To authorise the Leader to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on Monday 24 May 2021 as a correct record of the proceedings.

The Chairman was authorised to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 May 2021 as a correct record of the proceedings.

There were no apologies for absence.

To receive any disclosure by Members of personal and disclosable pecuniary interests in matters on the agenda, the nature of any interest and whether the Member regards the personal interest as prejudicial under the terms of the Code of Conduct.  Members are reminded of the need to repeat their declaration immediately prior to the commencement of the item in question.

Declarations of interest were made by Councillors in the Minutes as indicated below:

Dixon                           Agenda Item 13 – Personal Interest as his wife was Clerk to Brede Parish Council.

Following the introduction of new regulations on 1 July 2021, the Council was required to maintain a register of site managers of mobile home parks.  Under the Mobile Homes (Requirements for Manager of Site to be Fit and Proper Person) (England) Regulations 2020 (SI2020/1034), site owners must apply to their local authority for the appointed manager to be added to the register of fit and proper persons managing sites in their area.

The Council currently licenced four sites (130 units) to which the new regulations applied; fees did not apply to sites used for holiday purposes or other non-permanent residential sites.  The Government had produced guidance to be followed in determining whether a person was fit and proper, including a Disclosure and Baring Service check.  Regulations permitted the Council to determine the fee for an application or registration for someone to be added to the register and were limited to recovering the costs of exercising the fit and proper person test function only. 

It was recommended that the initial application fee was set at £70 based on estimated processing time and to cover the additional cost of monitoring the fit and proper person scheme, an additional annual fee for registration be set at £0.50 per unit, to a maximum of £50, in accordance with Government guidance.  In cases where, with the consent of the site owner, the Council appointed an individual to manage the site, a fee of £100 would be incurred; however, this was not considered likely.  It was noted that if an application to be included on the register was not approved, the fee would not be refunded.

The annual fee therefore to be charged from 1 April 2022 was recommended as follows:

RECOMMENDED: That the Caravan Sites Fit and Proper Person Fees Policy 2021 as set out above be approved and adopted.

Cabinet received and considered Minute OSC21/07 arising from the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC) held on 7 June 2021 regarding a revised Financial Assistance Policy 2021-2025 (Disabled Facilities Grants [DFG]). 

The OSC had considered the proposed revised Financial Assistance Policy 2021-2025 (DDFG that enabled the provision of DFG funding through the Better Care Fund (BCF) and had supported the policy.  DFGs were essential for improving the health and wellbeing of residents who experienced disability and mobility impairments.

In addition, the new Discretionary Disabled Project Grant would allow the Council to maximise the use of the BCF allocation through more flexible use of the funds and to make adaptations to its own estate and those public realm locations for which it was responsible.  Those eligible to apply were detailed within the report and included voluntary / community groups, parish councils, faith groups, and not-for-profit organisations.  Cabinet was pleased to endorse and recommend onto full Council.  

RECOMMENDED: That:

1)    the Financial Assistance Policy 2021-2025 be approved and adopted; and

2)    initially, £200,000 be allocated to the Discretionary Disabled Project Grant from the balance of Disabled Facilities Grant funds held in earmarked reserves.

Following the creation of the Bexhill-on-Sea Parish Council (now known as Bexhill Town Council), Rother was now fully parished and this presented an opportunity for Rother District Council (RDC) to become predominately strategic and regulatory within the district.

Integral to this was to consider how and by whom discretionary services were best provided, with the guiding principle of ensuring such services were delivered by the most appropriate organisation, closest to the community it served.  In addition, the devolvement of these services would help to alleviate the Council’s financial deficit and reliance on reserves.

The Council’s programme of work to deliver financial stability, as set out in the emerging Corporate Plan, sought to transfer certain community assets to organisations better able to protect them and secure their public use into the future.  A simple and straightforward strategy, attached at Appendix A to the report, had been developed that set out the Council’s proposed approach.

