Agenda and minutes

After an initial welcome by the Chairman, the Council will be asked to approve as a correct record the attached minutes of its meeting on Tuesday 23 January 2018.

The Chairman welcomed everyone present and she explained the emergency evacuation procedure.

The Council formally received the minutes of its previous meeting on Tuesday 23 January 2018, which had been circulated with the agenda for this meeting.

There was one proposed change to the minutes.  With respect to minute 7 (Financial Strategy and Plan 2018-2019), Mrs Tull pointed out that in the third para on the fourth page it had been she and not Mr Dignum who had seconded the Cabinet’s recommendations, acting in her capacity as the chairman of the Corporate Governance and Audit Committee. She requested that the minute be amended accordingly.

This correction was not challenged and Mrs Hamilton stated that with the Council’s approval she would sign and date the minutes subject to that one amendment.   

Decision

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

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Council’s meeting on Tuesday 23 January 2018 be approved subject to amending the third para on the fourth page by substituting after ‘seconded by’ in the second line ‘Mrs Tull (Chairman of the Corporate Governance and Audit Committee)’ in place of ‘Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council)’.

Mrs Hamilton then duly signed and dated as a correct record, subject to the aforesaid amendment, the final (seventeenth) page of the official version of the minutes.

[Note This para and paras 2 to 19 below summarise the consideration of and conclusion to agenda items 1 to 19 inclusive but for full details of the matters summarised hereunder (save for item 19 which is a Part II confidential exempt matter) 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 ]

The Chairman will announce any late items which are to be dealt with under agenda item 17 (Late Items).

There were no late items at agenda item 17 for consideration at this meeting.

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.

Declarations of personal interests were made by the undermentioned members in respect of the stated agenda items:

·       Mrs Apel declared a personal interest in respect of agenda item 13 (Community Governance Review – Chichester City Council) as a member of Chichester City Council.

·       Mr Budge declared a personal interest in respect of agenda item 13 (Community Governance Review – Chichester City Council) as a member of Chichester City Council.

·       Mr Dignum declared a personal interest in respect of agenda item 13 (Community Governance Review – Chichester City Council) as a member of Chichester City Council.

·       Mr Dunn declared a personal interest in respect of agenda item 11 (South Downs Local Plan – Duty to Co-operate) as the Chichester District Council appointed member of the South Downs National Park Authority. He stated that he would speak during the discussion of that item but abstain from voting on the decision.

·       Mr Galloway declared a personal interest in respect of agenda item 13 (Community Governance Review – Chichester City Council) as a member of Chichester City Council.

·       Mr Hall declared a personal interest in respect of agenda item 14 (Community Governance Review – Increase in Number of Members for Westhampnett Parish Council) as a member of Westhampnett Parish Council.

·       Mr Hixson declared a personal interest in respect of agenda item 13 (Community Governance Review – Chichester City Council) as a member of Chichester City Council.

·       Mrs Kilby declared a personal interest in respect of agenda item 13 (Community Governance Review – Chichester City Council) as a member of Chichester City Council.

·       Mr Macey declared a personal interest in respect of agenda item 13 (Community Governance Review – Chichester City Council) as a member of Chichester City Council.

·       Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in respect of agenda item 12 (Update on Tangmere Strategic Development Location Compulsory Purchase Order) as a member of Tangmere Parish Council.

·       Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in respect of agenda items 7 (Consideration of Consultation Responses and Modifications to Chichester District Council’s Infrastructure Business Plan) and 19 (Southern Gateway Implementation) as a member of West Sussex County Council.

·       Mr Plowman declared a personal interest in respect of agenda item 13 (Community Governance Review – Chichester City Council) as a member of Chichester City Council.

·       Mrs Purnell declared a personal interest in respect of agenda items 7 (Consideration of Consultation Responses and Modifications to Chichester District Council’s Infrastructure Business Plan) and 19 (Southern Gateway Implementation) as a member of West Sussex County Council.

·       Mr Shaxson declared a personal interest in respect of agenda item 15 (Community Governance Review – Harting Parish Council) as a member of Harting Parish Council.

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

Apologies for absence will be notified at this point.

The Chairman will make any specific announcements.

Mrs Hamilton said that the following apologies for absence had been received:

Mr Barrett, Mr Barrow, Mrs Duncton, Mr J F Elliott, Mr J W Elliott, Mr Page, Mrs Tassell and Mr Thomas.

Mrs Hamilton made the following specific announcements:

(1)  Two CDC members had resigned: Sandra Westacott (Fishbourne) and Gillian Keegan MP (Rogate).

(2)  The Fishbourne by-election had taken place on Thursday 22 February 2018 and Mr A G F Moss (Liberal Democrat) had been elected. He had previously represented the ward until 2011.  Members acknowledged with applause Mr Moss’ victory and his return to CDC as an elected member.

