Members received the report of the Director – Place and Climate Change which presented the detailed business case for the redevelopment of the Town Hall site.  A budget of £460,000 for the development of a planning application had been agreed at full Council in February 2021, subject to a review of the proposals by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC).  Robinson Low Francis were appointed in 2021 as the project employer’s agent, Austin Smith Lord were appointed as the architects and lead designers and a planning application was to be submitted in July 2022. 

The OSC was requested to recommend to Cabinet that the project proceed to construction and that the necessary amendments to the Capital Programme to reflect a proposed budget of £14,998,000 to be agreed at full Council, following the close of the second consultation phase due to commence shortly.

The Director – Place and Climate Change guided Members through the high-level summary of the rationale for the development as detailed in the report, which included issues such as Climate Change, Financial, Regeneration/Employment, Staff Welfare and Office Accommodation and Funding.  Officers had produced a discounted cash flow document for Members’ consideration, based on a prudent approach to potential costs and income. A series of assumptions had been made based on stakeholder and tenant engagements, information provided by consultants and information from the Council’s Chief Finance Officer.

The project represented a once in a generation opportunity to transform the Town Hall and the surrounding area of Bexhill. It would create the opportunity for jobs to relocate to a sustainable town centre location, reinvigorate Buckhurst Place with additional footfall and employment, set the standard for environmentally friendly office development in the district, and significantly reduce the Council’s own organisational carbon footprint.  The whole project was to be revenue neutral to the Council by combining new sources of rental income, significant annual savings on maintenance and energy and additional car parking revenue.  A great deal of work had gone into liaising and engaging with potential tenants and there had been high levels of take up.

A recent public exhibition was undertaken in the Town Hall and online, with an opportunity for residents to complete a short feedback survey.  A further engagement process was to be undertaken following the consideration of this report, giving members of the public the opportunity to respond to the issues considered herein. Feedback was to be provided to Cabinet for their consideration for making a recommendation to Council.

Members were given the opportunity to ask questions and the following points were noted during discussions:

•           car park spaces currently at the front of Town Hall would be lost, either to the regeneration of Town Hall square by East Sussex County Council (ESCC) or for disabled/drop off use.  There would be an overall decrease of approximately 20% from the current number of spaces on the site, but the nearby car park at Wainwright Road could be utilised;

•           there were two options in the ESCC Town Hall Square regeneration scheme, but the public consultation had proved inconclusive.  A final decision would be made by ESCC once plans for the Town Hall had been finalised;

•           the planned café space would be let to a local operator to service the building and surrounding area.  The kitchen would be limited and the space would be flexible, so could therefore be converted for an alternative use if necessary;

•           the carbon emissions saving from the new building were not yet available as this could not be calculated until the design had reached the technical phase;

•           the staff survey results showed that, on average, staff favoured working in the office two to three days per week;

•           nearby transport links and proximity to population meant the Town Hall site was the most sustainable location for business growth in the district;

•           Members raised concerns that an on-site café would take business away from local café’s and eateries and that users of the Town Hall should be encouraged into the town centre;

•           the new space would provide rentable office accommodation for 250 full time equivalent staff in addition to Council officers.  It was anticipated that 400 square feet would be allocated to Council officers in the new building, equating to approximately 40 full time equivalent staff members, which was in line with the number of staff currently present in Town Hall at any one time, following the introduction of new working arrangements;

•           Members were concerned that not all residents across the district had been consulted.  The next public engagement process would be district wide; the first had been aimed at those residents directly affected by the proposal in the immediate vicinity;

•           should the scheme not progress beyond the planning phase, then all costs to date would revert from capital to revenue costs.  The total liability to the Council’s revenue budget would be approximately £650k, which included costs payable to the design team and works such as bat and ground surveys, which related to costs later in the scheme;

•           the current building was only partly suitable for people with disabilities;

•           Members were concerned that the project was being rushed in the current challenging climate;

•           the current Town Hall was the Council’s largest contributor to its carbon emissions;

•           the previous report gave details of other options considered with costings;

•           the new building would be serviced by an air source heat pump, which would also service the original Town Hall.  In very cold conditions, the gas boiler in the Town Hall would be used in addition to the air source heat pump if required;

•           ongoing maintenance to the current building would cost approximately £100k per annum in order to comply with current regulations.  The Renaissance project would facilitate an option to generate income to pay for building and ongoing maintenance works; and

•           Members raised concerns that approval was being sought before results of ongoing work within the public sector on working practices were known.

Members were not prepared to agree the recommendations set out within the report for the reasons above and it was agreed that the results of the public engagement be brought back to the Committee in September, prior to a meeting of Cabinet, to be discussed and that the public engagement be extended to a period of six weeks.  The OSC would then reconsider the original recommendations within the report. 

RESOLVED: That the decision be deferred until the results of the public engagement could be reported to a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in September, prior to a meeting of Cabinet, and that the public engagement be extended to six weeks.

(Councillor Maynard declared a Personal Interest in this matter as an executive Member of East Sussex County Council and in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct remained in the meeting during the consideration thereof).