Agenda and minutes

Council
Tuesday 20 November 2018 2.00 pm

Venue: Committee Rooms, East Pallant House. View directions

Contact: Graham Thrussell on 01243 534653  Email:  gthrussell@chichester.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

33.

Approval of Minutes pdf icon PDF 147 KB

After an initial welcome and the reading of the emergency evacuation procedure by the chairman, the Council will be asked to approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting on Tuesday 25 September 2018, a copy of which is circulated with this agenda.

Minutes:

In the absence of the Chairman of the Council, Mrs E Hamilton (West Wittering), who was indisposed, this meeting was chaired by the Vice-Chairman, Mrs N Graves (Fernhurst).

 

The Vice-Chairman welcomed everyone present to the final Council meeting of 2018, which was likely to be longer than usual, and explained the emergency evacuation procedure.

 

The Council formally received the minutes of its previous meeting on Tuesday 25 September 2018, a copy of which had been circulated with the agenda for this meeting.

 

There were no proposed changes to the minutes. 

 

The Vice-Chairman sought and obtained the Council’s approval for her to sign and date the minutes as a correct record.   

 

Decision

 

The Council voted unanimously on a show of hands to make the resolution below.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the minutes of the meeting of the Council on Tuesday 25 September 2018 be approved as a correct record.

 

The Vice-Chairman then duly signed and dated as a correct record the final (thirteenth) page of the official version of the aforesaid minutes.

 

[Note This para and paras 34 to 50 below summarise the consideration of and conclusion to agenda items 1 to 18 inclusive but for full details of the matters summarised hereunder (save for the exempt item 18) reference should be made to the audio recording facility via the link below.

 

http://chichester.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=132&MId=923&Ver=4 ]

 

[Note Hereafter in these minutes Chichester District Council is denoted by CDC]

 

 

34.

Late Items

The Chairman will announce any late items which are to be dealt with under agenda item 16 (Late Items).

Minutes:

There were no late items for consideration at this meeting.

 

35.

Declarations of Interests

Members and officers are requested to make any declarations of disclosable pecuniary, personal and/or prejudicial interests which they have in respect of matters on the agenda for this meeting.

Minutes:

Declarations of prejudicial interests were made by the two undermentioned members in respect of agenda item 7 (Chichester BID Alteration Ballot):

 

·       Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place) as he was a director on the Chichester Business Improvement District Board.

 

·       Mrs J Kilby (Cabinet Member for Housing Services) as a substitute member on the Chichester Business Improvement District Board.

 

Declarations of personal interests were made by the two undermentioned members in respect of agenda item 12 (Chichester Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach), insofar as it was relevant to do so, where reference was made to the Goodwood Motor Circuit and/or Goodwood Airfield:

 

·       Mr M Hall (Westhampnett), who was the CDC appointed member on the Goodwood Airfield Consultative Committee.

 

·       Mr R Plowman (Chichester West), who was the Chichester City Council appointed member on the Goodwood Airfield Consultative Committee.

 

A declaration of a personal interest was made by Mrs P Tull (Sidlesham) in respect of agenda item 12 (Chichester Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach) in that she was a personal friend of the owner of the land which might be affected by the proposed housing allocation for the parish of Hunston.                            

 

 

36.

Chairman's Announcements

Apologies for absence will be notified at this point.

 

The chairman will make any specific announcements.

Minutes:

Six apologies for absence had been received:

 

Mr R Barrow (Selsey South and Cabinet Member for Residents Services), Mr M Dunn (Westbourne), Mrs E Hamilton (West Wittering and Chairman of the Council), Mrs P Hardwick (Fernhurst), Dr K O’Kelly (Rogate) and Mr C Page (North Mundham).

 

The Vice-Chairman made two specific announcements with respect to the recent centenary anniversary of the end of World War I:

 

·       On Sunday 11 November 2018 she in common with no doubt many members had attended a Remembrance Day service.

 

·       Many parishes had organised local events to mark the end of the Great War and CDC had made available to each parish in Chichester District (if requested) the sum of £150 to hold a commemorative beacon lighting event.  

 

 

 

37.

