Minutes:
The following question was received from Councillor Henwood:
Community buildings which may be able to provide "warm hubs" are a way of providing warm places for those citizens in the District that will be not able to afford to pay the costs for keeping warm. "What is Mid Sussex District Council doing to co-ordinate and publicize warm hubs in the District?"
The Deputy Leader provided the following response:
We have already heard from the Leader in terms of the winter support being rolled out in Mid Sussex. West Sussex County Council on behalf of all the District and Boroughs in the County, is coordinating our response to ‘warm hubs’ and this Council is working closely with them to identify buildings that can be used. Many Parish and Towns are doing similar and the Council is looking at grants that can be offered to other groups to do same.
This Council recognises the advantages of the ‘warm hubs’ scheme and we will play an active role in promoting the offer and its benefits.
Councillor Henwood asked a further question on what funding may be available to support and fund any District Council community buildings that may be identified. The Deputy Leader noted that the position is developing and said he will provide a reply as the position becomes clear.
The following question was received from Councillor Marsh:
Please could the Leader of the Council clarify the cost to the taxpayer of Cllr Eggleston's letter before action challenging the Sites Allocation DPD and the extraordinary meeting of Council on 10th August, including the costs of the additional meeting, legal advice, and officer time.
The Leader provided the following response:
Officers have calculated the total costs to the taxpayer as £11,761. This includes officer time, barrister’s opinion, and the costs of holding an extraordinary meeting of the Council. It is clearly regrettable.
The following question was received from Councillor Alison Bennett:
Looking at the Cabinet papers for Monday when you will consider the final consultants' reports for Clair Hall, please can you explain whether you intend to engage a single broker/agent to pursue both Model 1 (refurbishment) and Model 3 (cultural and other provision via redevelopment), or whether you intend to run two separate processes in parallel with two independent third parties?as suggested in the BOP report?
And given that over 145k has been spent since your botched plan to close it.
The Leader provided the following response:
Thank you for your question. Please note the subject of your question is a matter for the Cabinet to decide at their next meeting on Monday. The proposal is to commission specialist help to pursue further the recommended models. How and when both models would be taken forward is a matter for further work experts to work on and advise us on. This would be the focus of the next phase of work, subject to the Cabinet agreeing to the recommendations.
Councillor Bennett asked the following supplementary question:
Reading the policy context on p14 of the Cabinet report it is clear that the decision to close Clair Hall was counter to the District, Neighbourhood and Town Centre plan. If Clair Hall remains closed, the facility will be lost and BOP report makes it clear that a replacement is not a certainty in the current economic climate. Why have neither the Cabinet, Steering Group nor consultants spoken to groups who have proposals to run it on a no cost basis?
The Leader responded by noting that the process being followed is set out in the report. He reminded Members that Clair Hall is currently being used by the NHS and the Council is using an evidence-based process to ensure it is fit for purpose and for the future.