(3)  The Rogate by-election would take place on Thursday 12 April 2018.

(4)  Two senior, long-serving and greatly appreciated officers would be leaving CDC at the end of March 2018 and on behalf of members she wished to pay tribute to them.

Steve Carvell - Executive Director

Mr Carvell joined CDC in 1995 from Horsham District Council where he had spent the previous nine years acclimatising to living in the south of England. His career had started in Northamptonshire in 1976 and he had spent a total of 42 years in local government. In his career at CDC he had risen from Head of Development and Building Control to Executive Director, during which time he had overseen some major changes to the way in which planning-related matters were managed and processed. He was instrumental in introducing new systems which had transformed the lives of the planners. He provided the final impetus for successfully securing approval in 2015 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 and had been leading on the current Local Plan Review process, the necessity for which was stipulated by the examiner. In 2010 his responsibilities widened when he assumed the oversight of Environment Services and Chichester Contract Services (CCS). In early 2017 CCS was declared to be a highly efficient operation and, as a result, CDC retained the running of the business in-house. During his 23 years with CDC Mr Carvell had been a great ambassador for it and his wise counsel and considered approach had been greatly appreciated by many members. On their behalf she wished him a long, happy and healthy retirement.

Steve Hansford – Head of Community Services

Steve Hansford joined CDC in December 2005 on his first retirement, from Kent Police where he had reached the rank of Chief Inspector. He was appointed Head of Community Services in 2014 after nine years during which he had raised the profile of the Communities teams, not least through the introduction and support for the community wardens, who were now such an important part of many areas of Chichester District. His reputation amongst partner organisations was second to none. He was very highly thought of across the board for his considered approach to a wide range of situations and was recognised as a person of high personal integrity.  This was most obviously demonstrated during the process of setting up the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

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).

No public questions had been submitted for this meeting.

The following papers are relevant to this item:

·       The Council Tax Resolution report and its three appendices circulated with the Council agenda for this meeting.

·       The agenda report (pages 10 to 17), its four appendices in the agenda supplement (pages 1 to 55) and an amendment identified in the third agenda supplement considered by the Cabinet at its meeting on Tuesday 6 February 2018.

The Cabinet’s recommendations (set out below for information only in the second [Note]) have been superseded by the following:

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

(1)  That following consideration of the draft budget by the Cabinet the Budget for 2018-2019 be approved as follows:

                           i.          The 2018-2019 Net Revenue Budget in respect of Chichester District Council’s own services be approved at £13,025,600.

                          ii.          The 2018-19 Council Tax Requirement in respect of Chichester District Council’s own services be approved at £8,227,400.

                        iii.          A Council Tax of £155.81 (Band D equivalent) be approved.  This represents a £5.00 (3.32 %) increase on the Band D charge.

                        iv.          The Investment Opportunities Reserve be increased by £861,300.

(2)  That the Council approves the Resolutions in Appendix A to the Council Tax Resolution report.

[Note The foregoing recommendations are required by standing order 9.5 in Chichester District Council’s Constitution (pursuant to regulation 2 (3) of the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014) to be the subject of a recorded vote]

[Note The recommendations to the Council made by the Cabinet in respect of this agenda ite were as follows:

(1)  That a net budget requirement of £12,988,300 for 2018-2019 be approved.

(2)  That council tax be increased by £5 from £150.81 to £155.81 for a band D equivalent in 2018-2019.

(3)  That the Investment Opportunities Reserve be increased by £820,200.

(4)  That, should the final settlement differ from the provisional settlement, any increase or decrease be dealt with by adjusting the transfer to the Investment Opportunities Reserve above.

(5)  The capital programme including the asset renewal programme (appendix 1c and 1d) be approved.]

The Council considered the recommendation (as amended) made to it by the Cabinet at its meeting on Tuesday 6 February 2018. The original and amended recommendations were in the Cabinet report (pages 10 to 17 of the agenda), its appendices (pages 1 to 55 of the agenda supplement) and the third agenda supplement. The recommendation had undergone subsequent revision as shown in the Council Tax Resolution report appended to the Council agenda (pages 18 to 33). The Council agenda set out the revised and the original recommendation. There had since been one additional change to the amended recommendation and this was set out in the update sheet circulated at this meeting: recommendation (1) i., ii., iii. and iv. were supplemented by v., which appeared as (5) in the Cabinet’s original recommendation and stated as follows: ‘v. The capital programme including the asset renewal programme (appendix 1c and 1d) be approved.’