Public Question Time

In accordance with Chichester District Council’s public questions scheme and with reference to standing order 6 in Part 4 A and section 5.6 in Part 5 of the Chichester District Council Constitution, consideration will be given at this point in the meeting to questions which have been submitted by members of the public in writing by 12:00 on the previous working day. The time allocated for public question time is subject to the chairman’s discretion to extend the period for each member of the public (five minutes) or the total time for public questions (15 minutes).

Minutes:

Eight public questions had been submitted for this meeting, details of which appear below.

 

The text of all the questions had been circulated in a document to CDC members, the public and the press immediately prior to the start of this meeting. The Vice-Chairman invited each person in turn to come to the designated microphone in order to read out the question before an oral response was provided.

 

The questions (with the date of submission shown within [ ] at the end of the text), any supplementary questions and the answers given by Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place) or Mrs S Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services) were as follows.

 

Question (1): Mr Stephen Holcroft

 

‘I would like to ask a public question in the above meeting and have the attachment made available along with my question.

 

[Note The attachment was a map which appeared at the end of the text for this question in the aforementioned document setting out all the public questions] 

 

The question relates to item 12 of the agenda “Chichester Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach – Consultation” and is as follows:

 

All the proposed strategic site allocations in the Chichester Plan have sensibly been allocated in flood zone 1 areas of low probability of flooding with the exception of SA6 Land South-West of Chichester. 

 

As you can see from my attachment this allocation has been placed directly on a zone 2 medium risk and zone 3 high risk area.

 

I refer you to the Strategic Policies section 5.54 of the plan.

 

5.54 As a consequence of the rise in sea levels and storm surges, parts of the plan area will be at increased risk from coastal erosion, groundwater, fluvial and/or tidal flooding. Hard defences may not be possible to maintain in the long term, therefore development needs to be strongly restricted in areas at risk to flooding, whilst ensuring that existing towns and villages are protected by sustainable means that make space for water in suitable areas

 

Also the Government Planning Framework is quite clear when it states:

 

‘Only where there are no reasonably available sites in Flood Zones 1 or 2 should the suitability of sites in Flood Zone 3 be considered.’

 

Ask yourselves the question, if the flood risk looks like this now, what will it look like in 20/50/100 years’ time? This proposed site is not a long term vision. It is quite frankly reckless to even consider this as a sensible area for development given the problems already highlighted in 5.54 of the plan.

 

My question to the Council is:

 

Why is this allocation the only allocation to be placed on a Zone 3 high flood risk area and why are you considering such an unsuitable site for development given the high risks of flooding?’

 

[Friday 16 November 2018]

 

Response: Mrs S Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services)

 

‘Thank you for your question. Whilst a portion of the proposed site allocation is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

38.

Allocation of Affordable Housing Commuted Sums

The material relevant to this item is the report on pages 25 to 27 of the agenda considered by the Cabinet at its meeting on Tuesday 2 October 2018.

 

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

 

That the allocation of £165,000 commuted sum monies to Windsor and District Housing Association Ltd (Radian) to fund the delivery of eight additional affordable units at Flat Farm Hambrook be approved.

Minutes:

The Council considered the recommendation made to it by the Cabinet at its meeting on Tuesday 2 October 2018, as set out in the Cabinet report (pages 25 to 27 of the Cabinet agenda).  

 

Mrs J Kilby (Cabinet Member for Housing Services) formally moved the Cabinet’s recommendation and this was seconded by Mrs S Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services).

 

Mrs Kilby presented the Cabinet’s recommendation by summarising the report. CDC currently held just under £1.2m unallocated commuted sum monies, which had been received by developers when on-site affordable units were impossible to provide eg when the contribution due was for only a fraction of a unit. This commuted sum fund was set aside solely to enable affordable housing. Of the £1.2m, just over £221,000 had been received from schemes in the parish of Chidham and Hambrook. Radian Housing Association had obtained planning permission to demolish an existing house and to develop 11 new homes. Three of those units were secured as shared ownership affordable housing within the section 106 agreement, with the rest to be market sale homes. Practical completion of the site was expected at the end of October 2018. However, due to issues of mortgage availability on the site Radian was willing to deliver all of the units as affordable rented properties. Accordingly, it had applied to vary the section 106 agreement and the usual consultations would take place before any decision was made. As the scheme was acquired as a market site, Radian needed a £165,000 grant to supplement that which had already been awarded from central government to enable the viability of an affordable housing scheme. This was a great cost-effective opportunity to provide more much-needed high quality affordable housing for local people. There were currently 17 households on CDC’s housing register which claimed a local connection to the Chidham and Hambrook parish. As there were no other affordable rented units programmed for the parish up to 2029, this could be the last chance for an appreciable time for local people to be housed within that area. It was a fitting opportunity to allocate £165,000 of the sums received from the developments within Chidham and Hambrook parish, thereby enabling the parish to benefit directly from earlier development.

