component of Adur’s drive for carbon neutrality through heating of its own buildings as well as those planned for the harbour arm, will the council have to adjust its carbon reduction target or have they identified other carbon reduction projects to replace this or will they considering borrowing for this project, bringing us into line with Worthing Council that has just agreed to support their heat network to the whopping tune of £1.275m loan funding?

 

The Executive Member for Regeneration replied that the Councils' Carbon Neutral Plan, adopted in 2019, set an ambitious target to be carbon neutral for the councils' own estate and fleet by 2030. Part of this target would be met by offsetting and the Plan noted this 'could comprise a variety of measures, including investment in renewables or carbon sequestration from land management'. The creation of a district heat network, whereby developers and other building owners would benefit from the carbon savings (i.e. by reporting fewer emissions from their own buildings), would mean that the carbon savings would accrue off the councils' balance sheet and therefore were not considered as 'offsets'. As such, the councils would be unable to use this as a contribution towards the 2030 target and the principle methods of offsetting remained as investment in renewable electricity generation and through sequestration.

 

The Shoreham Harbour District Heat Network was initially planned specifically to deliver renewable energy to serve the 1,000 + dwellings planned for the Western Harbour Arm.  Whilst there was an aspiration to see if it could be extended to serve Adur Homes properties the main focus was to deliver sustainable development at the Harbour.  Although the loss of grant funding was disappointing, the Council’s policies within the Local Plan and Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) still required an energy hierarchy approach with an emphasis on communal heating systems using renewable energy.  The introduction of Part L of the Building Regulations next June would also require higher standards of insulation and energy efficiency which would be mandatory for all developments.

 

Regarding the loan to deliver the Worthing Heat Network, as explained in this month's JSC papers, this was a Government-backed loan for which Worthing Borough Council was acting as a conduit. The council would 'on-loan' this funding to the eventual concessionaire who would fund, design, build, operate and maintain the heat network in the town centre. As such, there was no additional financial risk to the council. As far as other Council buildings were concerned you will be aware that Adur District Council was already in receipt of over £1m of grant funding to deliver ground source heat pumps at Shadwells Court, air source heat pumps at the Shoreham Centre and solar PV on 4 council rooftops. All new Adur Homes properties were being built with renewable energy rather than gas boilers and various options were being assessed to improve the energy performance of the existing housing stock. 

 

Cllr Sluman asked whether Adur District Council could gain access to the same loans as Worthing Borough Council as a supplementary question.

 

The Executive Member for Regeneration advised that projects would be assessed against loan criteria. 

 

 

 

Question from Councillor Paul Mansfield to the Leader

 

Question re by-election for Hillside Ward

 

It is a total waste of money and I can’t see what  political gain any party would have to do this?

It wouldn’t change the political make-up of the council. Also totally disrespectful to our fallen councillor David Simmons who we buried only two weeks ago. I believe that this would cost the council £7000 to elect a new councillor for five months? Then in May to have the Council election it doesn’t make sense in this current climate that we are wasting this money.

I also think we leave ourselves open to criticism from the general public.

 

The Leader replied that the rules around by-elections were set out in the relevant legislation and the Council had no jurisdiction in these matters.

 

When a vacancy occurred following the death of a councillor, under Section 87 of the Local Government Act 1972, a vacancy was immediately created, and the process, which started by inviting electors to request a by-election, began.

 

In the case of the Hillside vacancy, the by-election process could not be deferred to the May elections because it did not occur within six months and four days of 5 May 2022, so the statutory process resulting in a by-election was unavoidable.

 

Question from Councillor Jeremy Gardner to the Executive Member for Regeneration

 

We welcome the cleaning of pavements in our town and village centres now taking place in Lancing and Southwick and soon in Shoreham, paid for by the government’s Welcome Back Fund. This is long overdue. Can the Executive Member for Regeneration tell us if the basic council function of cleaning and washing high street areas will be continued to the benefit of local residents, traders and visitors, and how often this will take place.

 

The Executive member for Regeneration replied that the Council’s waste and cleansing team worked hard to keep our environment clean and welcoming.  Resources were prioritised in high footfall areas such as high streets, the sea front and parks and open spaces. The work included emptying bins, picking up litter and sweeping areas either with mechanical sweepers or manually.  The service maintained all these areas to a very high standard.