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

In commending the draft spending plans and the recommendation (as amended) in the report, Mr Wilding explained that this was the next stage after the Council’s approval on Tuesday 23 January 2018 of CDC’s Financial Strategy and Plan 2018-2019, namely to set the budget and the council tax.  The report focussed on the budget spending plans of each Cabinet portfolio, how they aggregated and, together with the various funding streams, underpinned the balanced budget. He acknowledged the impressive collaborative effort undertaken by budget managers and CDC’s finance team and overseen by the Strategic Leadership Team whereby service delivery priorities were met within the onerous constraints on public sector financial resources. The budget would be the third year in the four-year settlement agreed by CDC and the government.  The funding sources in the financial strategy set out the best estimate for funding going forward beyond 2019-2020 (the last year of the four-year settlement).  Final details from the government of the local government annual financial settlement were awaited and so the draft budget was based on the draft settlement released on 19 December 2017. The final settlement had resulted in additional funding of £41,000.  The balancing of the budget was undertaken in the context of a five-year financial strategy and some of the key variables and issues affecting that model were described in the report: income from fees, charges and rents; use of reserves; and council tax. It was firmly believed that CDC should once again take up central government’s offer of allowing a rise in council tax by £5 for band D properties (less than 10 pence per week) and equivalent increases for other property bands. This would help to offset the continued withdrawal of central government funding eg in 2018-2019 CDC would no longer receive any Revenue Support Grant. The modest council tax increase (assumed in the five-year financial strategy) would generate an extra £264,000 per year and assist in closing the budget  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The papers relevant to this item are the agenda report and its two appendices* in the agenda supplement considered by the Cabinet at its meeting on Tuesday 6 February 2018 (respectively pages 18 to 21 and 56 to 78).

[Note Due to the size of appendix 2 (Chichester District Council’s Infrastructure Business Plan 2017-2022 as modified) only the CIL spending plan extract was circulated with the Cabinet agenda papers but the entire document may be viewed electronically on Chichester District Council’s website within the committee papers page for this meeting in the second agenda supplement and a monochrome hard copy is available in the Members Room at East Pallant House]

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

(1)  That the proposed responses to the representations received and subsequent modifications to the Infrastructure Business Plan as set out in appendix 1 to the agenda report be approved.

(2)  That the amended Infrastructure Business Plan including the CIL Spending Plan attached as appendix 2 to the agenda report be approved.

The Council considered the recommendations made to it by the Cabinet at its meeting on Tuesday 6 February 2018, as set out in the Cabinet report (pages 18 to 21 of the agenda) and its two appendices (pages 56 to 78 of the agenda supplement - the entire version of the second appendix was only available for online viewing or as a hard copy in the Members Room at East Pallant House).  

Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services) formally moved the Cabinet’s recommendation and this was seconded by Mrs Lintill (Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Community Services).

Mrs Taylor presented the Cabinet’s recommendation.  She referred to the nature and purpose of CDC’s Infrastructure Business Plan (appendix 2) and the consultation process undertaken in autumn 2017, the details of which were set out in sections 3 and 8 of and in appendix 1 to the report. She summarised the new projects proposed by Sussex Police and West Sussex County Council and the responses thereto in the report (paras 3.9 and 3.11 respectively). She emphasised the excellent CIL collection rate to date (para 3.4) and the amount passed to parishes as at October 2017 demonstrated their active involvement in the delivery of infrastructure in their areas. 

Mrs Taylor replied to a member’s questions about (a) the 5% allocated for monitoring in the CIL collected (para 3.4 of the Cabinet report), which was a necessary administrative charge which was fully justified in view of the excellent CIL collection rate being achieved through officers’ diligence and (b) the need for caution against spending CIL on ongoing asset maintenance and replacement items such as real-time passenger information screens (project 355 on page 77 of the Cabinet agenda supplement), which was noted.

Decision

On a show of hands the members present voted in favour of the Cabinet’s recommendation, with none against and one abstention (Mr Plowman). 

RESOLVED

(1)  That the proposed responses to the representations received and subsequent modifications to the Infrastructure Business Plan as set out in appendix 1 to the agenda report be approved.

(2)  That the amended Infrastructure Business Plan including the CIL Spending Plan attached as appendix 2 to the agenda report be approved.

The papers relevant to this item are the agenda report, its four appendices* in the agenda supplement (respectively pages 22 to 25 and 79 to 114) and an amendment identified in the third agenda supplement considered by the Cabinet at its meeting on Tuesday 6 February 2018.

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

(1)  That the Treasury Management Policy and Treasury Management Strategy Statement for 2018-2019 as contained in appendix 2 (as amended) of the agenda report be approved.

(2)  That the Investment Strategy 2018-2019 as detailed in the Treasury Management Strategy Statement be approved.

(3)  That the Prudential Indicators and Limits for 2018-2019 included in appendix 2 of the agenda report be approved.