 

Mr J Brown (Southbourne) said that it seemed that the developer had obtained planning permission to deliver market housing but for some reason (he noted that electricity pylons crossed the site) it was unable to provide the full number of units and was now in effect asking CDC to make up the shortfall and subsidise the building of affordable housing.

 

Mrs Kilby replied that some of the houses were shared ownership units and the developer would bring these forward. Mrs L Rudziak (Director of Housing and Communities) said that originally the site was to have had three shared ownership and eight market units. The proposed allocation did not amount to a subsidy to meet a shortfall in a market site but was a means of providing additional affordable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

39.

Chichester BID Alteration Ballot

The material relevant to this item is the report on pages 29 to 32 of the agenda considered by the Cabinet at its meeting on Tuesday 2 October 2018.

 

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

 

That authority be delegated to the Deputy Leader to vote in accordance with Cabinet’s decision in relation to the Alteration Ballot.

Minutes:

[Note Immediately prior to the start of this item Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place) and Mrs J Kilby (Cabinet Member for Housing Services) withdrew from their places on the dais and sat in the public seating area, in accordance with their respective declarations of having a prejudicial interest as recorded in minute 35 above, and they played no part in the discussion of and decision on this matter]

 

The Council considered the recommendation made to it by the Cabinet at its meeting on Tuesday 2 October 2018, as set out in the Cabinet report (pages 29 to 32 of the Cabinet agenda).  

 

At the invitation of the Vice-Chairman, Mrs E Lintill (Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Community Services) informed the Council that there was an amendment to the Cabinet’s recommendation as set out in the agenda, namely that after the final word ‘Ballot’ and before the ensuing full stop the following words were now inserted: ‘if the request to hold the Ballot is formally confirmed by the BID’, so that the full text of the recommendation, as amended, now read:

 

That authority be delegated to the Deputy Leader to vote in accordance with Cabinet’s decision in relation to the Alteration Ballot if the request to hold the Ballot is formally confirmed by the BID.’

 

Mrs Lintill formally moved the Cabinet’s recommendation and this was seconded by Mrs S Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services).

 

Mrs Lintill presented the Cabinet’s recommendation by summarising sections 3, 4 and 5 of the report; the purpose was to delegate authority to Mrs Lintill to vote on behalf of CDC as a BID levy payer because Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council) could not do so as he was a member of the BID board. 

 

Decision

 

On a show of hands the members voted in favour of the Cabinet’s recommendation with no votes against and no abstentions. 

 

RESOLVED

 

That authority be delegated to the Deputy Leader to vote in accordance with Cabinet’s decision in relation to the Alteration Ballot if the request to hold the Ballot is formally confirmed by the BID.

 

[Note At the end of this item Mr Dignum and Mrs Kilby returned to their places on the dais for the remainder of this meeting]

 

 

 

40.

Tower Street Chichester Public Conveniences Refurbishment

The material relevant to this item is the report on pages 33 to 35 of the agenda and pages 1 to 7 of the agenda supplement considered by the Cabinet at its meeting on Tuesday 2 October 2018.

 

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

 

That an additional budget allocation of £65,000 from Reserves to supplement the existing Asset Replacement Programme budget of £80,000 for the project be approved.

 

Minutes:

The Council considered the recommendation made to it by the Cabinet at its meeting on Tuesday 2 October 2018, as set out in the Cabinet report (pages 33 to 35 of the Cabinet agenda and pages 1 to 7 of the agenda supplement).  

 

Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place) formally moved the Cabinet’s recommendation and this was seconded by Mrs E Lintill (Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Community Services).

 

Mr Dignum presented the Cabinet’s recommendation by summarising sections 3 and 4 of the report. These public conveniences had last been refurbished 30 years ago. In addition to the general modernisation which was due, there were particular issues to address with regard to drainage, the sub-structure and the disabled toilet being unfit for purpose. There were insufficient funds in the Asset Management Programme (AMP) to cover the total cost of the refurbishment and so an additional allocation from reserves was required. It was intended to start the works in 2019 and signs directing the public to alternatives facilities would be in place.

