Agenda and minutes

The opening prayer was read by the Vice-Chairman.

Question from Mr Kirkwood – presented in his absence.

What, in detail, with timelines, is the Council’s plan to get NewRiver Retail (NRR) to regenerate Burgess Hill town centre? My understanding is that NRR have the opportunity to regenerate Burgess Hill since 2015 and to date nothing has been done. It is about time that this was sorted and it is upon you and your Council to sort it. Residents of Burgess Hill are frustrated by the way you have dragged your feet regarding this matter.

The following response was provided by the Leader

Thank you for your question. As a Burgess Hill resident for nearly 35 years, I share your frustration about the lack of apparent progress on the redevelopment of the Martlets shopping centre. As you know I have been working hard on behalf of residents to get New River Retail (NRR) to bring a redevelopment forward as soon as possible and have been publicly vocal in that regard. 

It is worth reflecting that, whilst the Council is the freeholder of the Martlets shopping centre, NRR holds a 110-year lease. This means NRR is responsible for redeveloping this part of the town centre estate.

Notwithstanding my own frustration about progress on the redevelopment, I firmly believe that NRR are committed to redeveloping and improving the Martlets having invested a significant amount of money over the years, including its original purchase of the lease in 2010 from the Administrators of Thornfield.  New River enabled works on the town’s, award-winning library. It has also secured, de-contaminated and redeveloped the gas holder site in Leylands Road on which there is now the well-used Lidl store at its cost and relocated the Iceland store to Church Walk all at its cost.

It is also worth recapping that NRR has secured two planning permissions to redevelop the site over the last 7 years. The first in 2016 and the second in July 2021. The harsh reality is that the first of these applications was overtaken by changes in retail trading, such as the rise in online shopping and consequent change in retailers' readiness to take space in town centres.  Consequently, NRR secured the second permission that was less reliant on retail and included more leisure and food/beverage uses. However, it is clear that even this revised scheme was not commercially viable to deliver, with the leisure and hospitality industry still trying to recover from the pandemic.

As a result, this Council sought to assist NRR by seeking financial support from the Government. In 2021 and 2022 we worked with NRR and the County Council to submit bids to the Levelling Up Fund for financial support to help make the scheme viable. Unfortunately, on both occasions the government declined to provide any assistance, despite the Council being told that its bids were of high quality and fulfilled all the Government’s criteria. This lack of support from the Government was very regrettable. It has left the Council and New River with the difficult task of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the minutes of the last meetings were a correct record. Council agreed the minutes and they were signed by the Chairman.

Councillor Eggleston declared an interest related to item 10 as he is Director of Burgess Hill Community Partnership CIC which has a tenancy on the Martlets shopping centre.

None.

The Chairman highlighted recent engagements and announced that he will be supporting the charity Winston’s Wish for his term of office.

Councillor Eggleston moved the item noting that the Scrutiny Committee has commenced work on the review and has set a timetable for Town and Parish engagement. He confirmed that the engagement will take place during August and September. This was seconded by Councillor J Belsey.

The Chairman took Members to a vote on the recommendation as set out in the report which was approved unanimously.

RESOLVED

The Council agreed to positively engage with Town and Parish Councils prior to the Regulation 19 Consultation.

Councillor Eggleston moved the item noting that there has been one nominee amendment and there are three contested items. This was seconded by Councillor Bennett. The Monitoring Officer conducted a vote by show of hands on the contested appointments:

Friends of Ashenground and Bolnore Wood Steering Committee:

Councillor Bates: 26 votes                  Councillor Ellis: 16 votes.

Councillor Bates was therefore appointed as the Council’s representative. 

Gatwick Airport Consultative Committee:

Councillor Cornish: 17 votes              Councillor Mockford: 23 votes.

Councillor Mockford was therefore appointed as the Council’s representative.

Councillor Edwards withdrew her nomination to the High Weald Joint Advisory Committee. The Chairman took Members to a vote on the remaining recommendations en-bloc. These were approved with 42 in favour and 1 against.

