Agenda item

Members’ question time will last up to 30 minutes, with questions being taken in the order of receipt and in rotation from each political group on the Council. The deadline for submission of questions is the 12^th October 2023 at 12 noon.

 

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

 

Questions can be asked of the following:

a)     The Mayor

b)     A Member of the Executive

c)     The Chairman of any Committee

d)     The Council’s representative on any outside body

 

Questions cannot be asked in relation to the following:

a)     A specific planning or licensing application

b)     A specific staffing appointment, appeal or Standards determination

The Mayor announced that the Proper Officer had received 9 questions from Members in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12. He advised that one supplementary question could be asked which must arise out of the original question, or, the reply.  

 

It was noted that there were 30 minutes allowed for questions with 3 rotations of speakers possible. At the end of 30 minutes the Mayor explained that he would extend the time to conclude the current rotation of questions.

 

The Mayor advised that the following Councillors had submitted questions:

 

Councillors Atkins, Cochran, Jenkins, Nowak, Sparkes and Thorpe.

 

First rotation: 

 

Question 1 from Councillor Kevin Jenkins to the Cabinet Member for Housing & Citizen Services

 

On the 15th June you, as cabinet member, co-hosted a public meeting at the East Worthing Community Centre to discuss the Council’s joint plans with SDR Living for the use of the Windsor House Hotel as a large 44-bed HMO. That meeting didn’t go well and large numbers of members of the public couldn’t gain entry to see the plans or ask questions.

 

Along with colleagues you promised another meeting. Here we are 4 months later and no public meeting has been held. 

 

Can you tell us when this will happen?

 

The Cabinet Member replied that the initial meeting could have gone a lot better and that it was the Council’s intention to hold another public meeting in November.  

 

The Council was keen for any meeting to be constructive rather than divisive and would be inviting all participants, including the leader of the opposition, to play their role in hosting a space where everyone could be heard and respected.

 

 

Question 2 from Councillor Hazel Thorpe to the Cabinet Member for Housing & Citizen Services 

 

However commendable it may be, in these hard times the administration is spending a large amount of the Council’s budget on the homeless sector, whilst there are plenty of other sectors that are also suffering.

 

Firstly, what is the administration doing about supporting young families, many who have young children. These people are facing massive increases in the rent they must pay just to keep a roof over their heads. Secondly, what is the administration doing about young families with mortgages who have experienced a near 5 % hike in their interest rates and who could lose their homes. Finally, what is the administration doing about those trying to get on the housing ladder and at the other end of the scale, the pensioners who are on fixed and often low incomes?

 

The Cabinet Member replied that The Council’s homelessness services were discharging the council's statutory duties and the council was legally required to provide them.  

 

The Council did not have control or influence over market rents and Local Housing Allowance (LHA) levels were set by the government, along with the rents the Council could charge for temporary accommodation, which were set at 90% of 2011 LHA. It was not possible to charge more than that for temporary accommodation. This remained a key challenge for local authorities and had led to a number of financial pressures in terms of discharging the Council’s housing duties

 

The council had its Opening Doors service, offering grants, guaranteed rents (for 2yrs) as well as a service for landlords at no charge and support to tenants, to attract landlords to rent PRS properties at an affordable rent. Since the scheme started, the Council had let over 100 properties through this scheme to households homeless or threatened with homelessness, not only providing settled accommodation for homeless families at an affordable rent, but also reducing the Council’s temporary accommodation costs. 

 

With regards to mortgage costs, any household that is threatened with homelessness as a result of mortgage arrears will be entitled to assistance under the Council’s Homelessness Prevention duties as stipulated by the Homelessness Reduction Act, as well as Homelessness Prevention Grant. The Council had secured Household Support Fund monies for those struggling to meet mortgage or rent repayments and a short term intervention from the service would be sufficient to rectify the situation or give the household time to secure another housing arrangement. Despite the Council’s concerns that mortgage % increases would result in homelessness, so far the Council had not had any cases present for assistance. In the first instance, those struggling with their repayments should first contact their lender. 

