Chichester District Council
Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Committee Rooms - East Pallant House

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

Items
No. Item

229.

Approval of Minutes pdf icon PDF 146 KB

The Council will be asked to approve as a correct record the minutes of its special meeting on Monday 19 June 2017, a copy of which will be circulated in an agenda supplement subsequent to the despatch of this agenda. 

Minutes:

The Chairman of the Council first of all welcomed everyone present to this meeting of the Council and explained the emergency evacuation procedure.

 

The Council received the minutes of its special meeting on Monday 19 June 2017, which had been circulated with the agenda supplement released simultaneously with the agenda (copies attached to the official minutes).

 

There were no proposed changes to the minutes.

 

Decision

 

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

 

RESOLVED

 

That the minutes of the Council’s special meeting on Monday 19 June 2017 be approved without making any amendments.

 

Mrs Hamilton then duly signed and dated the final (fifteenth) page of the official version of the aforesaid minutes as a correct record.

 

230.

Late Items

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

Minutes:

Mrs Hamilton stated that there were no late items under agenda item 16 for consideration at this meeting.

231.

Declarations of Interests

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

Minutes:

Declarations of personal or prejudicial interests (with in the latter case the grant by the Monitoring Officer of dispensations) were made in respect of agenda items 6 (Approval of the Vision for Chichester City Centre), 9 (South Downs National Park Authority – Development Management Agency Agreement), 11 (Community Governance Review - Midhurst) and 14 (Community Governance Review - Chichester) by the undermentioned who were members of the stated councils or bodies consulted about or otherwise involved with the subject matter of those items:

 

A - PERSONAL INTERESTS

 

Agenda Items 6 and 14

Chichester City Council

 

(1)  Mrs Apel

 

(2)  Mr Budge

 

(3)  Mr Dignum

 

(4)  Mr Hixson

 

(5)  Mrs Kilby

 

(6)  Mr Macey

 

(7)  Mr Plowman

 

Agenda Item 9

South Downs National Park Authority

 

(1)  Mrs Duncton - West Sussex County Council appointed member

 

(2)  Mr Dunn - Chichester District Council appointed member

 

 

B - PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS WITH DISPENSATIONS

 

Agenda Item 11

Midhurst Town Council

 

(1)  Mr McAra – Member of Midhurst Town Council

 

(2)  Mr Morley - Member of Midhurst Town Council

 

As to the dispensations granted to Mr McAra and Mr Morley with respect to their aforementioned prejudicial interests, Mrs Hamilton read out the following statement:

 

‘I refer Council to the item relating to the recommendation to Council as to Midhurst Parish Council from the Boundary Review Panel.  A dispensation has been granted to Mr McAra and Mr Morley following formal consultation with myself as Chairman of Council in accordance with the constitutional requirements.  This dispensation has been granted by the Monitoring Officer Mr Bennett who has provided me with a full legal analysis of his thinking in this matter.  Mr McAra and Mr Morley are entitled to speak and move any proper motions through myself and may vote on this item.’

 

232.

Chairman's Announcements

The Chairman will make any specific announcements and present two staff awards.

 

Apologies for absence will be notified at this point.

Minutes:

Mrs Hamilton mentioned the following apologies for absence:

 

Mr Collins, Mr Dempster, Mr Galloway, Mrs Hardwick, Mr Hayes, Mr Hicks, Mrs Lintill, Mr Lloyd-Williams, Mr Potter and Mrs Tassell.

 

All other Council members were present.

 

Mrs Hamilton said she was very pleased to be able to present the following two awards which had recently been made to Chichester District Council (CDC) staff

 

(1) Chichester District Council Car Parks Services

 

Mrs T Murphy (Parking Services Manager) and many of her colleagues who worked in her team were in attendance for the presentation.

