Minutes:
The following questions were received from Cllr Ian Gibson:
Noting that the latest Quarterly Performance Monitoring Report identifies a loss of 66 affordable housing units due to the failure to achieve policy compliant S106 Agreements, and also that the Council is currently supporting 117 households in temporary accommodation, can the following information be provided:
For each of the four S106 agreements referred to in the report which were not policy compliant:
• The related planning application reference number
• The number of new homes proposed in the planning application and any reduction in this number resulting from the failure to achieve a policy compliant S106 agreement.
• The number of affordable homes that could have been achieved through a policy compliant S106 agreement.
• The number of affordable homes actually agreed.
• The value of any payments agreed in lieu of the provision of a lower number of affordable homes then would be policy compliant.
• Whether free serviced land in lieu of affordable housing was sought by the Council in accordance with District Plan policy DP31 part 5.
Also, the equivalent details for any developments approved in previous years where the re-negotiation of an S106 Agreement has led to a reduction in the number of affordable homes.
The following response was provided by the Cabinet Member for the Housing and Planning.
I have provided Councillor Gibson with a chart with all the information, and I will have my answers published with the chart for any other Members.
Talking about language, Councillor Gibson talks about a loss of 66 units but it is not a loss if they were not there from the start. You then must look at the viability of the site to see if you were ever going to produce those units. Councillor Gibson also says ‘due to the failure to achieve policy compliant S106 Agreements’. All S106 agreements are policy compliant but one has really to understand which part of the policy as there are supplementary planning documents behind policies. The question of the 66 units comes down to viability. There are three documents that support DP31, the Developer Contribution SPD, Affordable Homes SPD and Development Viability SPD, all of which are available on the website and will provide answers to some of these questions.
Viability is assessed by an Independent valuer that the Council employs. Once he/she decides a development cannot be viable with the level of S106 contributions, accommodations are made such as taking out units. They are not necessarily removed, they are deferred. Some sites may not have affordable housing, but larger developments are assessed at stages through and at the end. Some units will have then to be provided. Sometimes a financial contribution is required.
With regards to Councillor Gibson’s last question on whether free serviced land in lieu of affordable housing was sought by the Council, I can assure you it is, and the Housing team work hard to pursue this. It is vitally important that we provide affordable housing for people in our community. Every Member can be confident that any affordable housing that is taken out of a site is not done lightly and is challenged all the way through.
Councillor Gibson’s supplementary question asked if it was possible to strengthen DP31 part 5 in the coming District Plan review and the Cabinet Member confirmed that all policies were being revisited as part of that review.
The following questions were received from Cllr Robert Eggleston:
Noting that MSDC regularly submits bids for funding from central government what bids:-
have been submitted in the current calendar year by value and purpose; and
what has been the outcome of these bids?
Noting the Leader’s comments (Minutes of Council 3rd November 2021) that “the criteria for the LUF is such that projects could only be considered if there were no other options available”,
- why was it considered that there were not other options available to complete the Place and Connectivity scheme for Church Walk and Church Road; and
- when were the proposals for the Digital Hub drawn up and how was that to be originally funded?
The following response was provided by the Leader
As you know, the Council proactively seeks out opportunities to secure inward investment to deliver the best outcomes for our residents and businesses. In Burgess Hill alone we have secured over £46m in grant funding to support a range of enhanced infrastructure projects such as the A2300 corridor improvements, the Place and Connectivity programme and the delivery and rollout of the gigabit speed full fibre project and the upgrades to the sewage treatment plant at Goddards Green.
Turning to the specific question, during this financial year the Council has made 2 bids for Government funding in Burgess Hill.
The one Public Estate programme - the Council received £50k from OPE Phase 8 funding to support a feasibility review of a proposed regeneration of the Burgess Hill Train Station and adjacent land. This is in addition to the £25k contribution from Network Rail to support the feasibility work.
