URL: https://democracy.arun.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=1692

Decision Maker: Policy and Resources Committee

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose: The accommodation review business case examines the council’s office assets and outlines options for the future of BRTH. The building is currently underutilised and faces challenges related to running costs, condition, accessibility, and privacy.  These factors must be considered alongside service delivery needs, strategic priorities, and feedback from members and the public. On balance, the recommendation is to retain BRTH for the remainder of Arun District Council’s tenure, allowing the successor unitary council to determine its future accommodation requirements. However, there has been a recent expression of interest from BRTC to purchase the asset which it is proposed be explored and any offer received considered in accordance with the CAT Policy.  

Content: The accommodation review business case examines the council’s office assets and outlines options for the future of BRTH. The building is currently underutilised and faces challenges related to running costs, condition, accessibility, and privacy.  These factors must be considered alongside service delivery needs, strategic priorities, and feedback from members and the public. On balance, the recommendation is to retain BRTH for the remainder of Arun District Council’s tenure, allowing the successor unitary council to determine its future accommodation requirements. However, there has been a recent expression of interest from BRTC to purchase the asset which it is proposed be explored and any offer received considered in accordance with the CAT Policy.   (At the commencement of this item, Councillors Nash and Oppler re-declared their Personal Interests made at the start of the meeting).   The Project Manager presented a joint report from the Deputy Chief Executive and the Group Head of Technical Services outlining the findings of the accommodation review for the Bognor Regis Town Hall. (BRTH). The report presented a business case for the future of the asset, and it invited the committee to agree a series of recommendations relating to the continued provision of face?to?face customer services in Bognor Regis, and the longer-term use of the Town Hall, previously debated at the December meeting of the committee but deferred pending this review.   The Project Manager summarised the key elements of the report and the key findings from the review as set out in the report covering heritage status, staffing, maintenance, running costs, asset value and alternative uses, required remodelling to the reception area, income potential and public and member feedback.   It was reported that, although disposal of the Town Hall provided the strongest financial outcome, the report recommended retaining ownership for now due to the strong public and member support for local in-person services and the need to maintain flexibility for the incoming unitary council to determine its longer?term accommodation requirements.   Under this recommended approach the Council proposed spending £74k on essential maintenance and £73k on reception remodelling to improve privacy and security allowing the continued delivery of front?of?house services from the building. It was proposed to seek to lease the second floor to reduce net running costs, with BRTC being a potential tenant. The Town Council had also expressed interest in purchasing the asset. Recommendation 2.4, if approved, would provide the Town Council with a three month window to submit a formal offer and business plan in line with the Council’s Community Asset Transfer Policy. Any such proposal would be brought back to the appropriate committee once reviewed.   The recommendations were then proposed by Councillor Walsh and seconded by Councillor Lury.   The Chair invited debate. A member thanked those who had supported the withdrawal of the previous report and welcomed the revised report presented. They asked numerous questions emphasising the importance of maintaining frontline services at BRTH and urged officers not to enter new leases with other organisations until discussions with BRTC had concluded. The member supported the recommendations but did not support recommendation 2.3, expressing concern about the proposed £73,000 reception remodelling, which they considered unnecessary. The member agreed that essential works should proceed, but highlighted longstanding under maintenance of the building and sought confirmation that any expenditure should not be added to a future purchase price.   The member questioned the indicative valuation of just over £1 million and sought clarification on whether this figure included land value, noting that the building’s listed status prevented redevelopment and therefore limited land value. He referred to potential valuation exemptions when disposing of assets to another local authority and noted that protected tenancy rights would further reduce open market value. He went on to state that an open market sale would be unacceptable to the community. The member concluded by thanking officers for the report and recommendations and expressed hope that this would support constructive and positive negotiations with BRTC.   Other councillors speaking stated that they broadly supported the proposals, but also shared concerns already raised regarding the level of expenditure proposed for remodelling the building. They also expressed concern about the projected ongoing annual running costs of approximately £250,000 for a building with limited occupancy. An additional concern was highlighted over reduced occupation of the building, particularly the absence of staff on the second floor, which could lead to accelerated deterioration due to reduced monitoring. Reassurance was sought that appropriate maintenance oversight would be maintained to prevent the building falling into worse condition prior to any potential transfer.   Significant concerns were raised in relation to recommendation 2.4. It was noted that, while BRTC was being given a fixed three?month deadline to submit a business plan and offer, the Council had only committed to reporting back any offer at the earliest opportunity and so greater clarity on this expected timeline was requested. Clarification was also sought on what would be presented to members at that stage. Would the committee receive a full range of options or only a single proposal once officers had considered negotiations to be concluded. The member expressed concern that officers and members might take differing views on what should be considered by the committee. The view was expressed that Arun was often regarded as a challenging organisation for tenants and partners to negotiate with and so it was hoped that the process with BRTC would be fair, transparent, and free from unnecessary barriers.   