 

Members spoke in support of the refurbishment, which was both overdue and to be greatly welcomed: the disabled facilities were in desperate need of improvement to meet the public’s legitimate high expectations; the city had lost a number of public conveniences in recent years and it was essential to maintain them to a sterling standard; and the standard and condition of the public conveniences were a visible reflection of the excellence of the city as a whole.

 

Mr Dignum responded to two specific points raised by members: (a) as this would be a further but necessary call on CDC’s reserves, officers would be looking at the adequacy of the AMP and (b) Chichester City Council continued to make (as agreed in 2011 at a public conveniences task and finish group) a financial contribution to the upkeep of these important facilities in the city.

 

Decision

 

On a show of hands the members voted in favour of the Cabinet’s recommendation with no votes against and no abstentions. 

 

RESOLVED

 

That an additional budget allocation of £65,000 from Reserves to supplement the existing Asset Replacement Programme budget of £80,000 for the project be approved.

 

41.

Absence Management Policy

The material relevant to this item is the report on pages 17 to 18 in the agenda and pages 1 to 17 of the agenda supplement considered by the Cabinet at its meeting on Tuesday 6 November 2018.

 

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

 

That the revised Absence Management Policy be approved.

 

Minutes:

The Council considered the recommendation made to it by the Cabinet at its meeting on Tuesday 6 November 2018, as set out in the Cabinet report (pages 17 to 18 of the Cabinet agenda and pages 1 to 17 of the agenda supplement).  

 

Mr P Wilding (Cabinet Member for Corporate Services) formally moved the Cabinet’s recommendation and this was seconded by Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place).

 

Mr Wilding presented the Cabinet’s recommendation by summarising sections 3 and 5 of the report and explained the various stages and trigger points in the table in section 4.0 of the draft Absence Management Policy in the appendix (page 3 of the agenda supplement); hitherto there had been no trigger points at all. He also referred to sections 12 (general guidance – sickness absence) and 13 (other relevant guidance) in the draft policy. He was pleased to say that sickness absence was now on a downward trend, currently (October 2018) at eight days per person per annum, and the trend was expected to continue on a downward trajectory.

 

Mrs C Apel (Chichester West and Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC)) and Mr K Martin (East Wittering and OSC member) said that the OSC had examined this revised policy, which was excellent and they commended the very good work which had been done in achieving a well-defined procedure and a balanced approach. 

 

Decision

 

On a show of hands the members voted in favour of the Cabinet’s recommendation with no votes against and no abstentions. 

 

RESOLVED

 

That the revised Absence Management Policy be approved.

 

 

42.

Determination of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme for 2019-2020

The material relevant to this item is the report on pages 19 to 23 in the agenda and its three appendices on pages 19 to 77 of the agenda supplement considered by the Cabinet at its meeting on Tuesday 6 November 2018.

 

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

 

That the Council Tax Reduction Scheme for 2019-2020 be approved.

 

Minutes:

The Council considered the recommendation made to it by the Cabinet at its meeting on Tuesday 6 November 2018, as set out in the Cabinet report (pages 19 to 23 of the Cabinet agenda and pages 19 to 77 of the agenda supplement).  

 

Mr P Wilding (Cabinet Member for Corporate Services) formally moved the Cabinet’s recommendation and this was seconded by Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place).

 

In the absence of Mr R Barrow (Cabinet Member for Residents Services) Mr Wilding presented the Cabinet’s recommendation by summarising the report with respect to sections 3 (the abolition of the national council tax benefit scheme in 2013 and the new local scheme operated by CDC since then), 5 (the four minor amendments made to simply the scheme and reduce the administrative costs), and 6 and 8 (the large level of support during the summer 2018 consultation for the proposed changes). As noted in para 3.6 of the report, CDC was among the minority of local authorities which since the end of the national means-tested council tax benefit scheme had continued to protect its financially vulnerable residents in what was a generous scheme.  

 

Mr R Hayes (Southbourne) said he was proud to be a member of CDC, which took very seriously assisting its residents in need, especially those receiving Universal Credit. 