 

Mrs Hamilton explained that this award was one of the Parking and Traffic Regulations Outside London (Patrol) Awards 2015-2016. These national awards promoted and shared best practice amongst councils in the production of annual parking reports. The award was presented to Mrs T Murphy (Parking Services Manager) and her team at a House of Commons reception sponsored by David Rutley MP on 11 July 2017, which was also attended by Eileen Lintill and Gillian Keegan MP. The team had worked incredibly hard to make parking easier for customers and had improved the way they worked and so it was commendable and very well-deserved that this had been recognised externally.

 

To applause by members, Mrs Murphy received the award from Mrs Hamilton and said that she was delighted to receive this accolade on behalf of the Parking Services team, all of whom she invited to stand. She and her colleagues were committed to improving the service for customers, whose feedback had been sought and given careful consideration. This was a nationally recognised award and out of 70 authorities which had applied there had been a shortlist of nine. It was a great privilege to attend the House of Commons for the formal presentation of the award. One of the benefits of this success was that CDC was now viewed by local authorities as a leader in parking matters and other councils would be visiting CDC to learn about best practice. The award was a great credit to her staff. She and they appreciated being invited to attend the Council meeting.

 

Members acknowledged this achievement with a further round of warm applause.     

 

(2) Chichester District Council Pelle Team:

2017 Chichester Triathlon Series Adult Sprint Distance

 

Mrs Hamilton explained that CDC had entered more than one team for this competition, which was sponsored by Nature’s Way, and it had been won by the Pelle Team on Sunday 9 July 2017. At her invitation Eleanor Caldwell (Wellbeing Officer) came forward to receive the award and members acknowledged the team’s success with appreciative applause.

 

Mrs Hamilton concluded her announcements by saying that she had recently begun to send tweets about what she was doing as the CDC Chairman, using @CDC_chair. She was grateful to CDC Public Relations for assisting her in doing this.

 

 

 

233.

Public Question Time

In accordance with Chichester District Council’s scheme of public question 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 total time allocated for public question time is 15 minutes but this is subject to the chairman’s discretion to extend that period for each member of the public (five minutes) or the total time for public questions (15 minutes).

Minutes:

No public questions had been submitted for this meeting.

 

 

[Note Minute paras 234 to 245 below summarise the consideration of and conclusion to agenda items 8 to 17 inclusive but for full details please refer to the audio recording facility via this link:

 

http://chichester.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=132&MId=735&Ver=4 ]

234.

Approval of the Vision for Chichester City Centre pdf icon PDF 2 MB

The report is at item 5 of the agenda for the Cabinet’s meeting on Tuesday 11 July 2017 and its three appendices are in the first (main) agenda supplement.

 

The Cabinet made the following recommendations to the Council at this meeting.

 

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

 

(1)  That the final text for the Chichester Vision document be approved.

 

(2)  That authority be delegated to the Economic Development Manager following consultation with the Leader of the Council to enable minor amendments to be made to the document after any further comments from project partners.

 

Minutes:

The Council considered the recommendations made to it by the Cabinet at its meeting on 11 July 2017 as set out on the face of the agenda (copy attached to the official minutes), the details in respect of which were contained in the report on pages 11 to 15 of the agenda for that meeting and also in the three appendices to the report on pages 1 to 38 of the first agenda supplement. All Chichester District Council (CDC) members had received a copy of the Cabinet agenda and the first agenda supplement. 

 

A second agenda supplement had been published which circulated in electronic format for online viewing only the current draft version of the Vision for Chichester Centre (Vision) document (copy attached to the official minutes).  As stated on the front cover of the draft document, the layout and illustrations had yet to be finalised and so were subject to amendment and change.  The draft version was indicative of how the text would appear in the context of the document as a whole.  

 

Mr Dignum (the Leader of the Council) formally moved the recommendations of the Cabinet and this was seconded by Mrs Taylor (the Cabinet Member for Planning Services). 