The Group Head of Technical Services was asked to respond to the points raised. He confirmed that the upper floors of the Town Hall would continue to be regularly monitored by Facilities and Estates staff once vacated. Regarding recommendation 2.4, he explained that any business plan and offer received from BRTC would be reported back to members, with officers seeking clarification or undertaking limited negotiation if required. The wording allowed for exploratory work ahead of formal reporting due to uncertainty about the level of detail that may be submitted.   In response to earlier comments, the officer stated that while the condition survey identified approximately £73,000 of required works, this did not reflect significant neglect of the building. The proposed reception improvements were informed by staff experience, including incidents of violence and aggression and were the result of a formal review undertaken by ROSPA to improve staff security and privacy. It was explained that the market valuation had taken account of the building’s condition. Members would ultimately determine whether any offer from the Town Council was acceptable. The Council had the legal ability to dispose of assets at less than best consideration where there was a strong case for example for social or community well being. Any offer would need to align with requirements agreed by the committee, such as the continuation of front?of?house services.   Following further questions regarding the state of the building and the reception remodelling, Officers explained that the works reflected RoSPA safety recommendations, that the valuation included only minimal curtilage, and that phased window and fabric repairs formed part of the ten?year planned maintenance cost within the condition survey. Assurance was given that no new leases would be entered into before negotiations with BRTC.   The Chief Executive explained that the Council’s Community Asset Transfer Policy addressed many of the issues raised by members, including the consideration of social value. The policy provided a clear framework for assessing any proposal submitted by BRTC and enabled the council to dispose of an asset at less than best consideration where the required criteria were met. In relation to the proposed reception alterations, the Chief Executive emphasised that the pre Covid layout was no longer considered fit for purpose and she referred to the RoSPA review that had identified necessary changes to ensure staff safety, including the provision of interview rooms with two exit points to allow staff to retreat to a secure area if required. These recommendations had to be followed, and the council had already worked to keep the associated costs as low as possible.   A member expressed concern that the Council had not been an effective custodian of the Town Hall, citing issues such as the heating system in addition to window replacements. They stressed the importance of raising concerns early in the decision?making process to avoid difficulties later. Clarification was sought on the process should no offer be received from BRTC, noting that this was not explicitly addressed in the recommendations. They also highlighted the need for timely progress, referencing previous delays in other negotiations, and emphasised the importance of swift decision?making given local government reorganisation. The member stated their firm opposition to Arun paying rent to BRTC for front?of?house services should the building be transferred and asked for this position to be recorded. Finally, the member asked whether any offer received by the deadline of 12 May could be circulated immediately to all committee members, noting that dual?hatted members serving on Bognor Regis Town Council might otherwise become aware of the offer earlier than others.   In response, the Group Head of Technical Services clarified that, if no offer was received from BRTC within the required timeframe and the recommendations were approved, Arun would retain ownership of the Town Hall, would continue delivering front?of?house services from the building, and would proceed with the proposed reception remodelling and essential maintenance works. Any offer submitted under the Community Asset Transfer Policy would be brought to the Economy Committee for decision, with officers undertaking initial review and clarification before reporting. The Chief Executive advised that it would be highly unusual to circulate an offer to members immediately upon receipt, as it would be necessary for them to first assess it for accuracy, policy compliance and completeness. Members were reminded that dual?hatted councillors needed to carefully distinguish their roles and act solely in the interests of Arun District Council when sitting on its committees. The Monitoring Officer noted that while twin?hatted members may become aware of information earlier, safeguards could be put in place to ensure proper governance and to maintain fairness in the decision?making process.   The Chair emphasised the importance of ensuring members would be informed as early as appropriate once officers had completed their review.   Having concluded the debate, a request was made for recommendation 2.3 to be voted on separately.   The Committee                       RESOLVED – To   (1)             Retain in-person customer service from a fixed location in Bognor Regis;   (2)             Retain ownership of the Bognor Regis Town Hall (BRTH), and retain the fixed in-person front of house (FOH) services within the building for the remainder of Arun District Council’s tenure, allowing the successor unitary council to determine its future accommodation requirements, unless recommendation 4 (below) is triggered;   (3)                 Undertake the reception remodelling and essential maintenance works identified in the report under paragraphs 4.9 and 447; and   (4)                 That if a business plan and formal offer is received from BRTC in accordance with the council’s Community Asset Transfer Policy within three months of this resolution being passed, the option of Community Asset Transfer of BRTH to BRTC is to be further explored and reported back to the appropriate committee for consideration at the earliest opportunity.

Date of Decision: February 12, 2026