 

With regards to supporting families, the homeless team works with West Sussex County Council (WSCC) colleagues in Children's Services as well as other services which may be supporting families e.g. CAHMS and health visitors. As part of the process of creating a Personalised Housing Plan, the team also refers households to support services as well as signposting to community groups to help meet support needs. Pensioners receive the support available to all homeless client groups, in addition the service works with Adult Social care for those who need care packages and/or Extra Care housing and Registered Social Landlords to access sheltered housing where appropriate. 

 

As well as  the work of the Homeless Service, the wider council facilitates a range of work to support families through e.g. Proactive where the team speaks to residents to make sure they are claiming what they are entitled to or offer advice, support and referrals to community groups ie food banks or other council services as required, Social Prescribing, grants to community groups and funding for services such as No Interest Loans Scheme via credit union Boom - all of which are set up for anyone in our communities in need, which includes pensioners, but to note, whose  incomes are subject to the ‘triple lock’ to ensure they keep pace with living costs. 

 

In relation to assisting people onto the housing ladder, the Council’s Planning Department works with developers through the Planning process to secure mixed developments which include affordable housing as well as shared ownership. 

 

 

Question 3 from Councillor Noel Atkins to the Leader

 

What has happened to the Mayoral Robes and the Councillors gowns can I have the Leader's assurance that they are being kept safe or put in the museum?

 

Cllr Atkins withdrew his question as it had been answered by the Leader’s response to an earlier public question. 

 

 

Question 4 from Councillor Russ Cochran to the Deputy Leader

 

Will the leader pass on mine and my colleagues sincere thanks to the officer responsible for the recent CIL payments.

 

I am sure it is a fairly hard yet rewarding task, working out allocations of what funds are best designated to who in our communities.

 

I have had prior correspondence with the officer regarding several applicants' referrals and I'm sure as others have had to, it puts every councillor in this chamber in a delicate and responsible position when supporting the needs of the community we serve.

 

Sadly one email revealed that even as a councillor, I am not permitted to share the same celebrations by congratulating those who have been awarded CIL payments in my ward, this is due to GDPR.

 

I ask as some CIL applications were not placed in front of me for support when applying and as a ward councillor for the greatest area with much of the pot available in the borough, I am unaware of what many of these elements are within the area I serve and how they will impact the community.

 

So, for clarity, will the leader be able to reveal to each member whom CIL has exactly been distributed to by award in each ward of the borough as at present CIL payments are listed by a non ward specific geographical location on the Council website as well as in communications to councillors.

 

It is not entirely clear to me what is being benefited in my own electoral ward.

 

The Deputy Leader replied that he would arrange for the information to be shared with Cllr Cochran so that he could contact the relevant Community Groups. 

 

 

Question 5 from Councillor Elizabeth Sparkes (question put by Councillor Jenkins in Councillor Sparkes absence) to the Cabinet Member for Regeneration

 

At the meeting of the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 7^th September your colleague, Cllr Taylor-Beal was asked whether she supported the leader’s opposition to house building on Chatsmore Farm.

 

Cllr Taylor-Beal replied that she did support the leader on the basis that building on Chatsmore Farm would contribute to the climate emergency and that it would be a loss of green space which is already in short supply in the borough.

 

As the cabinet member with responsibility for the local plan can you tell us whether you agree with the comments of the leader and Cllr Taylor-Beal?

 

The Cabinet Member replied that councillors across the Chamber were united in support for the retention of Chatsmore Farm and the arguments for and against had been robustly tested through the Local Plan and found to be sound.  

 

Chatsmore represented a strategically important piece of land - its open aspect marked the break in the built up area on our western boundary - it helped define Worthing and it framed important views in and out of the National Park and from Highdown. 

 

To answer more directly, responding to the climate change emergency and greening Worthing were top priorities for the Council and so yes, the Cabinet Member did agree with the comments of her colleagues.  

 

And this is where the question is perhaps flawed because this was not a case of “either, or” …………..Building new homes - real homes at social rents - also remained a top priority of course, both for Worthing and throughout the UK.  As you will be well aware, the Local Plan sought to make the very best use of the land that does become available on brownfield sites and where appropriate, it identified suitable greenfield locations with a requirement to deliver a higher proportion of genuinely affordable homes.