 

Decision

 

On a show of hands the members voted in favour of the Cabinet’s recommendation with no votes against and no abstentions. 

 

RESOLVED

 

That the Council Tax Reduction Scheme for 2019-2020 be approved.

 

 

43.

Non-Domestic Rates Discretionary Scheme 2017-2021

The material relevant to this item is the report on pages 25 to 28 in the agenda and its appendix on pages 79 to 83 of the agenda supplement considered by the Cabinet at its meeting on Tuesday 6 November 2018.

 

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

 

That the amended Non-Domestic Rate Discretionary Scheme for 2017-2021 be approved.

 

Minutes:

The Council considered the recommendation made to it by the Cabinet at its meeting on Tuesday 6 November 2018, as set out in the Cabinet report (pages 25 to 28 of the Cabinet agenda and pages 79 to 83 of the agenda supplement).  

 

Mrs E Lintill (Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Community Services) formally moved the Cabinet’s recommendation and this was seconded by Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place).

 

Mrs Lintill presented the Cabinet’s recommendation by summarising the report with particular reference to:

 

·       Section 3: (a) the discretionary fund available for four years from 2017 to assist businesses to adjust to the revaluation of non-domestic rates and (b) the lower than expected take-up rate in the first year, due principally (despite initial and repeated publicity by CDC) to a reticence to apply because of the state aid rules.

 

·       Section 5: how in the remaining three years of the scheme, payments to eligible customers would be maximised and a repetition of the first-year underspend would be avoided – the increases in the fixed percentage awards for the next three years were set out in the table in para 5.1 of the report. The recent budget changes would not affect this amended scheme.

 

·       Section 8: in the recent consultation West Sussex County Council had noted with approval the proposed changes and Sussex Police had no comments (it was a statutory consultee but the scheme had no financial implications for it).  

 

Mr A Moss (Fishbourne and Leader of the Opposition) commended the changes to the scheme and said (with reference to the question he asked at the Annual Council meeting on Tuesday 22 May 2018 about the underspend of the funds for the 2017-2018 allocation) that whilst the lower volume of applicants was disappointing he accepted that CDC had done all it could to encourage applications to be made.

 

Decision

 

On a show of hands the members voted in favour of the Cabinet’s recommendation with no votes against and no abstentions. 

 

RESOLVED

 

That the Council Tax Reduction Scheme for 2019-2020 be approved.

 

 

 

 

 

44.

Chichester Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach - Consultation

The material relevant to this item is the report and update sheet on pages 1 to 18 in the agenda and its four appendices on pages 1 to 274 of the agenda supplement which are to be considered by the Cabinet at its special meeting on Wednesday 14 November 2018.

 

Chichester District Council members have not been issued with a hard copy of the agenda supplement since its contents were circulated to them in the confidential agenda for the meeting of the Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel on Thursday 1 November 2018. They are requested to bring those confidential agenda papers with them to this meeting.

 

Having regard to para 2.1 of the agenda report but subject to the outcome of the Cabinet’s special meeting, it is anticipated that the Council will be asked to approve the following recommendation:

 

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

 

(1)  That the Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach document (attached as appendix 2 to the cabinet agenda report) and the schedule of proposed changes to the policies map (attached as appendix 3) be approved for an eight-week consultation from 13 December 2018 to 7 February 2019.

 

(2)  That the Director for Planning and the Environment be authorised, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning Services, to make minor amendments to the consultation documents prior to their publication.

 

Minutes:

The Council considered the recommendation made to it by the Cabinet at its special meeting on Wednesday 14 November 2018, with regard to the Cabinet report (pages 1 to 18 of the Cabinet agenda), its appendices (pages 1 to 274 of the agenda supplement), the revised version in the sixth agenda supplement of the agenda report update sheet, and the (first) agenda supplement for this meeting in which an amended version of para (1) of the Cabinet’s recommendation was set out (para (2) was unchanged).

 

Mrs S Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services) formally moved the Cabinet’s amended recommendation and this was seconded by Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place).