Regarding the Levelling Up Fund bid, as you are well aware this was for £14m to accelerate regeneration and private sector investment into Burgess Hill Town Centre. Unfortunately, that bid was not successful. It must be remembered that round 1 allocated only around third of the money available and whilst dates for round 2 are awaited, the Council is working with DHLUC on formal feedback of the LUF bid and will consider preparation of a Round 2 bid.
We also take the opportunity to make joints bids where possible and during this financial year we made a joint bid with West Sussex County Council to the UK Community Renewal Fund for £600k to develop community hubs across the district in collaboration with MSVA and Citizens Advice to deliver community outreach and support on issues such as debt, employment and housing. Unfortunately, this bid was unsuccessful but we will continue to explore opportunities to pursue that.
Councillor Eggleston’s supplementary question asked if Officers could consider providing a dashboard twice a year to update Members on the status of the bids. The Leader confirmed that it was a matter for the Members of the Scrutiny Committee who consider performance. He also noted that bids are not secret and are often detailed in committee papers unless there are commercially confidential elements.
The Leader addressed Councillor Eggleston’s specific questions regarding the LUF Bid with the following response:
As a member of the Burgess Hill Member Steering Group, you will be well aware of how oversubscribed the Place and Connectivity programme is and of the ongoing work the group is doing to prioritise the potential projects. There are far more projects than available funding. The Church Walk/Road scheme presented to the group was not affordable, within the Place and Connectivity budget and a phased approach was recommended. The Steering Group at its meeting in May 2021, agreed that officers should investigate and make additional bids for all possible grant funding streams in an attempt to deliver the comprehensive project including to the levelling up fund. The successful award of LUF, match funded with existing grant money, would have enabled the comprehensive scheme to be delivered. The fact that this bid was unsuccessful means that the Church Walk scheme will once again need to be considered and prioritised by the steering group alongside all the other potential projects in the programme. I understand the Steering Group will consider this at its next meeting in January 2022.
In relation to the Digital Hub the Full Fibre Programme has funded a high standard fibre network which is supported by a digital exchange. The exchange consists of technical equipment that has been specifically designed so that it can be relocated to serve a Digital Hub, a highly connected shared workspace, if this opportunity arises. This was planned as part of the Council’s Local Full Fibre Network Project to maximise the opportunities for further economic and social developments. As we have been very clear throughout, it is not just a question of putting the fibre in the ground, it is about ensuring our local economy is able to leverage that investment and make the most of it in terms of the connectivity it provides. The LUF bid would have provided the opportunity in order to deliver the Digital Hub components of that work already in place through the Local Full Fibre Network programme. Clearly, we are seeking the opportunity to take that to ensure the maximum economic benefit from the investments already made.
Councillor Eggleston’s supplementary question sought clarification that the two bids aren’t market failure, it just happens that in terms of bringing together a pot of money part public and part S106 there are more projects than can be funded without sourcing other funding. The Leader confirmed this is the case in terms of the Place and Connectivity Programme despite the amount of funding already secured.
The following questions were received from Cllr Paul Brown:
How many households in Mid Sussex have applied and paid the £150 deposit to join the WSCC Solar Together, Infinity Renewables project?
What is the aggregate estimated installed peak power capacity of these Solar PV installations if they all go ahead?
The following response was provided by the Cabinet Member for Environment and Service Delivery
I am sure Cllr Brown is aware registration for the scheme is free of charge. All those registering will receive a no obligation quote based on the information they provide about their house. It is only when the customer has considered the quote carefully and has decided to move on to the full survey and installation stage that a £150 deposit is payable. The number of households paying a deposit changes on a daily basis. The Council receives monitoring data from the County Council but there is a time lag. The most recent available data is from the end of September, and I am pleased to report that this shows Mid Sussex is currently topping the tables on the number registrations and offer acceptances with 1020 registrations of which 292 have been accepted.
It is not possible to estimate the installed peak capacity of installations at this stage as that will be entirely dependent on the surveys at each location.
?
Further details of the scheme can be found online at:
www.westsussex.gov.uk/campaigns/solartogether