The report gave details of the discretionary services the strategy sought to protect, how decisions would be made about which assets to transfer, who would be delivery partners, how assets would be protected from change of use or disposal, early financial support packages to delivery partners and who the other key stakeholders were.  Good working relationships were being forged with the Parish and Town Councils across the district and the Council would be working in partnership and agreement with them and others to progress this work.  It was made clear that there was no intention to close any public conveniences across the district which were considered a necessity. 

A communications plan would be developed in conjunction with the Council’s communications team to ensure that the rationale for the approach was understood by all.  Work would be progressed by a small dedicated team, including both relevant operational staff together with legal and financial support, and represented a great learning opportunity for staff and secondments would be encouraged.

RECOMMENDED: That the Protecting Discretionary Services Strategy at Appendix A to the report be approved and adopted.

The draft Corporate Plan 2020-2027 (Appendix A to the report) had been subject to a six-week consultation period, following approval earlier in the year.  The report set out the response to the consultation and recommended that the Corporate Plan be approved and adopted, without amendment, and the Corporate Programme of projects to deliver the Corporate Plan be approved. 

Consultation invitations were sent to 127 business and voluntary organisations, schools, colleges, public bodies, leisure and interest groups and organisations across Rother, including all the Parish and Town Councils (P&TCs) in Rother, together with 400 residents in the Rother Citizens Panel.  Whilst it was disappointing to note that only 133 responses were received, considering that the consultation took place on line, during the pandemic, with no opportunity for face-to-face events, the quality of responses was considered high.  All objectives had majority support and a detailed analysis of all responses was provided at Appendix B to the report.  Members were also disappointed to note the low level response from the 32 P&TCs (+1 parish meeting) across the district and more work to engage with these local authorities was required.   

The draft Corporate Programme of projects to deliver the Corporate Plan had been developed through the consultation period with Corporate Management Team and council officers.  A total of 23 projects had been identified and these were attached to the report at Appendix C.  The project scopes would be presented to a newly formed Programme Board to review and assess if the projects met the vision and priorities of the new Corporate Plan.  The Programme Board would initially consist of the Chief Executive, the Section 151 Officer and three Members appointed by the Leader of the Council and progress reports would be made quarterly.  An annual report on progress of the Corporate Programme would also be presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

It was noted that the Corporate Plan was a living document and the Council would be able to add additional projects to the Corporate Programme identified to deliver the outcomes within the Plan.  The current plan was achievable and focused and officer resources were available to deliver within the timescales.  Following debate, Members agreed that it be recommended to Council that an objective to develop a healthy living strategy, subject to consultation, be added to the plan later in the year.   

RECOMMENDED: That the:

1)    draft Corporate Plan (at Appendix A) be approved and adopted;

2)    that an objective to develop a healthy living strategy, subject to consultation be added to the plan, later in the year; and

3)    draft Corporate Programme (at Appendix C) be approved and adopted.

AND

*RESOLVED: That subject to the approval of full Council, a Corporate Programme Board of Members and senior officers, to be appointed by the Leader of the Council, be established to monitor the delivery of the Corporate Programme 2020-2027.

*The RESOLVED part of this minute is subject to the call-in procedure under Rule 16 of the Overview and Scrutiny  ...  view the full minutes text for item CB21/15.

As a consequence of the emerging Corporate Plan, it had already been established that the officer structure and allocation of resources would need to change to ensure sufficient organisational focus was maintained on delivering the ambitions of the current administration. 

The report set out the broad proposals for the new structure and sought approval for the reassignment of the Chief Finance Officer and Monitoring Officer roles.  The restructure would take place in two phases, firstly the restructure of the senior management team (Chief Officers) and secondly the departmental structure.  The draft Chief Officer and departmental structure was attached at Appendix A to the report.

The new structure saw the creation of two new posts, Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Place/Climate.  The Deputy Chief Executive post would focus on the transformational change of the Council and would also carry the statutory role of Monitoring Officer.  The Director of Place/Climate would focus on the climate emergency and the place shaping ambitions of the Corporate Plan.  To ensure the two new posts were affordable, there would be a reduction of two existing Heads of Service which would lead to redundancies at the current Head of Service level.  The Assistant Director, Resources post was to be deleted from the new structure and the statutory position of Chief Finance Officer (CFO) would be reassigned to the Council’s Finance Manager. 

