1.     Pursuant to Paragraph 11 of the Council Procedure Rules the following question was put by Nigel Jacklin and answered by Councillor Oliver.

 

Question: My question relates to the Home Office proposals to use the Northeye site to accommodate 1,200 male asylum seekers.  As you will be aware, these plans were announced in March this year with the original plan being to move the men in from September onwards.  At the time of writing (21st August) the site still remains in the hands of a private investment company who took ownership of the site in August 2022.  This followed a tip off by an employee of the previous owner that the site would be sold and used to house asylum seekers.  I am aware that the Council has participated in legal actions on this issue relating to similar use of a site in Essex and am of the opinion that Rother District Council are best placed to make a legal challenge if the proposals go ahead.

My question is: Given the widespread local opposition to the camp, why hasn’t the Council stated publicly that it opposes the proposals to use the site for the above purposes? 

 

Answer:  The answer to this question has been provided in the meeting, therefore it would only be repeating what I have already said.

 

Supplementary Oral Question: I do believe that some of the “unknowns” that you referred to in the previous 15 minutes are actually “knowns”.  I believe that in the judicial review disclosure, a Home Office e-mail suggests that Northeye would be used for a minimum of five years.  I believe you also do know how local residents feel about it, and so, whilst I do also believe that you know or expect it to be imposed on us through the use of emergency legislation, which means that your Planning Committee would be bypassed, and so in that respect I would ask whether you could reconsider, voting to oppose it?

 

Answer: Well, none of those questions you ask, we know the answer to, I assure you, we do not know the answers to those questions that you have just posed then, and that is where we are at the moment.  It is exasperating for us to deal with uncertainty when the Home Office cancel meetings, when they should have been at meetings with other representatives from East Sussex and various other larger sites and they do not turn up.  We have asked these questions time and time again but we do not get any answers so I am sorry I cannot be more helpful than that.

 

2.     Pursuant to Paragraph 11 of the Council Procedure Rules the following question was put by Sharon Blagrove and answered by Councillor Oliver.

 

Question:Rother District Council imposed a flat rate trial £30 parking cost on the Central Carpark at Camber recently, without any consultation.

 

The traders in that area have suffered significant financial losses because of the low footfall mainly due to the cost to park, £30 even for half an hour.

 

This particular carpark is the only one with flat access to the beach and is used by many disabled people.

I note Councillor Timpe the Cabinet Portfolio Holder for tourism, said in the BBC radio interview, 'We have made a mistake, and we all have our hands up'.

 

I have today presented the petition I started regarding this issue, which asked that the charge be dropped to allow the traders to recoup their losses. It has just under 2,000 signatures from service users, residents and traders.

 

Will you please confirm that this Council will consult the public before carrying out any trials such as these and other projects that affect residents and traders in future and as the Leader of the Council, do you have any message to convey to the traders and residents of Camber?

 

Answer: Trials can be a useful way of understanding the full impact of changes to services. It is important that the experiences of residents and businesses are considered, alongside any other data collected when determining the extent of those services into the future.  The flat fee parking trial was a result of the wealth of historic public engagement between the Council, residents, business owners, and visitors to Camber including comments and complaints received, feedback from the public meeting held on 28 July 2021, and the frequently asked questions submitted to the council in 2022 and circulated to all Camber residents via the Camber Parish Newsletter in July 2022.

 

A consistent concern of residents has been the number of vehicles accessing the village, increasing antisocial parking and congestion, and extending the response time of emergency services vehicles. We have worked with our partners to address these concerns in a number of ways included new and increased signage on the approach to the village and along the diversion route used when Central car park is full, supporting the introduction of Civil Parking Enforcement by East Sussex County Council, replacing damaged posts on verges, providing financial support to Sussex Police to provide additional police presence during the summer period, and working closely with our partners at SECAmb to provide local ambulance support to beachgoers and residents.

 

The flat fee parking rate was trialled for a nine-week period (3 July-1 September inclusive) during the summer of 2023 to assess the impact on congestion and the number of vehicles accessing the village.  With any trial, it is important to collate data and review over a period of time, and, due to poor weather during July in particular, all of the car parks in Camber were quieter than they were in July 2022.