The Council considered the recommendations made to it by the Cabinet at its meeting on Tuesday 6 February 2018, as set out in the Cabinet report (pages 22 to 25 of the Cabinet agenda), its two appendices (pages 79 to 114 of the Cabinet agenda supplement) and a textual amendment identified in the Cabinet third agenda supplement.  

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

Mr Wilding presented the Cabinet’s recommendation, which had been supported by CDC’s Corporate Governance and Audit Committee (CGAC) at its meeting on Thursday 25 January 2018. He said that the Council was required each year to approve a Treasury Management Strategy (TMS). The main regulatory reforms which affected the TMS were (a) the new Code of Treasury Management Practice issued by CIPFA early in 2018 and which updated government guidance on investments (expected imminently and in the light of which the TMS would be reviewed and brought back to the Cabinet and the Council later in 2018 if required); (b) CIPFA’s recent adoption of IFRS9 into the 2018-2019 Accounting Code of Practice (this had been before the Council on Tuesday 23 January 2018) - unless the government was persuaded to issue a statutory override in relation to certain accounting aspects of IFRS9, changes in the market value of CDC’s external pooled fund investments could affect the General Fund and this ‘Fair value risk’ was probably the most significant change in risk faced if CDC’s risk appetite statement remained appropriate; and (c) European Money Market Fund reform. Notwithstanding the aforementioned changes in particular, the recommended risk appetite statement was unchanged ie CDC remained fundamentally risk adverse but accepted a modest degree of risk. He highlighted the following key updates to the TMS in appendix 1 as being of particular importance: (i) Treasury Management Practices (TMP1) (appendix 3 on page 104); (ii) the increase in the lowest credit rating proposed for CDC from BBB+ to A- (table 5 in appendix 2 on page 89); and (iii) the proposed increase in the maximum that could be invested in non-property fund pooled investments from £10m to £15m (table 7 in appendix 2 on page 93).

Mr Wilding and Mr Catlow (Group Accountant) replied to a member’s question about the likelihood of whether and when the government would issue an IFRS9 statutory override.

Decision

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

RESOLVED

(1)  That the Treasury Management Policy and Treasury Management Strategy Statement for 2018-2019 as contained in appendix 2 (as amended) of the agenda report be approved.

(2)  That the Investment Strategy 2018-2019 as detailed in the Treasury Management Strategy Statement be approved.

(3)  That the Prudential Indicators and Limits for 2018-2019 included in appendix 2 of the agenda report be approved.

The papers relevant to this item, which will be considered by the Cabinet on Tuesday 6 March 2018 immediately prior to this meeting, are the Cabinet agenda report (pages 13 to 32) and appendix A with its nine appendices, of which only appendix A and appendices 1 and 5 thereto have been circulated in hard copy (pages 1 to 32), with the remainder and the background paper available to view online only in the second agenda supplement.

It is anticipated that the following recommendation will be made by the Cabinet to the Council:

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

That the Senior Staff Pay Policy Statement 2018-2019 be published.

The Council considered the recommendation made to it by the Cabinet at its meeting earlier in the day on Tuesday 6 March 2018, as set out in the Cabinet report and appendix A and appendices 1 and 5 thereto (pages 13 to 23 of the Cabinet agenda), with the remainder of the appendices to Appendix A and a background paper being available to view online only in the Cabinet second agenda supplement.  

Mr Wilding (Cabinet Member for Corporate Services) formally moved the Cabinet’s recommendation and this was seconded by Mrs Lintill (Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Community Services).

Mr Wilding presented the Cabinet’s recommendation. He explained that each year CDC was required to publish a pay policy statement (PPS) with the approval of the Council. As required by the Localism Act 2011 the purpose of the statement was to ensure that as a public body CDC was fully transparent in terms of its pay policies and pay levels for senior staff. On 22 November 2016 the Council approved a new senior management structure, which would commence on 1 April 2018.  One of two executive director posts and two of the previous seven heads of service posts had been deleted. The remaining five heads of service would continue to be part of the management team with revised posts and designated as directors. Those changes would achieve annual savings of £129,100. 

A member asked whether savings were in fact always necessarily achieved when management restructures occurred or whether instead they actually resulted in a series of more highly paid posts. In reply, Mrs Shepherd advised that savings were always made and further savings would be realised. Proper job evaluations were always undertaken and the members of staff concerned were fairly rewarded.

Another member asked what proportion of the total salary bill was in respect of the management team and how CDC compared with other organisations. Mr Wilding undertook to provide a written response in due course.      

Decision

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

RESOLVED

That the Senior Staff Pay Policy Statement 2018-2019 be published.

The papers relevant to this item which will be considered by the Cabinet on Tuesday 6 March 2018 immediately prior to this meeting are the Cabinet agenda report and its appendix in the agenda supplement (respectively pages 24 to 26 and 1 to 28).