 

Mr Dignum said that members had agreed in discussion with officers on the need for a vison for the future of the city of Chichester. It was essential that such a vision was supported by the city’s stakeholders, the three local authorities based in the city, businesses and residents. Accordingly a steering group had been established by a Project Partners Group, developed with many stakeholders and with a number of surveys. This collaborative work had culminated in a six-week public consultation, the results of which revealed overwhelming support for the Vision. The aims were to agree a clear definition of ‘what do we want Chichester City Centre to be’ ie what is to be the future form and function of the city centre. This would include (1) defining  Chichester city centre’s offer as a vibrant and attractive commercial and cultural focal point serving residents, workers and visitors, across all demographics; (2) identifying development opportunities realisable without damaging the heritage and in partnership between the private sector and others in the public sector (the Southern Gateway was a prime example aimed at attracting significant new inward investment into the city, thereby generating economic growth and the creation of jobs); and (3) creating a well-managed, well-coordinated, and well-promoted city centre to attract visitors.

 

A central objective had been a drive to generate new ideas and to provide the key data required to take an informed view. The proposals in the Vision had, therefore, been shaped by field research, reviews of previous plans and strategies, facilitated workshops attended by representatives of community and business organisations, and a comprehensive range of studies including (a) research into comparable towns and cities and (b) qualitative and quantitative studies into usage of and satisfaction with the city and its facilities among residents, businesses,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 234.

235.

Chichester District Council Annual Report for 2016-2017

The report is at item 6 of the agenda for the Cabinet’s meeting on Tuesday 11 July 2017 and its appendix is in the first (main) agenda supplement.

 

The Cabinet made the following recommendation to the Council at this meeting.

 

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

 

That the Chichester District Council Annual Report for 2016-2017 be received.

 

Minutes:

The Council considered the recommendation made to it by the Cabinet at its meeting on 11 July 2017 as set out on the face of the agenda (copy attached to the official minutes), the details in respect of which were contained in the report on pages 16 to 17 of the agenda for that meeting and also in the appendix to the report on pages 39 to 83 of the first agenda supplement. All Chichester District Council (CDC) members had received a copy of the Cabinet agenda and the first agenda supplement. 

 

Mr Dignum (the Leader of the Council) formally moved the recommendations of the Cabinet and this was seconded by Mrs Kilby (the Cabinet Member for Housing Services). 

 

Mr Dignum remarked that whilst it was customary for the Cabinet at its meeting not to review the report in detail, the hard work put into producing it was to be commended.  Members were encouraged to familiarise themselves with the report which detailed the wide-ranging work carried out by CDC and the many achievements delivered on behalf of the District’s communities. He thanked Mr Mildred and all officers for their extensive efforts in preparing the report.

 

During the discussion (full details of which are available via the audio recording on CDC’s web-site) members made comments and asked questions about various matters and received where appropriate answers from Mr Dignum. The subjects included:

 

(a)  The names of the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman ought to appear before the Cabinet members on page 43 in the first agenda supplement – this would be amended.

 

(b)  The report ought also to cover what CDC had attempted but failed to achieve and work or projects which were ongoing, for this would make the report not only more comprehensive but useful – this would be raised with officers.

 

(c)  The report ought to include in the Planning Services section starting on page 80 of the first agenda supplement a review of the Development Management (DM) service provided by CDC on behalf of the South Downs National Park Authority – this would be raised with DM officers by Mrs Taylor.

 

(d)  The report ought to include in the Planning Services section on page 80 of the first agenda supplement a reference to the Tangmere strategic development location site in the ‘Key areas of work for 2017/18:’ section – Mrs Taylor would ask officers to add that site.

 

(e)  The report ought to include in the Building Control part of the Planning Services section on page 81 of the first agenda supplement a reference to the terms of performance eg compliance within the stipulated timescale – this was a good idea which would be raised with officers by Mrs Taylor.         

 

At the end of the debate the following decision was made by the Council.