 

Supplementary Oral Question: I first of all thank you, Councillor Oliver for your answer.  Just one thing there to put in is that I have not spoken to any trader at all in Camber that were aware of this and it was really foisted on them, all of a sudden, nobody knew much about it, and that is why they were very angry. My question is, this trial has proved beyond doubt to have been detrimental not only to Camber traders, but also meant a big loss in revenue to Rother District Council.  Could you please confirm that in future, charges will remain on an hourly basis for that car park and not a flat rate charge, so that the traders do not have to worry about this happening again?  I have seen so many people and heard so many people absolutely devastated because of what has happened. I know that a trial of any kind can go right or it can go wrong. This one, I do not think it was beneficial to anybody and I would like to still ask you if you have any message to convey to the people of Camber and the traders of Camber that has always had a good relationship with Rother District Council.  Thank you.

 

Answer:  Thank you for that supplementary question. I fully appreciate the comments that you have made.  We are undertaking a full review of what has taken place during the trial period. As for the feedback referred to in those dates, they were provided to me by officers, so I'm pretty convinced that they were, in fact there. Yes, I think that the option that you mentioned with regard to a phased-in rate based on, it is one that would be considered. Everything will be considered and officers are working on the data that we have recovered during the season.  It was unfortunate that July was a very bad month, so we take that into account, there is also a cost of living crisis out there, which again may have impacted on things, but we are going to look at every possible part of it, it is important that we do for the benefit of our residents of Camber.

 

3.     Pursuant to Paragraph 11 of the Council Procedure Rules the following question was put by John Bradford and answered by Councillor Timpe.

 

Question: Was any consideration given that the two car parks in Old Lydd Road gave the only level access to the beach for disabled and those who needed it. And to the fact the steep dunes at Western would prevent some people, if not many, getting access to the beach if unable to afford the fees at Old Lydd Road car parks or climb the steep dunes?

 

Answer:Rother District Council does not have a policy of providing free off-street parking to all Blue Badge holders; prior to the start of the trial Blue Badge holders paid to park in all Camber car parks. Many Blue Badge holders have chosen and continue to choose to park for free on street if they are visiting for less than three hours. After receiving a complaint, a decision was taken to offer free parking in our nine disabled bays at Camber Central, and four disabled bays at Old Lydd Road for the duration of the trial.

 

Non-Blue Badge holders who choose to park at Western car park but do not wish to or are unable to walk over the dunes, can access the beach at Central via a 0.4 mile walk along the pavement on Old Lydd Road.

 

Supplementary Oral Question:Councillor am I to understand, then, from your answer, that no consideration was given to the needs of the disabled and those who needed a level access, as you felt that the current policy for disabled was adequate and a pavement walk of 0.4 of a mile along a pavement which was parked with vehicles, and that was good enough for the disabled and older people? Or was your answer in a Kent radio interview as to whether the needs of the disabled had been considered? You answered obviously not, continuing we have made a mistake and we all have our hands up. Is that the actual answer you meant to give me?

 

Answer:  I think that I have answered your question and I was not part of any discussions that took place prior to this decision, so I believe that it has been answered.

 

4.     Pursuant to Paragraph 11 of the Council Procedure Rules the following question was put by James Hyatt and answered by Councillor Timpe.

 

Question:  1. Given that RDC were warned prior to implementing the ‘trial’ of the highly likely financial damage it would have on numerous businesses in Camber and having failed to consult with businesses beforehand, also failing to take out an impact assessment, is there a case or would RDC consider out of goodwill to offer compensation to the businesses in some form?  Maybe liken it to the grants in COVID (this has been far more damaging than COVID to Camber’s businesses) some of those businesses including ours are now in a precarious position that we have previously never experienced in 39 years of trading in Camber.

 

2. It has been stated one of the reasons RDC brought in the trial was to generate more funds to cover the upkeep of Camber and not burden the tax payer, would it have not been better to carry out the work on the central car park overflow (Johnson’s field) for a combined cost of £20,000 as was the quote given by a local builder?  Can RDC assure they will get the overflow up and running for next season and give the businesses a much needed leg up, which let’s be fair, the central end needs, especially going on that central only holds 160 vehicles compared to the western car parks 1,400 vehicles?

