Agenda item - Issues Raised by Members

To consider the following matters raised by Members:

 

(a)           Written Questions:

To consider any written questions

(a)          Member Questions

 

34.1      A copy of the questions received was circulated ahead of the meeting. Responses provided both at the meeting and in writing are as follows:

 

1.            Councillor Meadows- The King Alfred Leisure Centre Regeneration Project 

 

What's the predicted car parking numbers and revenue?  Will the car park be smaller or larger than current provision? 

 

Response: Cllr Robins

 

The outline designs for the new facility incorporate an undercroft car park which offers a similar level of capacity to the current surface car park and adjacent on-street parking (c.120 spaces). The undercroft also incorporates secure parking for cycles. 

For the purposes of the Cabinet paper, the same level of car parking revenue has been assumed which is a net income of £0.400m per annum. 

The proposals for parking are explained in more detail in section 4 of the cabinet paper.  

 

2.            Councillor Meadows- The King Alfred Leisure Centre Regeneration Project 

 

How much will it cost residents and visitors to use the King Alfred facilities? 

 

Response: Cllr Robins

 

We are still in the early stages of development so operational details such as costs and memberships will come much later in the process.  

 

3.            Councillor Meadows- The King Alfred Leisure Centre Regeneration Project 

 

How confident are you that your borrowing costs vs your projected income will match or could this be another i360? 

 

Response: Cllr Robins

 

Officers have updated the financial modelling from the original business case to ensure that the future cost of the facility is understood. This has included commissioning two new land valuations, and two new reports on projected future income generation for the new facility. 

The scenario set out in the cabinet paper (4.19) shows that the net annual cost of servicing the borrowing proposed larger-scale £65m project (£0.89m) is less than the net borrowing costs for the £47.4m project set out in the July 2024 cabinet paper (£1.06m). The cabinet paper includes a range of measures that could reduce the net cost of borrowing further, including re-prioritising income streams within Leisure Services, making use of new agency regulations to recover previously unrecoverable VAT, securing Homes England Grant Funding, and reprioritising the capital investment programme to direct more funding to the new King Alfred facility. 

 

4.            Councillor Hill- Local Government Reorganisation 

 

Could you explain how the administration came to the figure of £52.4m in annual net benefits from your Local Government Reorganisation proposal? What was the total cost of reorganisation before factoring financial benefits? Other analysis by the County Councils Network suggested that Councils needed to be at least half a million to make any savings so I'm keen to understand where this disparity comes from. 

 

Response: Cllr Hewitt 

 

The figure of £52.4m comes from the financial modelling undertaken for us by Ignite. Their method is set out in the appendices to our proposal. It used published financial data for every council in Sussex, with common assumptions applied across all options so that results can be compared on a like-for-like basis. 

The model works in three stages. First, it set out the baseline financial pressures if nothing changes. Second, it applied the recurring savings from reorganisation. Third, it added the one-off costs of transition.  

  

The £52.4m annual benefit is the net result once steady state is reached. The breakdown is: 

·                £20.2m from removing duplication in services 

·                £26.0m from running people services at the right scale (the “sweet spot” of 300k–400k residents referenced in PeopleToo research) 

·                £4.8m from senior management consolidation 

·                £2.1m from member and election costs 

·                offset by –£9.8m disaggregation disbenefits  

  

The one-off costs for the five unitary option are estimated at £168m–£197m. Government policy is that these costs are funded through eligible capital receipts, not through day-to-day service budgets.    

On the comparison with the County Councils Network. Their analysis was national and used broad population thresholds of around 500k. Our modelling is Sussex-specific, uses local data, and applies more recent evidence. PeopleToo’s work shows efficiency benefits at the 300k–400k level, which is the scale our proposal uses. The Essex proposal published this month also makes the same point about efficiency gains in smaller unitaries. 

So the difference is method. We have been transparent about both the costs and the benefits. These will be tested further through the statutory process before any final decision is taken. 

 

5.            Councillor Hill- Local Government Reorganisation 

 

Falmer lies in Lewes Parliamentary constituency and is being proposed to be included in the new Brighton & Hove unitary. If the purpose of bringing Peacehaven, East Saltdean & 

Telscombe Cliffs into a larger Brighton & Hove City Council is to align Parliamentary constituency boundaries, then this seems contrary to that purpose. Could you explain what appears to be a contradiction in aims? There are also concerns about splitting up current district council boundaries which this does. 