It is anticipated that the following recommendation will be made by the Cabinet to the Council:

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

That the definitive Solent Recreation Mitigation Strategy be approved for use in the determination of relevant planning applications.

The Council considered the recommendation made to it by the Cabinet at its meeting earlier in the day on Tuesday 6 March 2018, as set out in the Cabinet report (pages 24 to 26 of the Cabinet agenda) and its appendix (pages 1 to 28 of the agenda supplement).  

The recommendation made by the Cabinet had been amended from the one which was set out in the Council agenda. An update sheet produced after the Cabinet’s meeting earlier in the day and which circulated prior to the start of this meeting reported the following revised text for the recommendation:

‘That the definitive Solent Recreation Mitigation Strategy be approved for use in the determination of relevant planning applications with the amendment agreed by the Cabinet.’

The aforesaid amendment related to para 4.2 in the agenda report (page 25) and substituted the words ‘an initial three-year review’ in place of ‘a five year review’.

Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services) formally moved the Cabinet’s amended recommendation and this was seconded by Mrs Lintill (Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Community Services).

Mrs Taylor presented the Cabinet’s amended recommendation. She pointed out that Chichester Harbour was one of the three designated Special Protection Areas (SPAs) in the Solent.  The Solent had an internationally recognised bird wildlife significance eg as the overwintering home for waders, wildfowl and 10% of the global population of Brent Geese. This wildlife was vulnerable to the impact of the 60,000 much-needed new homes which were planned for the Solent area up to 2034. In order to minimise the impact of that extensive development, the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership (SRMP) had been established and had produced the appended Solent Recreation Mitigation Strategy (SRMS). It was proposed to use initiatives and education to encourage responsible dog walking and other recreational coastal activities and the SRMS would be implemented by a team of five to seven coastal rangers. It sought to provide mitigation for the duration of the impact in perpetuity (80 years after 2034). Its effectiveness would be monitored and regular strategic reviews would be undertaken: ordinarily this would be once every five years but the first one would be after three years, and if that first review indicated any uncertainty over the effectiveness of the SRMS, then a further review less than five years later could be agreed. Implementation and monitoring of the measures would be funded by developer contributions; these would be calculated according to the bedroom numbers of the property and were equivalent to an average of £564 per dwelling. This would apply to all new dwellings within 5.6 km of the SPAs. If the strategy was unsuccessful then it would be necessary to look at other regulatory measures such as the introduction of bylaws to keep dogs on leads or prevent access to parts of the coast or footpaths during the winter season.  However, the SRMP preferred to promote behaviour change through positive engagement wherever possible. The SRMS had generally been well received  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The papers relevant to this item which will be considered by the Cabinet on Tuesday 6 March 2018 immediately prior to this meeting are the Cabinet agenda report and its appendix (pages 27 to 32).

It is anticipated that the following recommendation will be made by the Cabinet to the Council:

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

That, subject to the completion of the ongoing evidence-based work and the assessment of sites to meet the identified housing needs associated with the Local Plan Review, Chichester District Council will assess the ability to meet some or all of the unmet housing needs of approximately 44 dwellings per annum arising from the part of the South Downs National Park within Chichester District via the Chichester Local Plan Review.

The Council considered the recommendation made to it by the Cabinet at its meeting earlier in the day on Tuesday 6 March 2018, as set out in the Cabinet report and its appendix (pages 27 to 32 of the Cabinet agenda). 

Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services) formally moved the Cabinet’s recommendation and this was seconded by Mrs Lintill (Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Community Services).

Mrs Taylor presented the Cabinet’s recommendation. It was a pre-requisite for CDC’s Local Plan Review (LPR) to be found sound that the duty to co-operate (DTC) obligations had been fulfilled and a statement of common ground (SCG) agreed with its neighbouring authorities. The South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA), which would shortly be submitting its local plan for examination, had now asked CDC whether it could take some or all of its unmet housing need within Chichester District. Whereas the Chichester Local Plan (CLP) had to be development -led, the SDNPA’s local plan was landscape-led and this meant that the SDNPA did not have to meet its full housing need within the South Downs National Park (SDNP) and under the DTC it could request adjacent authorities to provide for the unmet need. When CDC’s CLP was being examined, it was anticipated that the supply of new housing within the Chichester District part of the SDNP would be approximately 70 dpa. However, under the SDNPA’s draft local plan the proposed supply was 81 dpa which gave rise to an objectively assessed need (OAN) housing shortfall in the Chichester part of the SDNP of approximately 44 dpa. The appended SDNPA letter set out why the SDNP could not meet its full OAN given the landscape protection accompanying national park status. The SDNPA’s request was considered by CDC’s Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel (DPIP) on Thursday 1 March 2018 and concerns were raised that (a) whilst the SDNPA had previously made CDC aware that it would not be able to meet its shortfall, it had only made a formal request to CDC to meet its unmet need after the end of the consultation period and (b) in not meeting its OAN within the SDNP, this could result in sustainability issues in the SDNP villages within Chichester District. As to (b), although CDC was not the local planning  authority for the SDNP area within Chichester District, it was nevertheless  responsible for supplying other services within the SDNP such as housing  and  insufficient new housing in the villages could make them unsustainable as well as having  an unbalanced demographic. Accordingly, the DPIP had recommended a revision of the recommendation which was before it (and this was set out in the Cabinet report), namely that any decision regarding the SDNPA’s request should be subject to the evidence-based work associated with the Chichester LPR and the assessment of sites to meet the identified housing needs. The DPIP was cognisant of the DTC to make the LPR sound but that recognition should be balanced with the need  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