 

3. As soon as it was apparent the trial wasn’t working and causing vast financial damage to businesses and being counter productive in every other aspect, we have to wonder why RDC decided to persevere with the trial?  By proceeding with it, it’s caused speculation between businesses and villagers alike that there is a possible ulterior motive i.e. was it done purposefully to dishearten the businesses, maybe financially damage them or more. It’s a valid and concerning view to hold given RDC plans to tender out a cafeteria of sorts to be built within the proposed new toilet block in central.  Can RDC assure us this is not the case?

 

Answer: 1.  The Council is not in a position to compensate businesses for loss of income during the 2023 season as there are many factors that can impact seasonal businesses and the cost of parking is just one element.

 

The businesses in the centre of Camber do not only rely on those parking in Camber Central and Old Lydd Road car parks for custom. Local residents, holiday park visitors, and those staying in the village and walking to the beach all contribute, as do those who park elsewhere and walk to these facilities.

 

2023 saw the sixth wettest July on record and this had a direct impact on the number of day-trippers visiting Camber. During the trial period, 27 days were recorded by onsite Coastal staff as wet, overcast, and windy. Coastal Officers forecast each day at Camber as red, amber, or green, assessing likely visitor numbers and resource requirements dependant on weather conditions and Camber did not experience any ‘red’ days during this trial period. There were 8 ‘red’ days during the same period in 2022.

 

2.  As noted, one of the reasons the Council brought in the trial was to ensure visitors make an appropriate contribution to the ever-increasing cost of running the beach.

 

Rother District Council does not own Johnson’s Field – we have a lease arrangement with East Sussex Council whereby we have shared any profits from parking on the site in previous years. Both the revetment and the surface require significant investment and repair if Johnson’s field is to be used in the future. Whilst we appreciate the local builder’s estimate of £20,000, contractors who have assessed the site on behalf of ESCC and RDC estimate the work will cost significantly more. At this time, neither council has the available funds to invest in this scheme however this will be kept under review.

 

3.  As previously outlined, with any trial, it is important to collate data and review over a period of time. The Council’s motives for the trial were transparent – to attempt to reduce congestion, and to ensure visitors were fairly contributing to the costs of running the beach. There was not and is not any ulterior motive to financially damage the existing businesses. The Council will continue to look into options for meeting these objectives but there is no straightforward answer.

 

A common question from residents asks why the Council does not close the road to all except residents when Camber is “full”. East Sussex County Council is the Highways Authority however they advise that there is no ability under the highways act to restrict certain vehicles from the public highway. The Police are not authorised to close roads other than in an emergency such as a road traffic accident. Rother District Council is not a Highways Authority and as such has no powers to close roads due to congestion.

 

The other most frequently suggested solution is for the Council to offer a “park and ride” scheme. Unfortunately, this is not a cost-effective solution at present. The Council would need to hire vehicles and pay for drivers throughout the season and rent a suitable parking site. The cost of using the scheme would need to be low enough to entice visitors, who often wish to park as close to the destination as possible and usually bring additional items such as wind breaks, inflatables, toys, and food and drink with them to use on the beach. Unless coupled with a road closure, it is likely that these buses would simply add to the congestion on busy days and be running empty or near empty at other times.

 

Supplementary Oral Question: As I understand your answer, you feel that the weather, in addition to the parking policy, could have contributed to the smaller numbers visiting Camber, whereas it was reported in Dymchurch, Winchelsea Beach and other resorts that it was still very busy.  I therefore ask that on the days that Old Lydd Road car parks were full, do you know whether the percentage of spaces paid for according to Rother District Council records and a Ringo records?  Only when the fees returned to normal on the 2 September were Wardens present and issued penalty notices.  Does this not demonstrate people were taking the chance of getting away with it and more so at the higher rate?  Am I right in assuming then that revenue is seriously down and consequently visitors have not been contributing in any significant way to paying towards Rother District Council's costs, which was the intention, thank you.

 

Answer: Thank you, Mr Hyatt, I do not have any figures for you, but I can certainly get some.  I will ask the officers after this meeting and we will get them for you so that we can give you some data that you require.