 

Decision

 

The Council voted with respect to the recommendation made to it by the Cabinet and on a show of hands it was in favour of making the resolutions set out below, with no votes  ...  view the full minutes text for item 235.

236.

Making the Lavant Neighbourhood Development Plan

The report is at item 7 of the agenda for the Cabinet’s meeting on Tuesday 11 July 2017.

 

The Cabinet made the following recommendation to the Council at this meeting.

 

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

 

That subject to a successful referendum the Lavant Neighbourhood Development Plan be made part of the Development Plan for Chichester District (excluding the area within the South Downs National Park).

Minutes:

The Council considered the recommendation made to it by the Cabinet at its meeting on 11 July 2017 as set out on the face of the agenda (copy attached to the official minutes), the details in respect of which were contained in the report on pages 18 to 19 of the agenda for that meeting. All Chichester District Council members had received a copy of the Cabinet agenda. 

 

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

 

Mrs Taylor summarised section 3 of the Cabinet report and stated the result of the referendum which had taken place on 18 July 2017 as follows: the turnout was 24% and 86% of those who voted were in favour of the neighbourhood development plan (NDP), the majority threshold being 50%. The recommendation related to the Chichester Local Plan area ie that part of Chichester District which lay outside the South Downs National Park Authority’s (SDNPA) jurisdiction. The SDNPA’s Planning Committee would consider whether to make the Lavant NDP at its meeting on 10 August 2017.  

 

Mr Hall and Mrs Taylor commended all those involved for their hard work in preparing and producing the Lavant NDP. Members gave audible assent to that sentiment.

 

There was no discussion of this item.

 

At the end of the debate the following decision was made by the Council.

 

Decision

 

The Council voted with respect to the recommendation made to it by the Cabinet and on a show of hands it was in favour of making the resolution set out below, with no votes against and no abstentions.

 

RESOLVED

 

That following the successful referendum on 18 July 2017 the Lavant Neighbourhood Development Plan be made part of the Development Plan for Chichester District (excluding the area within the South Downs National Park).

237.

South Downs National Park Authority - Development Management Agency Agreement

The report is at item 8 of the agenda for the Cabinet’s meeting on Tuesday 11 July 2017 and its three appendices are in the first (main) agenda supplement.

 

The Cabinet made the following recommendations to the Council at this meeting.

 

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

 

(1)  That a new Agreement be entered into with the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) under section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 to enable Chichester District Council to continue to provide a development management service to the SDNPA for up to three years initially until 30 September 2020 and, subject to a further report to the Cabinet and the Council, for a further two years up until 30 September 2022 if the arrangements are working effectively and agreeable to both authorities.

 

(2)  That the Head of Planning Services be authorised to conclude negotiations on the section 101 Agreement including the Service Level Agreement and related Protocols and complete the Agreement.

 

(3)  That the proposed basis for payments set out in appendix 1 and 2 for the delivery of a development management service to the SDNPA be agreed.

Minutes:

The Council considered the recommendations made to it by the Cabinet at its meeting on 11 July 2017 as set out on the face of the agenda (copy attached to the official minutes), the details in respect of which were contained in the report on pages 20 to 27 of the agenda for that meeting and also in the appendices to the report on pages 84 to 178 of the first agenda supplement (pages 176 to 178 of which, being appendices 2 and 3, were confidential Part II material).  All Chichester District Council (CDC) members had received a copy of the Cabinet agenda and the first agenda supplement. 

 

Mrs Taylor (the Cabinet Member for Planning Services) formally moved the recommendations of the Cabinet and this was seconded by Mr Dignum (the Leader of the Council). 