 

Mrs Taylor presented the Cabinet’s amended recommendation as follows. CDC currently had an adopted Local Plan but was committed to reviewing it by July 2020 to ensure that the development needs of the Local Plan area were addressed in accordance with national planning policy. The Local Plan Review would be for 2020 to 2035 and would cover the Chichester District area outside the South Downs National Park (SDNP). Work on the evidence base to inform the Local Plan Review had been ongoing for the past two years. Appendix 4 to the report set out the evidence base already published together with future dates of publication. The Local Plan area’s housing need was based on the government’s current proposed methodology and was capped at an increase of 40% of the figure in the existing Chichester Local Plan (CLP), resulting in a housing need figure of 12,350 new dwellings over the plan period ie 609 dwellings plus 41 dwellings per annum to accommodate the unmet housing need of the SDNP within the CLP area, namely a total of 650 dwellings per annum. The Chichester Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach (CLPRPA) had two parts. Part one set out some of the key planning issues and challenges together with the preferred spatial strategies to meet the needs of the Chichester Local Plan.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               It proposed inter alia specific sites for development. A majority of the planned growth would be in the east-west corridor including Chichester city, with more moderate development for the Manhood Peninsular and in the north of the District. In addition, provision for new employment floor-space was proposed equating to over 230,000 m2 for the plan period. Part two of the CLPRPA comprised development management policies, which provided greater detail with respect to, for example, design, heritage, housing mix/tenure and landscape considerations. If approved by the Council, the CLPRPA would be published for consultation for a period of eight weeks from 13 December 2018 to 7 February 2019. The Revised Local Development Scheme (the next agenda item at this special meeting) set out the timetable for taking the CLPRPA through to adoption, which self-evidently was very tight. Failure to proceed to consultation on the CLPRPA would be likely to result in the extant CLP becoming out-of-date with its serious consequences. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

45.

Revised Local Development Scheme 2018-2021

The material relevant to this item is the report on pages 19 to 22 in the agenda and its appendix on pages 275 to 289 of the agenda supplement which are to be considered by the Cabinet at its special meeting on Wednesday 14 November 2018.

 

Chichester District Council members have not been issued with a hard copy of the agenda supplement since its contents were circulated to them in the confidential agenda for the meeting of the Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel on Thursday 1 November 2018. They are requested to bring those confidential agenda papers with them to this meeting.

 

Having regard to para 2.1 of the agenda report but subject to the outcome of the Cabinet’s special meeting, it is anticipated that the Council will be asked to approve the following recommendation:

 

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

 

That the Cabinet recommends to the Council that it approves the revised Local Development Scheme 2018-2021.

 

 

Minutes:

The Council considered the recommendation made to it by the Cabinet at its special meeting on Wednesday 14 November 2018, as set out in the Cabinet report (pages 19 to 22 of the Cabinet agenda and pages 275 to 289 of the agenda supplement).  

 

Mrs S Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services) formally moved the Cabinet’s recommendation and this was seconded by Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place).

 

Mrs Taylor presented the Cabinet’s recommendation saying that the Local Development Scheme (LDS) identified and timetabled the planning documents to be prepared by CDC for its plan area over a three-year period, and the version of the LDS appended to the report was for the period 2018 to 2021. She drew attention to the revised timetable for the Local Plan Review. As mentioned in the preceding agenda item, the timetable was now very tight and there was no room for slippage if CDC wished to attain its target date of July 2020. The Local Plan Review would require work to commence on development plan documents (DPD) such as Gypsy and Traveller Sites and the Site Allocation DPD. Dates had not yet been set but it was anticipated that work would start on them shortly. The LDS was constantly kept under review and updated. It was published on the CDC’s website to enable the community and stakeholders to find out about the planning policies for their area and the timetable for the production of the documents.

 

Mrs Taylor and Mr A Frost (Director of Planning and Environment) responded to members’ questions and comments on points of detail as follows:

 

·       The timetable was admittedly very compressed for preparing the various Local Plan documents but CDC was obligated to have them available for the 2020 deadline set for the Local Plan Review. Some categories of document eg the supplementary planning documents did not have to be produced until after the adoption of the Local Plan Review. Officers were committed to complying with the 2020 deadline and indeed the one after that in 2025. The Planning Policy team was now fully resourced.

 

·       A failure to meet the stipulated five-year review deadlines would put the Chichester Local Plan area at risk of speculative development because of the absence of a five-year housing supply and CDC would lose the benefit of the government’s 40% cap on housing. Whilst the approval by the planning inspector of the current Chichester Local Plan was contingent on a full five-year review, officers hoped that the 2025 review would only be a partial one.  