The papers relevant to this item which will be considered by the Cabinet on Tuesday 6 March 2018 immediately prior to this meeting are the Cabinet agenda report (pages 33 to 36).

It is anticipated that the following recommendation will be made by the Cabinet to the Council:

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

That a sum of £150,000 be allocated from the remaining Planning Delivery Grant Reserve and General Reserve to fund the continued work on the Compulsory Purchase Order in respect of the Tangmere Strategic Development Location.

The Council considered the recommendation made to it by the Cabinet at its meeting earlier in the day on Tuesday 6 March 2018, as set out in the Cabinet report (pages 33 to 36 of the Cabinet agenda). 

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

Mrs Taylor presented the Cabinet’s recommendation. She said that in the Chichester Local Plan the Tangmere strategic development location (SDL) had been identified for the provision of 1,000 homes and associated infrastructure. The parish council was supportive and had included the SDL site in the Tangmere neighbourhood development plan. Despite meetings between CDC officers and the landowners/promoters of the site, little progress had so far been made due to the consortium being seemingly unable to collaborate to deliver a comprehensive approach to the development. Since the site was essential to the delivery of the Chichester Local Plan housing requirement and a five-year housing land supply, the Cabinet had resolved in July 2017 to support the use of a compulsory purchase order (CPO) and specialist advisers had been retained. A timetable for the formal process to seek a CPO was in the report and section 16 notices had been served in order to identify ownership and interests in the land. In parallel with this work efforts would continue to be made to engage with the consortium. In view of the very specialised nature of CPO work, an additional £150,000.00 was now sought in order to engage the appropriate experts. It was proposed that approximately £25,500 should come from the Planning Delivery Grant Reserve and £124,500 from CDC’s General Fund Reserves. It might be possible to recoup the £150,000 via CDC’s developer partner.

Mrs Taylor introduced Mr N Riley, Director of Citicentric Development Management, which was a firm of specialist CPO advisers engaged by CDC.

Mr Riley began by summarising the soft-market testing which Citicentric would be undertaking to identify masterplanners who were experienced in delivering this type of project.  He then answered members’ questions and comments on points of detail with respect to (a) the costs indemnity provisions in favour of CDC from the date the development agreement was signed; (b) the point in the timetable (para 3.4 of the Cabinet report) when (i) the additional funding of £150,000 would begin to be used and (ii) the details of the masterplanning process would become known eg the number of the houses on the site; (c) the point when the masterplan would be discussed with the community eg the parish council, in view of the compressed timetable; (d) the correlation between seeking a CPO and determining an application for planning consent; and (e) the reason for needing to seek additional funding to that approved by the Cabinet in June 2016.

Mr Frost answered questions with respect to when the details of the masterplan would be known and what alternatives existed for providing additional housing in the event that a CPO was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

At its meeting on Friday 23 February 2018 the Boundary Review Panel made the following recommendation to the Council:

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

That the community governance review of Chichester City Council proceeds to the second consultation stage based on the Chichester City Council proposal to:

(1)  Re-ward the City Council to ensure coterminocity with the Chichester District Council wards and

(2)  Reduce the number of Chichester City Council members from 20 to 18.

[Note The Boundary Review Panel requested that the proposed timetable for the Chichester City Council community governance review be set out in this agenda:

6 March 2018 Consideration by the Council of the recommendation to commence the second stage consultation

7 March 2018 Commencement of second stage consultation (three weeks)

28 March 2018 Conclusion of second stage consultation

April 2018 Consideration by Boundary Review Panel of consultation responses

22 May 2018 Consideration by the Council of the Boundary Review Panel’s recommendation

May/June 2018 Contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to request the amendments to the wards and the number of members]

The Council considered the first of three recommendations made to it by the Boundary Review Panel (BRevP) at its meeting on Friday 23 February 2018. The recommendation and a timetable of events (if the recommendation were to be approved) appeared on the face of the Council agenda.  