 

Mrs Taylor summarised the history from 2011 to date of the legal agreements between CDC and the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) for the delivery by CDC of a development management service on behalf of the SDNPA. She explained the principal change namely how payments would be calculated in the new agreement, which could operate for up to five more years with effect from October 2017. The new arrangements for determining payment levels were set out in paras 6.4 to 6.11 of the report. The draft section 101 agreement was in appendix 1; its four schedules were summarised in para 6.1 of the report, which also mentioned certain matters were still being negotiated and it was expected that these would be satisfactorily resolved. Para 6.7 summarised the details in the two confidential Part II appendices. The justification and benefits of entering into the new agreement were set out in sections 5 and 7 of the report. Section 9 reported the views expressed by CDC’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC) at its meeting on 23 June 2017, which included two recommendations to the Cabinet in paras 9.3 and 9.4.

 

During the discussion (full details of which are available via the audio recording on CDC’s web-site) members made comments and asked questions about various matters and received where appropriate answers from Mrs Taylor and Mr Dignum and also Mr A Frost (Head of Planning Services), Mrs Shepherd (Chief Executive) and Mr Ward (Head of Finance and Governance Services). The subjects included:

 

(a)  The development management agency agreement was very desirable in order to ensure that CDC retained influence within the whole of its geographical area including that part which lay within the SDNP.

 

(b)  The need for CDC members whose wards were within the South Downs National Park to be consulted better than they were by the SDNPA in order that they could advise and answer their constituents’ concerns and questions.

 

(c)  The importance of proper liaison between the two local planning authorities regarding those matters which did not clearly fall into the remit of either local planning authority – this would be pursued with the SDNPA and CDC was actively engaging with SDNPA to address  ...  view the full minutes text for item 237.

238.

Overview and Scrutiny Committee 2016-2017 Annual Report pdf icon PDF 65 KB

There are enclosed with the agenda for this meeting (a) the agenda report submitted to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC) at its meeting on 13 June 2017 and (b) appendix 1 thereto namely the Overview and Scrutiny Committee 2016-2017 Annual Report.

 

[Note Appendix 2 contained the OSC’s 2017-2018 Work Programme but this has not been included as it is not required to be the subject of a recommendation to the Council] 

 

The OSC made the following recommendation to the Council at this meeting.

 

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

 

That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s Annual Report 2016-2017 be noted.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Council considered a report to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC) at its meeting on 13 June 2017 and the first appendix thereto namely the OSC 2016-2017 Annual Report which contained a recommendation to the Council (copies attached to the official minutes).

 

At Mrs Hamilton’s invitation the recommendation was proposed by Mrs C M M Apel, the OSC chairman, and seconded by Mrs N D Graves, the OSC vice-chairman.

 

Mrs Apel presented the Annual Report, the contents of which were self-explanatory. She thanked Mrs B Jones (Principal Scrutiny Officer) and Mr S Hansford (Head of Community Services) for their work is advising and assisting the OSC and also she thanked all of the OSC members. The OSC had had a very full year, which had included inviting the Cabinet members to attend to explain their respective portfolios. She emphasised the importance of scrutiny.  

 

During a short discussion: 

 

(a)  In reply to a member’s request that the OSC should consider the way public consultations were conducted by CDC with a view to seeing how they might be improved, Mrs Shepherd (Chief Executive) said that this should be raised with Mrs Apel and that it was for the OSC and not the Council meeting to set its annual work programme. 

 

(b)  In reply to comments made about the quality standards of social housing within Chichester District, Mrs J L Kilby (the Cabinet Member for Housing Services) said that a task and finish group had been established by the OSC and it had agreed that all local registered social housing providers should be requested to provide evidence to CDC for a wide-ranging review now underway of its Housing Allocations Scheme.

 

Mrs Hamilton proposed that the recommendation on the face of the agenda be approved by the Council.        

 

Decision

 

The Council voted unanimously on a show of hands in favour of making the resolution set out below.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s Annual Report 2016-2017 be noted. 

 

239.

Community Governance Review - Midhurst

At its meeting on 6 July 2017 the Boundary Review Panel made the following recommendations to the Council at this meeting.