 

The Welcome Back Fund provided an opportunity to jet wash some of these areas, to give them a deep clean as the economy reopened.  Following this work the Council would continue to maintain a high level of cleansing deploying jet washing as and when required.

 

A supplementary question regarding the effectiveness of the existing cleaning regime was asked by Cllr Gardner.

 

The Executive Member for Regeneration replied that regular walks with community groups were used to identify where special efforts were required.

 

 

 

Question from Councillor Steve Neocleous to the Executive Member for Resources

 

Would the Executive Member for Resources provide an update on the performance of the Council’s strategic property investments?

 

The Council had invested £89,052k on eight investments (including Focus House in Shoreham). The portfolio had a mixture of office, supermarket, hotel, industrial and logistics units. It was expected to produce an annual gross income of £4,854,105 this year.

 

The current market conditions had made rental collection more difficult than in previous years. However, the portfolio had performed better than industry average. Market leading management agents Savills reported an industry wide collection rate in the range of 65% to 75% dependent on the makeup of the portfolio under consideration.

 

Rents were paid in advance and at the beginning of each quarter. Rent collection was due at the end of September for the third quarter, and the portfolio was showing a 100% recovery of rents for the year to date.

 

Three tenants were currently paying on a monthly basis but all had paid the first month, and we had no indications that they would not continue to pay the outstanding amounts each month. Those tenants continued to be monitored closely by the managing agents as well as officers. A careful asset and property management regime had been useful in producing this result, and this regime would continue.

 

Question from Councillor Catherine Arnold to the Executive Member for the Environment

 

With the inability of developers to keep to their landscaping plans and mature trees being felled, what will you be doing with Cllr Boggis, to protect and generate more green spaces alongside our mass developments? Please give examples of 1 for 1 tree planting.

 

The Executive Member for the Environment replied that with all developments, the Council expected developers to increase biodiversity and increase the number of trees on any site. In fact, the Council expected developers to do far better than a 1 to 1 replanting. If Cllr Arnold had any examples where this was not the case, could these be shared with the Executive Member.

 

Cllr Arnold advised that there was at least one development where this was not the case.

 

The Executive member requested that Cllr Arnold provide the information by email and a response would be shared with Councillors.

 

Question from Councillor Rob Wilkinson to the Executive Member for Resources

(asked by the Chairman on behalf of Councillor Wilkinson)

 

Despite the increasing cost of providing the Council Tax support scheme, it is an essential protection for the least financially secure in our communities; would the Executive Member for Resources give an indication of whether we will be maintaining the existing scheme in the next budget round?

 

The Executive Member for Resources replied that subject to a report being considered by the Joint Strategic Committee and a recommendation being made to Full Council, it was likely that the existing scheme would be retained.

 

Question from Councillor Tania Edwards to the Leader

 

Last week Adur Council released a follow up press release on 20th October 2021 announcing that Ashcroft, a former Adur Sheltered Accommodation building in Kingston Lane, Shoreham, has received additional funding of £407,000 from the Government’s Land Release Fund (LRF), This followed the Joint Strategic Committees decision to approve the funding to replace the existing building with a new fit for purpose accommodation for 43 dwellings.

 

I would be grateful If you would let the members know how this additional funding came about and how will this help the progress on this much needed development?

 

The Leader replied that the Land Release Fund (LRF) was a fund issued from the central Government to help Local Authorities develop land that may otherwise be unviable. Following an extensive review of the refurbishment costs on the existing building as part of the recent approval this information was used to bid for LRF funding to help with a number of abnormal upfront costs associated with the project.

 

The funding had been provided to help with costs associated with providing a site ready for development with works including the removal of asbestos, demolition of the block, site preparation works and diversion of existing services. The funding was contingent on the above works being completed by March ‘24. The current forecast was for these works to be completed by spring ‘23.

 

The successful bid followed the Council’s previously successful bid on phase 1 of the LRF (January 2021)  in which the Council was awarded c.£500,000 towards it’s small sites programme to help in upfront infrastructure costs (such as demolition) associated with the sites.