Mr Ridd (BRevP Chairman) formally moved the recommendation and this was seconded by Mr McAra (BRevP Vice-Chairman).

Mr Ridd summarised the background and explained that it was anticipated that the second formal consultation stage would, as with the first stage, be unlikely to elicit any responses. 

There was no discussion of this item.

Decision

On a show of hands the members present voted unanimously in favour of the BRevP’s recommendation, with no votes against and one abstention.   

RESOLVED

That the community governance review of Chichester City Council proceeds to the second consultation stage based on the Chichester City Council proposal to:

(1)  Re-ward the City Council to ensure coterminosity with the Chichester District Council wards and

(2)  Reduce the number of Chichester City Council members from 20 to 18.

At its meeting on Friday 23 February 2018 the Boundary Review Panel made the following recommendation to the Council:

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

That the number of members on Westhampnett Parish Council be increased from seven to nine.

The Council considered the second of three recommendations made to it by the Boundary Review Panel (BRevP) at its meeting on Friday 23 February 2018. The recommendation appeared on the face of the Council agenda.  

Mr Ridd (BRevP Chairman) formally moved the recommendation and this was seconded by Mr McAra (BRevP Vice-Chairman).

Mr Ridd presented the recommendation. 

There was no discussion of this item.

Mr Hall, who was a member of Westhampnett Parish Council, expressed his support.

Decision

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

RESOLVED

That the number of members on Westhampnett Parish Council be increased from seven to nine.

At its meeting on Friday 23 February 2018 the Boundary Review Panel made the following recommendation to the Council:

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

That a community governance review be undertaken in respect of the properties and land identified by Harting Parish Council which it has requested should be moved from the Rogate Parish Council area to the Harting Parish Council area.

The Council considered the third of three recommendations made to it by the Boundary Review Panel (BRevP) at its meeting on Friday 23 February 2018. The recommendation appeared on the face of the Council agenda.  

Mr Ridd (BRevP Chairman) formally moved the recommendation and this was seconded by Mr McAra (BRevP Vice-Chairman).

Mr Ridd presented the recommendation in respect of this new request for a community governance review by explaining the proposal. In advance of a formal consultation, the indications from the owners of the three properties concerned and Rogate Parish Council were that objections were not anticipated. The rationale for the request was strengthened by the proposed new site for a Nyewood community facility within the area which it was requested should be transferred to Harting.  

There was no discussion of this item.

Decision

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

RESOLVED

That a community governance review be undertaken in respect of the properties and land identified by Harting Parish Council which it has requested should be moved from the Rogate Parish Council area to the Harting Parish Council area.

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

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

Question by Mr Plowman: Implications for Chichester District of recent government statements on need for more housing development

Mr Plowman referred to two recent government statements, one by the Prime Minister on the need for a crackdown on developers who should be releasing land for housing to be built, and the other by Sajid Javid, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who said that in areas where the unaffordable housing ratio was much higher ie high house prices and low wages (which was surely the case in Chichester District), many more houses would need to be built. In view of these pronouncements, he wished to hear from Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services) about the implications for this area having to take even more development than it currently faced.  

Response by Mrs Taylor

Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services) said that the formula used by CDC for assessing housing need took into account the ratio of affordability of houses in Chichester District and so this issue was already being addressed.      

Question by Mr Moss: Adequacy of proposed cycle routes for the West of Chichester strategic development location site

Mr Moss asked Mrs Taylor whether, in her role as the Cabinet Member for Planning Services, she was satisfied with the proposed cycle paths for the West of Chichester (Whitehouse Farm) strategic development location site as presented at the exhibition heldat Chichester City Council on Wednesday 29 November 2017.

Response by Mrs Taylor

Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services) said that at the moment the details of the cycle routes were not available and so it would be premature to comment.      

Question by Mr McAra: Assistance to parish councils in implementing and applying the new general data protection regulations 

Mr McAra referred to the requirement for each local authority, including parish councils, to have a data protection officer in place for the inception in May 2018 of the new European Union General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR). He said that this was a cause for concern in view of the advice given by, for example, SALC that parish councils should engage consultants to perform this role, which would in the case particularly of a small parish council be unduly onerous and use up a significant amount of its precept. He invited Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council) to consider whether CDC would be able to create a group of data protection officers (which was permissible) to advise and assist all parishes in Chichester District with a sliding scale of fees to take into account the size and means to pay of each parish.

Response by Mr Dignum

Mr Dignum (Leader of the Cabinet) acknowledged that this was a very important matter. This would be addressed by Mr Wilding (Cabinet Member for Corporate Services) and Mr Ward (Head of Finance and Governance Services) in order to understand (a) how the GDPR would affect CDC  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

(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.

There were no late items for consideration at this meeting.