 

5.     Pursuant to Paragraph 11 of the Council Procedure Rules the following question was put by Bernard Brown and answered by Councillor Oliver.

 

Question:  This question concerns the performance of Rother District Council in matters for which the Council is directly responsible in regard to its’ 100% ownership of Rother DC Housing Company Ltd.  The question is NOT one for the Company.  The question is put to RDC as the corporate body being a) the principal party to the Shareholder Agreement and b) the Corporate Body registered at Companies House as a Person of Significant Control.

 

The Leader is now asked to confirm that the Council, as required under the terms of the Shareholder Agreement and the Council in its’ performance of the duties as the Corporate Body designated as a Person of Significant Control in Rother DC Housing Company Ltd, has significantly failed in its’ specific responsibilities of Governance.

 

Will the Leader confirm this failure manifests itself through the breaches of the Companies Act in terms of registering Directors of the Company; the failure to remove Directors on ceasing to be elected members of RDC;  the failure to comply with the terms of the Shareholder Agreement in the appointment of external directors to the Company; the failure to prevent Board Meetings which were by default not quorate; the failure to comply with other duties defined in the Shareholder Agreement; the failure to ensure a Service Level Agreement is in place between RDC and Rother DC Housing Company Ltd; the failure to ensure a formal financial agreement covering advances of up to £4 Million by RDC to Rother DC Housing Company Ltd is in place. 

 

Will he precisely identify what steps are being taken to rectify these ongoing failures?

 

Answer: I welcome Mr Brown’s question and have recently provided a detailed response to Mr Brown following the receipt of a letter from him. The letter included a number of questions relating to the Council’s governance of Rother DC Housing Company Ltd and these are restated within the Public Question Mr Brown has submitted. In my response to this letter, I have acknowledged some administrative points of learning relating to the governance of the Company. I acknowledge these again here and we are grateful to Mr Brown for drawing these to our attention. We continue to work with our legal advisors to continuously improve the Council’s arrangements for governing the Company. The Council’s internal audit team has undertaken  a review of the Council’s governance of the Company, and a report will be coming forward to Audit and Standards Committee later in the year. The report will follow two earlier update reports presented to Audit and Standards Committee during 2022. I welcome the opportunity to meet with Mr Brown personally in order to demonstrate in more detail the governance arrangements and specialist legal counsel that the Council has in place in order to oversee the activity of the Housing Company effectively.    

 

Supplementary Oral Question: Can I first of all to say I want to add my congratulations to the Chair for the Civic Service at St Mary's yesterday, I thought it was a wonderful example of how councillors should be presenting themselves to the public. 

 

I thank him for his response and the answers he previously provided.  I would recommend all officers and councillors to read up on a document called Just Culture, and this is a policy document adopted by the airline industry where the objective of the exercise is to correct errors without going into a blame culture but accountability is absolutely essential for moving and improving processes going forward. I remain unconvinced that the full recognition is made of some of the very serious governance errors which have been made.  However, I am hopeful that the acknowledgment given by the Leader that lessons have needed to be learned really sets the pathway to a better governance.  Tonight's item on external directors is overdue and an example of past problems. The exchanges between myself and the Leader and the Chairman of the Housing company have been continuously courteous, and I publicly welcomed the opportunity to meet with them on these matters. The development of Blackfriars is a particularly important to me, just as is the governance and vital financing of the £88 million pound project. My supplementary question, I would ask the Leader if he can advise, when the service level agreement between the Council and the company cease to be a plan and become a reality, and, in addition to input from internal audit, may I ask that he and his officers discuss some of these matters, specifically with the external auditors, to ensure forward-facing governance and financial control truly become the norm, and the mistakes of the past are not repeated. Reports have said the Blackfriars project needs to regain viability, the repetition of mistakes is not an option.  Thank you.

 

Answer:  Thank you very much, Mr. Brown, for making those points and I will assure you that they will be attended to and we will get back to you with a more detailed reply, and I hope there will be an occasion quite soon where we can actually meet with the Chair of the Housing company and myself and any relevant officers in order to elucidate the responses to your questions.