 

Response: Cllr Hewitt 

 

Our proposal was not about parliamentary boundaries. It was about lived geography and resilience. 

  

Peacehaven, Telscombe and East Saltdean are tied into the Brighton and Hove corridor through daily life. Falmer is linked just as strongly through the universities, the Amex, the hospitals and transport. Both moves follow the same principle, which is to align councils to where people actually live their lives. 

  

On splitting districts. Whole district options left us with councils that were either too big or too fragile. The Government invitation allows refinements where justified, and using them gives us five balanced councils of around 300,000 to 400,000 residents. That balance is what makes the structure sustainable for the long term. 

 

6.            Councillor Shanks- The King Alfred Leisure Centre Regeneration Project 

 

Can we be assured that the Administration will achieve affordable and social housing on the site? 

 

Response: Cllr Robins 

 

As detailed in the report the valuation used in the financial modelling is based on a scheme with planning compliant level of 40% affordable housing, and any application for residential development for the remainder of the site will be assessed against the policies in the Development Plan including policy CP20 which sets out the criteria for the provision of affordable housing.   

 

7.            Councillor Shanks- The King Alfred Leisure Centre Regeneration Project 

 

Will you require the Administration to present the full, combined scheme — leisure centre and housing — together, so that the public can properly understand its effect on the promenade, sea views, skyline, and seafront character before any further approvals are granted? 

 

Response: Cllr Robins 

 

One of the key lessons that was learned from the previous King Alfred projects is the importance of keeping the council-led delivery of the sport and leisure centre separate and distinct from the residential development.  The aim of this is to avoid creating the complex dependencies which have prevented previous project from successfully progressing. 

 

With that in mind, the current iteration of the project is focussed on the delivery of the sport and leisure centre. That focus has helped the current project progress further and faster than any of the previous projects. The planning application is scheduled to be submitted before the end of the year, with work to begin on site early next year.  This approach also enables the council to keep the current centre open for as long as possible while the development of the new centre progresses. 

 

The design of the new facility, and in particular its orientation on the site, has been developed to preserve sight lines out to sea from the streets leading north from Kingsway (Hove Street and Vallance Gardens. 

 

The planning application for the residential part of the site will be considered separately. Any application for residential development will be assessed against the council’s planning policies, including policy SA1 in City Plan Part 1 which sets out planning policy for the Seafront including the King Alfred site. 

 

8.            Councillor Shanks - The King Alfred Leisure Centre Regeneration Project 

 

What will be the total cost of the new leisure centre factoring in interest charges, and possibly compound interest charges for possibly 3 decades? how will this be met, will other projects need to be abandoned? 

 

Response: Cllr Robins 

 

The report sets out the financial implications of the proposed £65 million development including the estimated annual borrowing costs of £1.95 million assuming the capital receipt for the housing site is £26.4 million. The £1.95 million per annum is based on annuity repayment which means it includes both interest and capital repayment. The £1.95 million per annum is expected to be offset by increased income from the new facility and any net costs met from the range of actions set out in paragraph 4.24 of the report.  

 

9.            Councillor West - Local Government Reorganisation 

 

LGR is proving to be a textbook example of how not to bring forward change. The case for LGR was not proven by the Government but predicated on a partial report by the County Councils Network, adopted without question into the Government’s manifesto. The cabinet report states the scale of indicative savings over ten years are ‘fairly marginal’ compared to the growing cost pressures faced by authorities, yet transition would create colossal unfunded upfront costs; estimates of which could prove wildly understated when competing nationwide for delivery capacity resources. There seems no appetite for re-organisation amongst the public, who wish to retain local identity and democratic decentralisation, while preferring Government funding be committed to restore and expand services. Given the relevant Ministers have departed post, now is the moment to call for a moratorium of this hasty, unwelcomed, yet significant upheaval. Does the Cabinet agree? 

 

Response: Cllr Hewitt 

 

On the foundations of the process. Government has invited councils in Sussex to bring forward proposals. This is not something that has been imposed from the County Councils Network report. Our submission has been built on financial modelling and tested against alternatives. 

