Agenda item

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 13, which had been circulated to all Members and is attached to a signed copy of these minutes. This report set out background information on the portfolio of the Adur Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Strategic Planning to enable the Committee to consider and question the Cabinet Member on issues within their portfolio and any other issues which the Cabinet Member was involved in connected with the work of the Council and the Adur communities.

A Member asked “Whilst acknowledging the worthwhile work done in the participation groups and its value both as a collegiate experience and the (now limited) outcomes (even with WSCC Growth Deal funding) we should acknowledge that the outcomes do not match the ambitious outcomes we had hoped for. This is due to a lack of clarity over the third phase of funding. Given the resources spent in officer time; community resources time; council, group and individual research etc is there a way to be clearer about what funding is available to us as a council before we invest this heavily in the future, in order to regulate and redirect our resources with more efficiency?”

Members were informed that when they entered into the ‘Now and into the Future’ work the Council was very clear that this was an exercise of setting up Lancing to be in the frame for future funding but also to instigate local work, through local communities and organisations, to help build Lancing into a place that everyone could be proud of. Funding opportunities came in and out of focus, and did change, therefore as work was started they were under the impression that a Levelling Up bid was realistic and they needed to act to put the Council (as Lancing) in the best possible position to bid for these funds. This didn’t materialise, which was extremely frustrating for the amount of work everyone had put in, however this wouldn’t be lost work as this could be and would be used for future applications, regardless of who the funder might be. They did have an in principle commitment from WSCC regarding the Growth Deal funding and this was the next focus. 

The Cabinet Member emphasised that no place was built overnight but what they did achieve through the initial participation process was to build a sense of what local people were most interested in, what the ambitions were (which were important) and how the Council, as a partner in the whole system, could help facilitate some of those aims through the work done. To ensure this local work continued, the Council was going through a reorganisation and the Neighbourhood Model was being established which would mean they could work even closer to the communities, including those in Lancing. 

A Member asked “The Old Police Station: Three options have been presented to cabinet and further work will be done on those options. What are these three options and the primary influencing factors and will there be an opportunity for consultation with community groups, residents and others?”

Members were informedthey were looking at a number of options for the future of the site that would build upon the recent experience with Fabric that had allowed them to gain a much better understanding of the priorities for the local communities.  Access to healthcare;  availability of local affordable housing; and community space were all highlighted from the 200 community responses and structured conversations with nominated stakeholders in the village.

The next stage was to examine the feasibility of options that reflected those priorities and consider how potential partners may wish to participate and how available funding could be used to best effect.  The Cabinet Member had asked  officers to work up a series of outline proposals for further consideration in the coming months that could be tested further through the preparation of a robust Business Plan.

A Member asked, “Recently you had a meeting with Southern Water and Ofwat via the newly established Southern Water Stakeholder Group. 

You raised questions about the cumulative effect of new developments but even before the new developments, the sewage systems were not coping. We know what is happening in Lancing on Grinstead Lane and Manor Close but this is also an issue for the lead flood authority, West Sussex County Council, who have previously failed to carry out recommended drainage enhancement works at the roundabout. They need holding to account too.

What are the outcomes that you are looking for from these meetings and what would be your success criteria?”

Members were informed that that group crossed a couple of different portfolios and was made up of forty different authorities. These authorities shared a lot of similar issues and concerns and the hope was that speaking together, would make Souther Water listen.

A Member asked, “Local Plans are developed to allocate land to deliver community infrastructure and opportunities for employment. This Council identified New Monks farm as a site for residential and employment, yet one part of this remains unfulfilled because the site dedicated for employment (owned by IKEA) is still empty.

What is happening with this site and if IKEA is still sitting on the site, can the Council put pressure on them to sell?”

Members were informed that IKEA had indicated that it would be looking to re-market the site again that year and through its agent, had cited uncertainty in the wider economic outlook as the reason it had not done so successfully to date.  Meanwhile, Pannattoni had arrived at its site next door, developed it out successfully and talked confidently about businesses occupying the space.  The Cabinet Member was keen to keep the pressure on IKEA to move this site to a position where it could deliver the much needed employment space that would allow existing businesses to grow and new businesses to support the local economy.

A Member asked, “Are you satisfied that the system of signing 106 Agreements is a better alternative to the Community Infrastructure Levy? If so, please give reasons.”

Members were informed thatthe issue of adopting Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was considered after the Local Plan was adopted.  To introduce CIL the Council had to demonstrate that it would not make development coming forward unviable.  

The viability review undertaken to support the Local Plan identified that 3 of the key sites for delivering housing and employment (New Monks Farm, Shoreham Airport and the Western Harbour Arm) had viability issues and could not have paid CIL and delivered the significant supporting infrastructure to support the new developments.  In fact additional development was required at New Monks Farm and the Airport to ensure viable development would come forward and they had seen at the Western Harbour Arm high density development had been required to meet all infrastructure needs.

In addition, it had been clear that brownfield land had significant viability challenges and it was felt that using s106 provided greater flexibility in deciding priorities between affordable housing, WSCC contribution requirements and open space.  

It was also relevant that the recent Levelling Up and Regeneration Act (LURA) signaled a new Infrastructure Levy to replace both s106 and CIL. In this context seeking to introduce CIL with the significant resource implications involved would not have been appropriate at the time.