 

So, to come back to Chatsmore, the point here is, its strategic importance and value to our local communities.  I am sure the previous administration would have had that in mind when they started preparation of the Local Plan.

 

 

Question 6 from Councillor Richard Nowak to the Cabinet Member for Climate Emergency

 

At the 6^th March 2023 Joint Strategic Sub-Committee (Worthing) meeting the committee approved the extension of the July 2019 declaration of a Climate Emergency by adding an Ecological Emergency. According to Councillor SilmaN, the Cabinet Member for the Climate Emergency at that time, this declaration was to be a second “golden thread” running through all of the Council’s policy and decision making.

 

What are the residents of Worthing to make of the Labour administration’s sincerity regarding this golden thread commitment when, unlike Adur District Council’s proposed revenue budget of £400k to be spent on nature restoration projects between 2024 and 2029, Worthing Borough Council has allocated absolutely no budget whatsoever to such projects and furthermore what does this mean for the Cissbury Fields project which so many residents and interested parties have invested so much of their own time and effort in coming up with a management plan – will the cabinet member give a categorical assurance that the management plan will be implemented as already published?"

 

The Cabinet Member for the Environment responded to the question as the subject matter fell within the Environment portfolio. 

 

There are two parts to your question and I’ll respond to both. In reverse order; 

 

The quick answer is that yes, I can give you my categorical assurance that the Cissbury Management plan is being honoured. 

 

Your point about budget and resource allocation is a good one and I’m glad you’ve raised it. In real terms - allowing for inflation, Council’s spending power had reduced by 40% in the past 13 years.

 

And again in real terms, central government funding had reduced by 72% in the same period. There is no question that Worthing Council finances were strained as a direct consequence of the national government - and this couldn’t have happened under worse circumstances than an ecological and climate crisis. 

 

That said, the Council’s dedicated officers were brilliant at leveraging external funding and partnerships as part of our commitment to restoring nature - a shining example of this was the Sussex Bay project which was externally funded by Esme Fairbarne. Moving forward, the Council’s teams together with South Downs National Park, would apply for the next round of government funding needed to help pay for fencing and other materials to progress with the conservation grazing scheme which was laid out within the management plan. Further work would be undertaken before the application was submitted in Spring / Summer of 2024.

 

In the meantime, and to update you on management plan milestones - the Council had been awarded a Trees for the Downs grant from the South Downs National Park Trust that would fund 35 local variety apple and pear trees, which would be planted in field 2, creating the Cissbury Fields Community Orchard. It will be a great community asset to be used and cared for by the local community and was fully supported by the Findon Valley Residents Association and Friends of Findon Valley greenspaces group.

 

In addition, the Cabinet Member had already joined the volunteers to plant new hedgerows along the western edge of the site (adjacent to Shepherds Mead and Long Meadow residential roads), and supplement and diversify existing hedgerows.

 

It had been wonderful to see nature returning to the fields, with wildlife experts sharing that field 6 was particularly diverse in wildflowers, and the whole site was considered a hot-spot for adders that were currently thriving there. Butterfly experts counted 19 species of butterfly, including the notable Chalk Hill Blue and Brown Hairstreak. 

 

There would also be opportunities coming soon for local residents to get involved in sowing sacks of native wildflower seeds - funded by a Bee Lines grant from the South Downs National Park Trust. 

 

The Council would continue to invest in nature restoration via the work and resources available within the sustainability and parks teams and by external partners.

 

 

** Councillor Jenkins moved a motion without notice under Council Procedure Rule 15.1(p) to extend the 30 minutes for Members Questions. The motion was seconded by Councillor Coxhill and supported following a vote. The Mayor confirmed that the time would be extended until 9.30pm.

 

 

Rotation 2 

 

Question 7 from Councillor Kevin Jenkins to the Cabinet Member for Regeneration

 

At the last Joint Strategic Sub Committee, you proudly announced your administration’s decision to discharge responsibility for Teville Gate and pass it potentially on to Homes England. In your media release you state that your minimum expectation was for the delivery of 250 homes in line with the Local Plan. This is 93 homes less than the previous plan that your administration quashed.