Consultation with staff and union representatives had taken place and it was confirmed that most of the responses to date were concerning the process and procedures that would be undertaken and not objection to the proposals. All Heads of Service and senior officers involved had been spoken to on a 1:1 basis and dialogue was on-going.     

Some concern was expressed regarding the hierarchical nature of the proposals, as opposed to a flatter structure, which was more common place, whether the proposal to have a Director responsible for both the green agenda and planning gave rise to a possible conflict and the perceived playing down of finance, given the Council’s current and future financial deficit issues.   Since returning to a single Chief Executive (CE) model, experience had shown that the CE was being drawn into operational issues; the two new posts would remove that call on the CE’s time to enable improved focus on strategic matters.  The CFO post would be focusing purely on finance and be part of the Corporate Core and in other areas, the structure would be flatter.  The current Assistant Director Resources had many other services under his remit and this separation of the finance role was a welcome step.  It was noted that all Members would be briefed on the iESE report following the review of the planning service.          

The appointment process to both new posts would require the establishment of a Member Panel to undertake the interviews, with the support of the Chief Executive.  It was suggested that the Leader of the Council, in consultation with all Group Leaders, appoint five Members to the Panel, made up of representation from  ...  view the full minutes text for item CB21/16.

a)    RR/2020/1822/P Land south west of Strand Meadow, Burwash; and

b)    RR/2020/151/P Land south of Pett Level Road, Fairlight Cove.

Following the refusal of planning permissions RR/2020/1822/P Land south west of Strand Meadow, Burwash and RR/2020/151/P Land south of Pett Level Road, Fairlight Cove in February and March 2021 respectively, against officer recommendations, the Applicants had now appealed the decision.  The decision whether the appeals were heard by written representations, hearing or public inquiry would be taken by the Planning Inspectorate (PI), in consultation with the Applicant and Local Planning Authority.  All three formats enabled the Council to robustly defend the appeal, but a Hearing or Public Inquiry would lead to significant costs to the Council for the instruction of consultants and Counsel.

In the case of Burwash, the Applicant had requested to the PI that it be considered by way of Written Representations and in the case of Fairlight, the Applicant’s preferred format was currently unknown.   

It was advised that should the appeals be decided by Written Representations, officers could robustly defend the Council’s reasons for refusal, with expert advice of a consultant. The costs to appoint a consultant were likely to be in the region of £5,000 to £50,000.  An additional contingency of a further £50,000 was also suggested in the unlikely event costs were awarded against the Council.

However, should the appeals be heard at a Hearing or Public Inquiry they would need to be defended by outside consultants with input from Counsel; previous experience showed that funding for up to £75,000 could be required to cover the costs of a planning consultant and Counsel, based on a three-day inquiry.  Whilst costs were a factor, Members were democratically elected to represent the view of residents and Members did not have to always agree with officer recommendations; this was the price to pay for democracy.

In addition, no matter what the outcome, the Appellants could seek to claim their costs for all or part of the appeals.  In advance of the Burwash appeal, the Appellant had submitted a cost claim against the Council to the PI. If successful, the Appellant’s costs (in full) would likely be a similar amount to the Council’s expenditure (cost).  Therefore, a Hearing or Public Inquiry could cost the Council in the region of £150,000 per case.

In both cases there were significant financial risks if Rother District Council was unsuccessful in defending the appeals.  Members were reminded that if the Appellant, in both cases, won the appeals against the decision then no New Homes Bonus Grant would be received.  Based on the number of properties in the applications, it was estimated that £200,520 of grant would be foregone for Burwash and £287,412 for Fairlight.

The Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Planning recommended that the appeal in respect of Burwash was requested to be defended by written representations, as it hinged on a single-issue, with the local Member having input into the Council’s response before it was submitted; and that the appeal in respect of Fairlight be defended by a Hearing as this case was more complex. 