 

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

 

That a community governance review of the parish arrangements for Midhurst and Cocking should not be undertaken at the current time for the following reasons:

 

(1)  The planning process (including the option of having a neighbourhood development plan) is the more appropriate basis for Midhurst Town Council to achieve its objective and

 

(2)  The South Downs National Park Authority is the local planning authority for the land which is the subject of Midhurst Town Council’s request and is currently producing its local plan and it would not be appropriate for Chichester District Council to interfere with that process by acceding to that request.

 

 

Minutes:

The Council considered the first of four recommendations relating to community governance reviews (CGR) made to it by the Boundary Review Panel (BRevP) at its meeting on 6 July 2017, the text of which was set out on the face of the agenda (copy attached to the official minutes).

 

At Mrs Hamilton’s invitation the recommendation was proposed by Mr J Ridd, the BRevP chairman and seconded by Mr J Ransley, a BRevP member.

 

Mr Ridd presented the recommendation. He explained that contrary to the usual boundary governance issues the BRevP was used to considering, this matter was both unusual and even inappropriate having regard to the BRevP’s terms of reference. It was in the BRevP’s opinion principally a planning matter. The request by Midhurst Town Council (MHTC) for a community governance review related to a piece of undeveloped land in the adjacent parish of Cocking, which MHTC considered was suitable for housing development. There was no allocated housing need for Cocking parish and the site was outside its development area. The BRevP felt that MHTC should pursue its objective by for example seeking to have a neighbourhood development plan and in any event since the site lay within the South Downs National Park it should liaise with the South Downs National Park Authority, which was in the process of preparing its local plan. These two points featured in the two reasons contained in the BRevP’s recommendation.      

 

There was no discussion of this item.

 

Mrs Hamilton proposed that the recommendation on the face of the agenda be the subject of a vote by the Council.         

 

Decision

 

The Council voted on a show of hands in favour of making the resolution set out below with no votes against and two abstentions (Mr G V McAra and Mr S F Morley).

 

RESOLVED

 

That a community governance review of the parish arrangements for Midhurst and Cocking should not be undertaken at the current time for the following reasons:

 

(1)  The planning process (including the option of having a neighbourhood development plan) is the more appropriate basis for Midhurst Town Council to achieve its objective and

 

(2)  The South Downs National Park Authority is the local planning authority for the land which is the subject of Midhurst Town Council’s request and is currently producing its local plan and it would not be appropriate for Chichester District Council to interfere with that process by acceding to that request.

 

240.

Community Governance Review - Reduction in the Number of Councillors for Woolbeding with Redford Parish Council

At its meeting on 6 July 2017 the Boundary Review Panel made the following recommendation to the Council at this meeting.

 

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

 

That following a community governance review consultation there be a reduction in the number of parish councillors on Woolbeding with Redford Parish Council from seven to five members.

 

Minutes:

The Council considered the second of four recommendations relating to community governance reviews (CGR) made to it by the Boundary Review Panel (BRevP) at its meeting on 6 July 2017, the text of which was set out on the face of the agenda (copy attached to the official minutes).

 

At Mrs Hamilton’s invitation the recommendation was proposed by Mr J Ridd, the BRevP chairman and seconded by Mr G V McAra, the BRevP vice-chairman.

 

Mr Ridd presented the recommendation. He briefly summarised the reasons why Woolbeding with Redford Parish Council considered that having regard to its very small electorate of 121 a reduction in the number of councillors was justified.  A CGR had been undertaken. The BRevP had agreed with the rationale of the request and having regard to the outcome of the CGR it supported the requested reduction.     

 

There was no discussion of this item.

 

Mrs Hamilton proposed that the recommendation on the face of the agenda be the subject of a vote by the Council.         

 

Decision

 

The Council voted unanimously on a show of hands in favour of making the resolution set out below with no votes against or abstentions.