In order to consider the Part II confidential exempt matter listed as agenda item 19 Mrs Hamilton read out the resolution set out below, which was duly proposed by Mrs Tull and seconded by Mr Shaxson.

Decision

On a vote by a show of hands the Council approved unanimously, with no votes against and no abstentions, the following resolution. 

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 19 (Southern Gateway Implementation) 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 the following paragraphs in Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act:

·       1 (information relating to any individual)

·       3 (information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information))

·       5 (information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings) and

·       6 (information which reveals that the authority proposes – (a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or (b) to make an order or direction under any enactment)

and because in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

The papers relevant to this item which will be considered by the Cabinet on Tuesday 6 March 2018 immediately prior to this meeting are Part II confidential exempt material* on salmon-coloured paper for members and relevant officers only. They are the Cabinet report (pages 55 to 62) and its two appendices in the agenda supplement (pages 296 to 329).

It is anticipated that the following recommendations will be made by the Cabinet to the Council:

(1)  The offer of £5m of funding from the Coast to Capital LEP be accepted, and the Funding Agreement attached as appendix 1 be approved.

(2)  Chichester District Council formally requests the LEP to authorise use of Flexibility Funding, as set out in para 6.1.1.1 of the report, to enable draw down of funds to commence in 2017-2018.

(3)  In the event that Flexibility Funding is approved by the LEP, Chichester District Council’s Capital Programme be amended as follows:

·       £500,000 of LEP funding will be applied to the Enterprise Centre in 2017-2018.

·       £500,000 of Chichester District Council’s capital reserves be transferred from the Enterprise Centre to the Southern Gateway project in 2018-2019 to supplement the £4.5m balance of LEP funding.

(4)  Should the LEP refuse Chichester District Council’s request to utilise Flexibility Funding, and should Chichester District Council also be unable to draw down funding by 31 March 2018, delegated authority be given to the Executive Director to amend the funding agreement to reflect a reduction in funding to £4.5m following consultation with the Leader of the Council.

(5)  The Executive Director be given delegated authority to make other minor amendments to the funding agreement prior to signature after consultation with the Leader of the Council.

(6)  The Executive Director be given delegated authority to expend the LEP funding in accordance with the finalised Funding Agreement after consultation with the Leader of the Council.

(7)  Chichester District Council is prepared, in principle, to use its compulsory purchase powers to make and promote a compulsory purchase order(s) to acquire the relevant land for a comprehensive development comprising a mix of uses as set out in the adopted Southern Gateway Masterplan area (attached as appendix 2).

The Council considered the recommendation made to it by the Cabinet at its meeting earlier in the day on Tuesday 6 March 2018, as set out in the confidential exempt Part II Cabinet report and its two appendices (pages 296 to 329). 

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

The report was presented by Mr Dignum.

Mr Bennett was in attendance for this item.

Mr Dignum presented the Cabinet’s recommendation. He advised that the sixth of the seven recommendations in section 3 of the report (para 3.6) had been withdrawn.

Mr Ward briefed members on each of the matters set out in para 6.1.1 of the report. 

Mrs Shepherd, Mr Ward and Mr Dignum responded to members’ questions on points of detail.

Mr Ransley had submitted in advance seven written questions about this item. In view of the time when this item had commenced (17:27), Mr Ransley agreed with Mr Dignum’s suggestion that written responses would be circulated to all members and relevant officers only (as this was a Part II item) following the meeting.

Decision

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

RESOLVED

(1)            The offer of £5m of funding from the Coast to Capital LEP be accepted, and the Funding Agreement attached as appendix 1 be approved.

(2)            Chichester District Council formally requests the LEP to authorise use of Flexibility Funding, as set out in para 6.1.1.1 of the report, to enable draw down of funds to commence in 2017-2018.

(3)            In the event that Flexibility Funding is approved by the LEP, Chichester District Council’s Capital Programme be amended as follows:

·       £500,000 of LEP funding will be applied to the Enterprise Centre in 2017-2018.

·       £500,000 of Chichester District Council’s capital reserves be transferred from the Enterprise Centre to the Southern Gateway project in 2018-2019 to supplement the £4.5m balance of LEP funding.

(4)            Should the LEP refuse Chichester District Council’s request to utilise Flexibility Funding, and should Chichester District Council also be unable to draw down funding by 31 March 2018, delegated authority be given to the Executive Director to amend the funding agreement to reflect a reduction in funding to £4.5m following consultation with the Leader of the Council.

(5)            The Executive Director be given delegated authority to make other minor amendments to the funding agreement prior to signature after consultation with the Leader of the Council.

(6)            Chichester District Council is prepared, in principle, to use its compulsory purchase powers to make and promote a compulsory purchase order(s) to acquire the relevant land for a comprehensive development comprising a mix of uses as set out in the adopted Southern Gateway Masterplan area (attached as appendix 2).