|
SOVEREIGN HARBOUR TRUST
Residents had continued to voice questions
regarding Harbour charges and the role of the Trust. There was disquiet
concerning the ability of the Trust to make decisions regarding
residents' money without any representation for residents on the Trust's
Board. |
|
MO |
Started with the history: |
|
|
In June 1988 an agreement was signed between
various parties involved with development of the harbour site. This is
the SW Agreement (from the Southern Water Authority - now the
Environment Agency) and covenants Sovereign Harbour Limited (SHL) to
obtain a yearly rent charge.
The Trust was established for the maintenance of
the environment at the Harbour site, thus protecting home owners
investment. It also protects against changes to future Harbour
management companies.
IT WAS A CONDITION OF PLANNING that this agreement
be signed specifically because of the littoral drift problems likely to
be encountered.
The Rent charge comprises 2 elements, the SW Charge
and the Marina Charge.
The SW Charge is an amount payable annually in
advance and is a known FIXED amount, set at £75 in 1988 to be adjusted
annually according to the Retail Price Index.
The Marina Charge is a minimum of £10 or a sum
based on the COSTS of Harbour maintenance for the PRECEDING YEAR,
divided by 1500 (minimum) or the total number of dwellings.
The SW Agreement means that this money is collected
in perpetuity and the Trust administers the money from the SW charge.
Having paid for LITTORAL DRIFT[1]
obligations any surplus can be used to off-set costs of Sea Defence
works and Harbour Maintenance.
It is up to SHL to apply to the Trust for the
surplus money in order to reduce the Marina Charge.
An agreement signed in 2001 between the Sovereign
harbour Trust and the Environment Agency sets out precise figures.
£35000 (index linked annually) for LITTORAL DRIFT
50% of the surplus being available to the
Environment Agency
50% of the surplus being available to SHL for
Harbour maintenance.
The Trust retains a Sinking Fund (currently about
£30,000). |
|
MO |
Reiterated that ALL RESIDENTS had signed a Deed of
Covenant on completion of their property purchase and that the various
covenants and responsibilities are outlined in this Deed. It is also
clearly stated that should the Rent Charge remain outstanding for 2
years, the Trust can take legal possession of the property.[2] |
|
|
CD |
requested legal clarification of the status of the
Trust as a company "limited by guarantee" and MO will contact the
Trust's solicitor |
|
|
RL |
Asked about current Directors/Trustees and any
remuneration |
|
|
MO |
Trustees are UNPAID apart from expenses incurred eg.
to attend Board Meetings.
1 ex-Tarmac plc CEO
2 ex-Tarmac plc Finance
Officer
3 Carillion Executive
with an Engineering background (to monitor Harbour Maintenance etc) |
|
|
CD |
had the Environment agency identified
representatives for the Trust as discussed at the last meeting? |
|
|
MO |
Nothing yet forthcoming from the EA.
The SH Trust is continuing to apply for charitable
status for tax benefits. |
|
|
HARBOUR CHARGES - this years invoice |
|
DH |
Questioned the allocation of dredging costs was it
part of the littoral drift problem? |
|
|
CC |
Littoral Drift relates ONLY to the movement of
shingle. Harbour mouth silting is a problem faced by all harbours and
dredging is an essential part of Harbour Maintenance. With 50% of the
SW Charge surplus available for maintenance, SHL applied to the Trust
to use this money to off-set the dredging charges and thus reduce the
Marina charge levied on residents. |
|
|
DH |
Stated that this could be better defined in the
accounts sent to residents with the invoices for annual charges. |
|
|
CC |
Agreed that this should be investigated with a view
to better clarification of any charges. |
|
|
DH |
Asked whether the SW Charge was levied against
properties at the "Waterfront", Developers' Site Offices, Berth Holders |
|
|
MO |
ONLY RESIDENTS pay the SW Charge. Others charges
are levied against the above. |
|
|
CD |
Asked why the cleansing charges were so much higher
this year. |
|
|
DPH |
Increasing number of waterside developments with
consequent increase in rubbish as well as numbers of berths. Developers
were being monitored with a view to re-charging them should the problem
persist. |
|
|
RL |
Requested the number of properties currently on
site. |
|
|
CC |
1654 in total. 364 properties from the initial
phase of development are liable for the SW charge but are exempt from
the Marina Charge due to their distance from the waterside. Thus for
the Marina charge the divisor this year remains at 1500 (minimum). |
|
|
MO |
Reiterated that with on-going developments
increasing the number of "legally completed" properties, charges next
year should be lower. |
|
|
LITTORAL DRIFT |
|
There was discussion about the movement of shingle
BEFORE 2001 and concerning the agreement with Pentium.
§ Some residents had
enquired as to whether the shingle should have been moved over the past
7 years and at whose expense?
§ In the SW Agreement,
littoral drift was to be addressed by relocation of shingle from the
town side of the Harbour breakwater to the foreshore towards Pevensey
Bay. There has been however a dispute with the Environment Agency
concerning the removal of groynes.
§ Once the build-up of
shingle by the Harbour arm was sufficient to warrant removal it was
lifted and stockpiled until the dispute had been resolved. To raise the
level of the beach and to comply with EA requirements, Carillion moved
shingle from the Pevensey Bay road sites. NO MONEY FROM THE SH TRUST
was used until 2 years ago when the amount to be used was limited and
index linked.
§ The EA is now liable for
the upkeep of the foreshore and littoral drift and are responsible for
securing a long term contract with Pentium to fulfil this obligation.
(Contract NOT YET SIGNED as expected by year end 2002.) The EA apply to
the SH Trust annually for the agreed sum. |
|
FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS |
|
There were discussions about waterside walkways: |
|
1 David Wilson were
being urged to re-lay and complete their section.
2 Persimmon had erected
a picket fence at the end of the walkway on their first development,
because of a "Health & Safety issue" according to their site manager.
They had been asked to remove it.
3 Quotes had been
requested for completion of the walkway adjacent to White Oak's Dukes
Quay development. |
|
DH |
Queried a long term problem with a lamp post. |
|
|
DPH |
The problem would be addressed. Quotes had been
sought for a contractor to straighten all leaning and damaged posts. |
|
|
CD |
Asked if there had been any interest in the "Hotel"
site at Langney Point and whether there was continuing interest in the
Pevensey Bay Road sites |
|
|
MO |
No Hotel interest. Suggested that the site would
probably go for residential development. |
|
|
ALL |
Agreed that it would be a good site for a Pub /
Restaurant. |
|
|
MO |
Pevensey Bay Road sites are still under discussion
but nothing will be forthcoming until after the B&Q enquiry. |
|
|
RL |
Reiterated residents demands for more facilities at
the Waterfront with preference for retail units with housing over. |
|
|
MO |
No plans have been submitted. |
|
|
B&Q |
|
The Public Enquiry will start in February 2003.
Whilst the Enquiry is expected to last around 5
days, any resulting decision may take up to 6 months. |
|
Next meeting: To be agreed following the Public
Meeting on February 13th. |