 

RESOLVED

 

That following a community governance review consultation there be a reduction in the number of parish councillors on Woolbeding with Redford Parish Council from seven to five members.

 

241.

Community Governance Review - Increase in the Number of Councillors on Westhampnett Parish Council

At its meeting on 6 July 2017 the Boundary Review Panel made the following recommendation to the Council at this meeting.

 

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

 

That a community governance review be undertaken with a view to there being an increase in the number of parish councillors on Westhampnett Parish Council from seven to nine members.

Minutes:

The Council considered the third of four recommendations relating to community governance reviews (CGR) made to it by the Boundary Review Panel (BRevP) at its meeting on 6 July 2017, the text of which was set out on the face of the agenda (copy attached to the official minutes).

 

At Mrs Hamilton’s invitation the recommendation was proposed by Mr J Ridd, the BRevP chairman and seconded by Mr G V McAra, the BRevP vice-chairman.

 

Mr Ridd presented the recommendation. He briefly summarised the reasons why Westhampnett Parish Council had contended in a comprehensive submission the case for a CGR to be undertaken seeking a modest numerical increase of two in the number of parish councillors. This was unanimously supported by the BRevP.   

 

Save for a brief comment by a member, there was no discussion of this item.

 

Mrs Hamilton proposed that the recommendation on the face of the agenda be the subject of a vote by the Council.         

 

Decision

 

The Council voted unanimously on a show of hands in favour of making the resolution set out below with no votes against or abstentions.

 

RESOLVED

 

That a community governance review be undertaken with a view to there being an increase in the number of parish councillors on Westhampnett Parish Council from seven to nine members.

242.

Community Governance Review - Chichester

At its meeting on 6 July 2017 the Boundary Review Panel made the following recommendations to the Council at this meeting.

 

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

 

(1) That a community governance review be undertaken to assess:  

 

(i)              the parish warding arrangements and

 

(ii)             the number of councillors

for the Chichester City Council administrative area

(2) That the review be publicised to allow persons or bodies who may be interested to be able to make representations.

(3) That the review be concluded within 12 months and that the consent for any recommendations be sought from the Local Government Boundary

Commission for England.

 

(4) That it be noted that any review recommendations could not be implemented without express consent of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.

Minutes:

The Council considered the fourth of four recommendations relating to community governance reviews (CGR) made to it by the Boundary Review Panel (BRevP) at its meeting on 6 July 2017, the text of which was set out on the face of the agenda (copy attached to the official minutes).

 

At Mrs Hamilton’s invitation the recommendation was proposed by Mr J Ridd, the BRevP chairman and seconded by Mr G V McAra, the BRevP vice-chairman.

 

Mr Ridd presented the recommendation. He explained that this CGR request by Chichester City Council (CCC) arose in consequence of boundary changes which would be brought into effect after electoral reviews of the Chichester District Council (CDC) and West Sussex County Council (WSCC) local government areas. In short the CCC boundaries were now no longer co-terminous with the CDC and WSCC boundaries. CCC had decided to realign its boundaries to achieve co-terminosity by having four city wards with four members each and one ward with two members, which would result in reduction of two councillors from the current 20 to 18 members. The BRevP supported CCC’s request for a CGR. It should be noted that in the event after a CGR consultation the changes were agreed the consent of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) would first be required, which the LGBCE would not unreasonably withhold, before the changes could be brought into effect.  

     

During a short discussion of this item Mr Dignum (the Leader of the Council and a CCC member) and Mr R E Plowman (who was also a CCC member) expressed their gratitude to the BRevP for making its supportive recommendation. Clearly the absurdity of voters having to vote in two different polling stations on the same day for CCC and CDC and/or WSCC elections had to be avoided by means of a CGR. Without casting aspersions on the basis of the BRevP’s reasoning and recommendation in this case, Mr J Brown and Mr Ransley remarked that it was important when CGRs were undertaken that the outcomes did not undermine effective representation of communities by their elected councillors ie by smaller areas being subsumed within larger ones, in particular rural areas becoming part of urban areas.     