On costs and benefits. The report is clear that the pressures facing councils are very significant and that reorganisation alone will not resolve them. The modelling does show though that once transition is complete there would be real financial benefits worth over fifty million pounds each year. We have also been transparent about the one off costs of change. Our role has been to show what the range of costs might be, based on experience elsewhere, so that ministers can weigh these properly against the benefits. 

On public appetite. It is too early to draw conclusions. There has not yet been a statutory consultation. If government chooses to move forward that is when residents across Sussex will have their say. What we have done is engage locally on Brighton and Hove’s footprint so that our city has a clear voice if change is taken forward. 

Finally on timing. Changes in ministers do not alter the fact that the invitation to submit proposals remains. Our role is to make sure Brighton and Hove is represented and that the interests of our residents are safeguarded whatever decisions are ultimately taken. 

Calling for a moratorium now would mean stepping back and leaving others to decide the future of local government in Sussex without our input. We do not think that would be right. Our approach is to put forward a credible and evidence based option and to be open about both the risks and the opportunities. 

 

10.         Councillor West - The King Alfred Leisure Centre Regeneration Project 

 

Given the huge financial and service delivery uncertainties created by the Government’s LGR initiative, coupled with the council's increasingly perilous financial position, would it not be prudent to pause investment in major sports facilities until we know what communities will be being served and to see what means the council will have to meet the on-going financial commitment. 

 

Response: Cllr Robins 

 

The need to replace the current King Alfred facility is pressing and urgent. This was explained in some detail in the paper considered by Cabinet at its meeting in July 2024 and thereafter by the Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its meeting in August 2024. The condition of the current facility means that ongoing maintenance and running costs remain high. Furthermore, there is a continuing risk of forced closure due to the condition of the facility.  

With all of that in mind, it’s especially important that delivery of the project continues at pace. As shown in the Cabinet paper, the new facility offers the potential to generate much greater levels of revenue that the current facility. This in turn means that the projected revenue costs to the council to service the borrowing for the facility will be less than proposed in the Cabinet paper agreed in July of last year, as explained in the response to question 3. 

 

 

11.         Councillor McLeay - Rough Sleeping & Single Homeless Services Commissioning 

 

Having seen Change Grow Live (CGL) in action, I’ve been impressed by the quality and consistency of their service. As the commissioning process opens to tender, could you outline the specific criteria that prospective providers will need to meet – not just in terms of value for money? How will you assess their ability to deliver trauma-informed, person-centred care to achieve meaningful outcomes for those rough sleeping? 

 

Response: Cllr Williams 

 

Thank you for the positive feedback about the current service. 

The amended specification for the new tender has been written through a trauma informed lens, ensuring that the service user and their experience are at the centre of the work the council commissions. 

The tender response will require providers to respond to standard tender questions around proposed service model, mobilisation and costings. In addition, there will be specific questions around balancing the needs of those long-term rough sleeping with those who fall in the wider rough sleeping response or having ‘nowhere safe to stay’. As well as providers response to community safety issues. 

In order to ensure the voice of lived experience in the service design and evaluate how the service performs in a trauma informed way there will also be a set question which will be designed and evaluated by partners with lived experience from with the voluntary and community sector. 

 

12.         Councillor McLeay - Rough Sleeping & Single Homeless Services Commissioning 

 

While the recommissioning of the Street Outreach Service rightly considers financial sustainability and value for money, how will the Council ensure the quality of service? What mechanisms will be in place to ensure providers deliver a quality service, especially those with multiple compound needs? 

 

Response: Cllr Williams 

 

The new specification for the service has residents with multiple compound needs at the centre. The Street Outreach Service will form part of the Integrated Care Team response to those with MCN in partnership with NHS Sussex.  

The new specification has set KPI’s around reduction of rough sleeping in terms of overall numbers and specific KPI’s around those experiencing long term rough sleeping, as these individuals are more likely to experience MCN. The service will be monitored through the KPI’s along-side bi-annual reporting; covering topics such as, but not limited to, integration of service user feedback, collaboration and community integration and how training and best practice are embedded into the service. This sits alongside periodic contract reviews, which include service user, stakeholder and staff feedback alongside KPI performance. 

 

13.         Councillor McLeay- Brilliant Brighton Business Improvement District (BID) – New Ballot 

 

Given that the Council does not have formal representation on the BID Board, how will it ensure transparency and accountability in how BID funds are spent, and priorities are set? 