RESOLVED: That the Planning Inspectorate be advised that  ...  view the full minutes text for item CB21/17.

It was noted that Claire Cordell, CEO of Rother Voluntary Action had unfortunately been unable to attend the meeting.

Cabinet received and considered Minute OSC21/06 arising from the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC) held on 7 June 2021 that had considered the recommendations of the Anti-Poverty Task and Finish Group (APT&FG).  The Head of Housing and Community outlined the work and findings undertaken and discovered by the APT&FG with the main challenges identified as service co-ordination, accessibility and promotion.  Many solutions had also been identified, as detailed within the report.  The Chairman of the APT&FG, Councillor Coleman, thanked officers and external partners for their contribution and the resulting recommendations.   

Following the review and endorsement by the OSC, it was recommended that the Council develop an Anti-Poverty Strategy and Action Plan between partner services, with the assistance of Rother Voluntary Action.  Members were keen to ensure that the OSC would monitor the progress of the Strategy once in place and the Chairman of the OSC agreed to this undertaking.  During the debate, the following points were made:

Ø  the average reading age was an issue and a barrier to accessing help and assistance;

Ø  help needed to be available in the places where those that needed help were – proactive reaching out was required;

Ø  the promotion and establishment of more community hubs was key;

Ø  Local Housing Allowance levels, set by the Government, were too low for this area and the private rented sector prices – the Council should do more to lobby local MPs;

Ø  could Members be involved in the officer review of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme Hardship Fund – thresholds seemed very high and difficult for claimants to qualify; and

Ø  economic development to increase quality employment opportunities was essential.

With regard to the Council Tax Reduction Scheme (CTRS), it was clear that moving towards a 100% CTRS would have significant financial implications on the Council and other organisations who received a share of council tax revenue.  The OSC were therefore supportive of the approach to review and better promote the current Hardship Fund; the request that consideration be given to increasing the maximum support under the CTRS above the current 80% when the Council achieved its financial stability ambition; and to consult with the public and key stakeholders on improving access to CTRS for self-employed people who were also carers and those self-employed residents who were registered disabled.

RESOLVED: That:

1)    an Anti-Poverty Strategy and Action Plan be developed for the district between partner services, led by the Council in partnership with Rother Voluntary Action and the Local Strategic Partnership;

2)    the Council Tax Reduction Scheme Hardship Fund be reviewed by officers and report back to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on options for improving the promotion of the scheme and the potential of establishing a mechanism for public donations to supplement the Hardship Fund;

3)    the maximum support under the Council Tax Reduction Scheme be increased above  ...  view the full minutes text for item CB21/18.

Members received and considered Minute OSC21/09 arising from the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC) held on 7 June 2021 that had considered the Performance Report: Fourth Quarter 2020/21.

Cabinet shared the OSC’s concerns regarding the high housing targets set by the Government that failed to take into consideration the amount of protected land across the districts e.g. Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Members were supportive of collaborating with other local authorities with the same or similar level of protected land (some 18 across the South East) to put forward a case to the Government for a national abatement formula to calculate housing targets. 

The Performance Indicators for Waste and Recycling were also mentioned and the OSC was requested to keep a watching brief on these once the emerging Environment Bill came into fruition, anticipated towards the end of the year.

RESOLVED:  That the Council collaborate with other local authorities with an 80% or higher level of protected land, to put forward a case to the Government for a national abatement formula to calculate housing targets.

Consideration was given to the report of the Head of Acquisitions, Transformation and Regeneration that provided an update on the progress and outcomes of the Corporate Programme of priority projects delivered to support achievement of the outgoing Corporate Plan 2014-2021; the Major Projects Manager summarised the report.

The Corporate Plan 2014-2021 had included a Corporate Programme made up of 29 priority projects to support achievement of the vision, aims and broad outcomes of the Plan, with each project sitting within one of the Corporate Plan’s core aims.  The former Strategic Management Team had monitored progress and risk management issues on a quarterly basis and by exception, if required. 