RESOLVED

Council approved the following nominations to Outside Bodies:

Councillor Eggleston moved the item, noting that the recommendations are the same as the report considered by Council on 7 December 2023. This was seconded by Councillor Cooke.

Members discussed the appropriateness of the proposed increase in relation to the workload of Councillors. The Chairman took Members to a vote on the recommendations as set out in the report, which were agreed with 31 in favour, 3 against and 9 abstentions.

RESOLVED

Council considered the recommendations of the Panel and agreed the scheme of allowances for the financial year 2023/024 as set out in paragraph 3 of the report.

The Council received the Leader’s update. In response to questions, he confirmed that housing targets are mandatory until such time as the law changes. He also clarified the meaning of 20-minute neighbourhoods, noting that this was not to be conflated with Ultra Low Emission Zones which the Council cannot implement as it is not a charging authority. With regards to Section 106 funds, he noted that Officers continue to ensure that infrastructure funding is sought from neighbouring Local Authorities for development that affects the District. In response to a question regarding the redevelopment of the Martlets, he confirmed that the intention is for a commercial retail development.

He responded to questions regarding Haywards Heath Town Council’s aspirations for District Council assets, confirming that the Clair Hall and Clair Park assets are owned and maintained by the District Council. The District Council will work collaboratively with Town Councils to identify where it is and isn’t appropriate to change current arrangements.

The Council received the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Communities and Communications update. She noted a Member’s request for the playdays schedule to be communicated to Parish Clerks. She also confirmed that she is aware of a letter received following a recent meeting of the three towns.

The Council received the Cabinet Member for Finance, Revenues and Benefits update. In response to questions on the interim use of Clair Hall, she confirmed that the NHS could continue there until the contract is satisfied and if there is in an economically viable alternative it could be reopened as an entertainment space. The Council is exploring several options, aiming to have a multi functioning cultural centre and community space with mixed entertainment options. 

The Council received the Cabinet Member for Leisure and Customer Services update. In response to a question regarding Council playing pitch investment, a paper will be presented to Cabinet to outline investment options.  He agreed to provide a written response outlining the current position of all 6 parks including when work will commence on Finches Field.  He also provided an update on the green bin service and the opening of the Lido at the Triangle Leisure Centre.

The Council received the Cabinet Member for Sustainable Economy and Housing update. He acknowledged that the Mid Sussex Science week was the right forum to encourage the younger generation’s involvement in carbon reduction. With regards to questions on the New Homes Bonus, he confirmed that it was not included in the recent budget, and that the Council will be working with communities to establish the priorities for investment. In response to a question on Housing Associations he agreed that it was essential to work with them to understand the challenges and issues within the District. Regarding infrastructure delivery to resolve traffic issues in the north of the District he is aware that the Council is in discussion with Surrey County Council and West Sussex County Council and agreed to investigate  further.

Question from Councillor?Paul Brown

Recent Planning Committee and District Planning Committee decisions have been determined with Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) mitigation either not yet secured or secured at an offsite location outside the boundary of both Mid Sussex District and Mid Sussex Planning Authority.  Do you think that most Members of this Council and members of the public would prefer BNG mitigation to be secured both as close as possible to the development receiving grant of planning permission and within this local authority?  Can Council prepare a list of sites ready and willing to provide biodiversity mitigation to compensate for the loss of biodiversity on development sites??

Response from the Leader of the Council

Thank you for your questions. In response to your first question, the answer is yes, that would always be our, Natural England and the Government’s preference.  Although the government Metric for calculating BNG allows for off-site delivery there is a ‘Spatial Risk’ multiplier which penalises proposals where off-site habitat is located at a distance from the impact site. I would refer you to Section 9 in the Draft District Plan, especially Policies DPN1 and DPN2 which set out this Council’s Position. With respect to Strategic Sites in the District, the policies are in the plan and we expect these to exceed the BNG set out in the Environment Act 2021.

In answer to your 2nd point, we will be making a call for sites which owners wish to offer up as being suitable for BNG mitigation soon. The Council will also be considering if any land in its ownership could also be identified for off-site BNG.