 

Response: Cllr Taylor 

 

A BID is a business run and business funded entity, it is not for the council to ensure transparency and accountability in how BID funds are spent. The BID’s priorities are set according to consultations undertaken by the BID with levy-paying businesses. 

 

14.         Councillor McLeay- Brilliant Brighton Business Improvement District (BID) – New Ballot 

 

What role will the Council play in overseeing the ballot process and ensuring that the BID Operating Agreement reflects the interests of both levy payers and the wider community? 

 

Response: Cllr Taylor 

 

In line with regulation 6(1) of The Business Improvement Districts (England) Regulations 2004, the BID ballot is held by the Ballot Holder, who is the person the council has appointed under section 35 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 as the returning officer for elections to the council. Jess Gibbons, as Returning Officer and Ballot Holder, is therefore responsible for overseeing the ballot process. 

Electoral Services, on behalf of the Ballot Holder, conducts the ballot process in line with the BID regulations. 

 

The BID Operating Agreement is a legal document that sets out the responsibilities of the council in terms of levy collection and the baseline services already undertaken. The rationale for a BID is to operate in the interests of their levy payers and this is set out in the BID’s Business Plan – sent to all levy papers with the ballot – rather than the Operating Agreement. 

 

15.         Councillor McLeay- Brilliant Brighton Business Improvement District (BID) – New Ballot 

 

Will the Council publish the baseline service levels for city centre maintenance and safety, so businesses can clearly see what additional value the BID is providing? 

 

Response: Cllr Taylor 

 

The baseline service levels will form part of the Operating Agreement for the BID. It is incumbent on the BID to promote the added value that they generate for city centre businesses. 

 

16.         Councillor McLeay– Greater Brighton Economic Board – Admission of New Member to the Board 

 

What specific contributions, beyond representation, will the Chamber make to the Board’s work programme? What resource commitment has been proposed that the Greater Brighton Economic Board sees as adding value? 

 

Response: Cllr Taylor 

 

The main aim of the Greater Brighton Economic Board is for members to work together, and with external stakeholders, to promote and create the conditions for sustainable and inclusive economic prosperity, whilst at the same time transitioning the region towards net zero. This closely aligns with the Sussex Chamber’s vision to support and drive sustainable economic growth and champion key issues in Sussex. 

 

In accepting applications for membership, the Board is asked to consider:  

i. Does the organisation buy into the Board’s agreed vision and priorities?  

ii. Do they share economic characteristics and represent the Greater Brighton functional economic area?  

iii. Do they add capacity to help the Board deliver on its agreed vision and priorities?  

iv. Will they add to the Board’s reputation, in terms of legitimacy, standing and reach?  

v. Are they going to actively participate and commit resource to supporting the Board and deliver the work programme? 

The admission of Sussex Chamber to the Board was agreed at the GBEB meeting of 9 July 2025. 

 

17.         Councillor McLeay– Greater Brighton Economic Board – Admission of New Member to the Board 

 

How will the Board monitor whether the Sussex Chamber’s representation genuinely reflects the diversity of Sussex’s business community, including micro-businesses, minority-owned enterprises, and social enterprises? 

 

Response: Cllr Taylor 

 

It is not the role of GBEB to monitor the membership of Sussex Chamber of Commerce, and the Chamber is not accountable to the Board. The Chamber has a relatively diverse membership base, but this will fluctuate over time. By including the Sussex Chamber within GBEB it provides an additional business voice to feed into city region strategic growth and development, helping to give SMEs a stronger voice. 

 

18.         Councillor McLeay– Greater Brighton Economic Board – Admission of New Member to the Board 

 

What reasons did constituent authorities state for not agreeing an amendment to the Heads of Terms? It would seem their concerns were overruled. Is there a contingency plan if one or more constituent authorities later raise further objections to the amended Heads of Terms? 

 

Response: Cllr Taylor 

 

Any changes to the Heads of Terms of GBEB must be agreed by all of the local authorities on the Board, otherwise decisions of the Board will not be formally ratified. As such, each local authority must agree changes to the Heads of Terms through their relevant decision-making body. It is unclear what concerns may have been over-ruled in this process – this Cabinet report is for BHCC to formally agree the GBEB decision in the same manner that the other member local authorities will ratify the decision.