 

Decision

 

On a show of hands the members voted in favour of the Cabinet’s recommendation with no votes against and no abstentions. 

 

RESOLVED

 

That the revised Local Development Scheme 2018-2021 be approved.

 

 

46.

Questions to the Executive

[Note In accordance with standing order 14.11 of Chichester District Council’s Constitution, this item is allocated a maximum duration of 40 minutes]

Minutes:

The questions to the executive asked by members and the responses given were as follows:

 

Question: Compliance with procedures and use of an alternative generator model for the temporary ice rink in Priory Park Chichester

 

Mr R Plowman (Chichester West) referred to the work now underway for the installation of the temporary ice rink in Priory Park Chichester following the grant of planning permission on Wednesday 14 November 2018 and sought confirmation that all the requirements and procedures were being satisfied and requested an explanation for the choice of a different generator to that identified in the noise study.

 

Response

 

Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place) said that this was an operational matter and so he deferred to the relevant directors for a response.

 

Mrs J Hotchkiss (Director of Growth and Place) said that the planning permission with conditions had been issued; building control conditions would be addressed once the ice rink structure was on site; the licence to occupy was in force; the management plan would be implemented gradually as the event progressed; and the application for a premises licence would be determined by the Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Sub-Committee on Thursday 22 November 2018. She was unaware of the change in specification for the generator and would instruct environmental health officers to investigate.

 

Mr A Frost (Director of Planning and Environment) said that he did not believe that there were any pre-commencement planning conditions but there were a couple of conditions for which compliance was required within the next two weeks.

 

Mr H Potter (Boxgrove) observed that in view of the amount of power required to run the refrigerators for the ice rink it was very likely that there would be two generators deployed to work on an alternate basis; this should be borne in mind when monitoring the noise.

 

Question: Unresolved breach of condition relating to the provision of sewer upgrades in Southbourne

 

Mr J Brown (Southbourne) referred to a question he had asked at the Cabinet’s special meeting on Wednesday 14 November 2018 about how a breach of condition which had occurred almost a year ago relating to the provision of sewer upgrades in Southbourne had not been properly addressed: no request to vary the original condition had been made, no evidence had been supplied that the work required by the original and extant  condition was not necessary and Southern Water had recently completed a different set of works. Southern Water had been contacted and given oral (but no written) assurances that the original condition was not required. In the public’s eye, however, there was a planning condition which was not being enforced. He and one of his co-members for the Southbourne ward, Mr R Hayes, had pursued the matter during the past year with the CDC enforcement officers, who had advised him that they did not have the power to deal with changes made by Southern Water to the terms of a planning condition. He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

47.

Committee Calendar of Meetings - May 2019 to May 2020 pdf icon PDF 55 KB

The Council is requested to consider the agenda report and its appendix and to make the following resolution:

 

RESOLVED

 

That the committee calendar of meetings for May 2019 to May 2020 be approved.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Council considered the report and its appendix circulated with the agenda for this meeting.

 

The Vice-Chairman moved the Cabinet’s recommendation and this was seconded by Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place).

 

Mrs D Shepherd (Chief Executive) briefly introduced the report.

 

At the start of the discussion Mr A Moss (Fishbourne and the Leader of the Opposition) proposed an amendment to the recommendation in para 2.1 of the report, namely that after the final word ‘approved’ the following words be inserted: ‘and officers be invited to investigate a revised calendar of meetings to include some evening meetings to accommodate working councillors and for local residents to attend more easily’.

 

Mr J Brown (Southbourne) seconded this proposal.

 

Mr Moss said that whilst he was content with the calendar overall there was in his view a duty to have meetings later in the day to assist both members who were in employment and local residents, thereby maximising attendance routinely at CDC meetings.

 

Mr Brown pointed out that he had used 15 days of his annual leave to attend various meetings including several Local Plan Review member briefings; he was fortunate in that he had a very understanding employer. He felt that the current arrangement was very off-putting to working-age councillors. He was, therefore, fully in support of Mr Moss’ proposal.