 

Mrs Hamilton proposed that the recommendation on the face of the agenda be the subject of a vote by the Council.         

 

Decision

 

The Council voted on a show of hands in favour of making the resolution set out below with no votes against and one abstention. 

 

RESOLVED

 

That a community governance review be undertaken to assess:  

 

(i)              the parish warding arrangements and

 

(ii)             the number of councillors

 

for the Chichester City Council administrative area.

(2)      That the review be publicised to allow persons or bodies who may be interested to be able to make representations.

(3)      That the review be concluded within 12 months and that the consent for any recommendations be sought from the Local Government Boundary

Commission for England.

 

(4)      That it be noted that any  ...  view the full minutes text for item 242.

243.

Questions to the Executive

[Note This item is allocated a maximum duration of 40 minutes]

Minutes:

Mrs Hamilton invited members to indicate if they wished to ask questions of the Cabinet and the names of those so desiring were noted. She reminded members that a maximum of 40 minutes was allocated for this item.  

 

The questions asked and the responses given were as follows:

 

Question by Mrs Apel: Installation of a Sprinkler System at the New Academy Selsey

 

Mrs Apel expressed her concern to Mr Dignum (the Leader of the Council) about the construction of the new Academy Selsey which was apparently not going to include a sprinkler system. She felt that this was an extraordinary and very worrying decision and omission, especially in the light of the recent Grenfell Tower fire tragedy.

 

The point was supported also in brief comments by other members. Mrs Duncton, who was also a West Sussex County Council (WSCC) member, said that the same concern had been expressed at WSCC’s Council meeting the previous Friday but WSCC had little influence to exert since an academy was involved. Mr Hixson thought that there was still time to intervene. Mr Connor hoped that the Chief Executive could contact the West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service to make it aware; Mrs Duncton advised that had already been done.

 

Response by Mr Dignum and Mrs Shepherd  

 

Mr Dignum (the Leader of the Council) said that this issue did not lie within Chichester District Council’s (CDC) responsibility and he deferred to Mrs Shepherd (Chief Executive).

 

Mrs Shepherd (Chief Executive) said that whilst neither CDC at all nor WSCC in the case of an academy had statutory responsibility for fire safety matters, she would of course raise members’ concerns by writing to the chief executive of The Kemnal Academies Trust and the Head of the Academy Selsey. Members would be kept informed about the correspondence.  

 

Question by Mr Shaxson: Briefing for CDC Members on the South Downs National Park Draft Local Plan

 

Mr Shaxson referred to CDC and its members being involved in the preparation by the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) of its pre-submission draft local plan and whether, as he had heard, CDC members were to be given a briefing by the SDNPA.

 

Response by Mr Frost  

 

Mr Frost (Head of Planning Services) said that the consultation on the SDNPA’s pre-submission draft local plan would start in early September 2017.

 

Question by Mr Morley: Marketing of the Site adjacent to The Grange Centre in Midhurst

 

Mr Morley said that questions had been raised by constituents recently about a temporary landscaping project on this site pending its final disposal, which was supported by Midhurst Town Council. He asked if this was CDC’s intention.

 

 

 

Response by Mr Over 

 

Mr Over (Executive Director) advised that it would not be wise to allow a temporary use of site when the marketing of its sale was significantly advanced because, for example, that use could attract local support and then be difficult to discontinue. It was preferable to avoid short-term solutions in such cases. Offers to purchase the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 243.

244.

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.

Minutes:

As announced by the Chairman of the Council at agenda item 2 (see minute 230 above) there were no late items for consideration at this meeting.

 

 

245.

Exclusion of the Press and Public

There are no restricted items for consideration at this meeting.

Minutes:

In the absence of any Part II items on the agenda for this meeting a resolution to exclude the press and the public was not required.

 

Top of page