 

Given that your leader is on public record as stating “We know there is an acute need for new homes in Worthing” (council press release 31.8.23). Why is your aspiration for Teville Gate to provide much needed homes for Worthing residents so low?

 

The Cabinet Member replied that it was important to establish a minimum figure for the delivery of new homes in line with the Local Plan.  The Council’s work with Homes England continued and it was very pleasing to see the project team Homes England had assembled actually ‘on site’ with the Council’s team in recent weeks, undertaking various surveys and tests to inform their plans.  

 

The Council was taking a responsible approach to, at last, securing the delivery of this strategically important site, working directly with the key national agency responsible for homes-led regeneration to help ensure that the scheme that emerged reflected the aspirations of Worthing.

 

As the report the Councillor referred to expressly indicated, Homes England were interested in working with the Council in the context of a masterplan.  It wasn’t a case of simply stacking them high to make a profit, but to consider what makes a successful place and what additional benefits the Council could secure to help link the station and the town and deliver an attractive welcome for residents and visitors alike.

 

It was also a responsible approach financially.  When the decision was taken to purchase the site, it was indicated that this was not for the long term.  But how much better to have the certainty and commitment that Homes England provides than repeating the cycle of selling to the highest bidder without any guarantees or sense of when the new homes would come forward.  

 

 

Question 8 from Councillor Hazel Thorpe to the Cabinet Member for Regeneration

 

Over the past few weeks, I have been approached by residents who all live in Central Ward. Note, I will always act for Worthing residents whether they live in my Ward or not. Each one has talked about the parking problems in Town. Southern Rail is reducing the train service locally, so other forms of transport need our support more than ever. 

 

I’m sure that the cabinet member will agree with me, that visitors and tourists are the backbone of a vibrant Town economy. 

 

Since the withdrawal of the parking shop, Central Ward residents of all ages who are not online have to contend with a lengthy visit to Portland House and go through a constrictive and convoluted process which I am told, is not customer friendly. 

 

When will this administration review the current on street parking in Town particularly with regard to renewal of parking permits and related issues to ensure that all sectors and ages groups can access a space in front of their house and get value for the £51 they currently pay just to get the permit let alone the price of tickets for family and visitor parking.

 

The Cabinet Member replied that she met officers from the Parking Service last week to talk through the systems that the service relied on and the accessibility of the service for people who were not digitally enabled.  

 

In terms of background, the withdrawal of the parking shop in February 2022, was ultimately a decision by the county council as the highway authority.  

 

The move to virtual permits and the implementation of the current online system was also led by the county council.  Since it went live in March last year 10,358 digital resident permits had been issued (including renewals).

 

A total of 170,509 digital transactions through MIPERMIT had been made for various permits for On-Street parking for example residents permits, resident visitor permits, healthcare permits, carer permits, non-resident permits, bay suspensions, Traders permits.

 

There were a number of options available for customers who were either not digitally enabled or who did not have access to a computer to be able to purchase their parking permit or visitor permits.

 

Customers could telephone the council's parking team for assistance with setting up an account.  Customers may need to provide proof of residency and their vehicle registration document (which was a similar requirement when the parking shop was in place). 

 

Customers could either send copies of the documentation to the council’s offices or attend the council offices with the documentation and the staff at Portland House would scan a copy over to the parking team on their behalf.

 

The parking team would set the customer's account up and arrange for payment to be taken.  The MIPERMIT team was also available Monday to Sunday to assist customers with activating visitor permits.

 

Whilst the Council had limited influence over the system, the Cabinet Member had asked officers to make immediate improvements to make the service more accessible.  These included:

 

• Reiterating that people who were not online could either call the parking team who would manage the permit application on their behalf, either over the phone or face to face; and  
• Ensuring that customers who chose this way of accessing the service received a letter, confirming their permit start and finish dates, and details of how to contact the service and renew their permit.

 

The Cabinet Member was also pleased to say that the Council’s officers were working with West Sussex County Council to produce user guides and videos to help people who did wish to use the online system.