 

Four members spoke against the proposal: Mrs P Tull (Sidlesham), Mrs P Dignum (Chichester South), Mr S Oakley (Tangmere) and Mr J Connor (Selsey North). The points made were that (a) the matter had been discussed several years ago in detail and ultimately it had not been pursued after a limited experiment in holding some meetings later in the afternoon and that did not lead to an increased attendance; (b) later meetings could pose safety issues for lady members who lived in distant wards because they would have to drive home in the dark; (c) evening meetings at CDC would clash with parish, town and city councils which were held at that time of day; (d) evening meetings would have resource implications for CDC officers and other staff and also they and the public would then have to travel home late.     

 

Mrs C Apel (Chichester West) favoured the proposal, saying that the current meetings timetable made it very difficult for younger people to attend and they would be helped by late afternoon and evening meetings. She disagreed that it would create problems with evening parish council meetings because in other local authority areas parish and district/borough council meetings were held in the evenings without a problem.

 

Mr F Hobbs (Easebourne) sympathised with Mr Moss’ point and he too had lost annual leave by attending CDC meetings. He suggested that the best way forward was to approve the calendar now and review the position following the CDC elections in May 2019.

 

The Vice-Chairman called for a vote by a show of hands on Mr Moss’s amendment proposal. There were seven votes  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

48.

Late Items

(a)  Items added to the agenda papers and made available for public inspection.

 

(b)  Items which the chairman has agreed should be taken as matters of urgency by reason of special circumstances to be reported at the meeting and recorded in the minutes.

Minutes:

As stated by the Vice-Chairman during agenda item 2, there were no late items for consideration at this meeting.

 

 

49.

Exclusion of the Press and Public

The Council is asked in respect of agenda item 18 (Transfer of Service) to make a resolution that the public including the press should be excluded from the meeting on the following grounds of exemption in Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 namely Paragraphs 1 (information relating to any individual) and 3 (information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)) and because, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption of that information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

 

Minutes:

A resolution to exclude the press and the public from the meeting during the final agenda item 18 was formally proposed by Mrs E Lintill (Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Community Services) and seconded by Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place).

 

Decision

 

On a show of hands the members voted in favour of the resolution set out below with no votes against and no abstentions. 

 

RESOLVED

 

That in accordance with section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 (the Act) the public and the press be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of agenda item 18, Transfer of Service,for the reason that it is likely in view of the nature of the business to be transacted that there would be disclosure to the public of ‘exempt information’, being information of the nature described in Paragraphs 1 (information relating to an individual) and 3 (information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)) in Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act and because in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

 

 

50.

Transfer of Service

The material relevant to this item is the confidential exempt report* on salmon-coloured paper for members and relevant officers only within the Cabinet agenda papers for the meeting on Tuesday 6 November 2018 (pages 41 to 45)

 

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

 

(1)  That the transfer of the service as outlined in section 5 of the report be approved.

 

(2)  That the Director of Residents Services be given delegated authority to conclude the final details of the transfer, including the capital receipt and the timing of the transfer, after consultation with the Cabinet Member for Community Services.

 

*[Note The ground for excluding the public and press during this item is that it is likely that there would be a disclosure to them of ‘exempt information’ of the description specified in Paragraphs 1 (information relating to any individual) and 3 (information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)) of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972]

 

Minutes:

The Council received and considered the confidential exempt agenda report circulated to members and officers only.

 

The Council considered the recommendation made to it by the Cabinet at its meeting on Tuesday 6 November 2018, as set out in the exempt confidential Cabinet report, both in the original version (pages 41 to 45 of the Cabinet agenda) and the revised version of that report which was circulated in the second agenda supplement for the Council meeting the previous day and provided as hard copy to members shortly before this meeting commenced.   

 

Mrs E Lintill (Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Community Services) formally moved the Cabinet’s recommendation and Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place) seconded it.

 

The report was presented by Mrs Lintill and Mrs J Dodsworth (Director of Residents Services).

 

The matter was discussed by the Council.

 

Mrs Lintill and Mrs D Shepherd (Chief Executive) responded to members’ questions and comments on points of detail.

 

Decision

 

On a show of hands the members voted in favour of the Cabinet’s recommendation with no votes against and no abstentions. 

 

RESOLVED

 

(1)  That the transfer of the service as outlined in section 5 of the report be approved.

 

(2)  That the Director of Residents Services be given delegated authority to conclude the final details of the transfer, including the capital receipt and the timing of the transfer, after consultation with the Cabinet Member for Community Services.