Of the 29, 15 projects had been wholly completed to date; a detailed summary of each project was attached at Appendix A to the report.  Of the remaining 14 projects it was noted that two had a second phase which was also completed, a further four projects were due to complete in 2020 but due to external factors were still ‘in progress’ and eight projects were identified as longer term, set for completion by 2021 or beyond, some of which were being carried forward into the new Corporate Plan.  It was noted however, that some projects had been re-styled in the new Corporate Plan and like for like comparison between the two corporate programmes was not straightforward.  Reference was also made to Camber regeneration in order to capitalise on the many visitors to the beach, from outside the district.  

The report set out the resources and staffing that had been used to deliver the projects and attached at Appendix B to the report was a summary of the estimated total cost of the programme of identified projects and actual spend to 31 March 2021.  It was noted that not all projects had full funding in place and those where funding was required were progressed to a stage where further Member approval was required before the Council committed finance to deliver the project. 

RESOLVED: That the:

1)    progress and outcomes of the Corporate Programme 2014-2021 be noted; and

2)    Corporate Programme 2014-2021 be formally closed out in readiness for the new Corporate Programme 2020-2027.

This item had been withdrawn from the Agenda by the Leader of the Council.

Following approval in February of the current year to advertise the proposed disposal of public open space at Egerton Park to enable Bexhill Tennis Club to use a different court, three objections had been received. The objections concerned the newly established Bexhill Town Council (BTC) and their inability to respond within the consultation time frame and an extension to the consultation period had been requested. 

As the proposed letting was for short-term and replaced one tennis court with another, without any other substantive change to the current arrangement, it was recommended that the letting proceed.  It was noted that the Interim Clerk to BTC had been advised.

RESOLVED: That a new lease of three years terms be granted to Bexhill Tennis Club with terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive.

Following the delay to the lifting of all COVID-19 pandemic restrictions until 19 July 2021 that would impact the hospitality sector, it was proposed that these businesses received an additional grant from the Additional Restrictions Grant (ARG) discretionary funds the Council held, to cover the extra four-week period.  The amount of grant would be based on a proportion of the latest national business restart grant that they had received and based on initial calculations, in excess of 170 local businesses would benefit from this extra help; the eligible businesses would not need to apply as the Council would make direct contact.

It was noted that in taking this action, the Council was likely to spend all the original £2.75m of funding by the deadline which would enable the Council to qualify for the additional top up funding the Government announced earlier in the  year.  It was anticipated that of the £425m announced, the extra funding for Rother would be in the region of £700,000 and would enable the ARG discretionary grant scheme to continue to support businesses.

It was proposed to delegate authority to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Cabinet Portfolio Holders for Finance and Performance Management and Economic Development and Regeneration to finalise the amounts of grants and detailed criteria.  An additional delegation was also agreed to amend the criteria to enable the swift award of grant to other business sectors that officers and Members became aware of that had also been severely curtailed due to the continued COVID restrictions and had fixed/additional business costs.   In this regard, Members were encouraged to contact the Assistant Director of Resources / Revenues and Benefits Manager in the first instance if they knew of any other business that might require assistance.  

Members were proud and paid tribute to the work undertaken by the Revenue and Benefits Team in supporting the local business community during the pandemic, by making sure funding support was paid in a timely manner.    

RESOLVED: That the:

1)    Additional Restrictions Grant - Discretionary Business Restart Grant Schemebe expanded to provide additional support to hospitality businesses that are public houses, restaurants and cafes;

2)    Chief Executive be granted delegated authority in consultation with the Cabinet Portfolio Holders for Finance and Performance Management and Economic Development and Regeneration to finalise the amounts of grants and detailed criteria; and

3)    Chief Executive be granted delegated authority in consultation with the Cabinet Portfolio Holders for Finance and Performance Management and Economic Development and Regeneration to amend the criteria to award similar grants to any other businesses who have been severely impacted by the extension of restrictions as detailed in the report.

The Chairman of Council had agreed that, subject to the approval of Cabinet, this decision could be taken as an urgent decision to allow the Council to maximise the use of the available funding to support local businesses.