Agenda, decisions and minutes

Cabinet
Tuesday 4 September 2018 9.30 am

Venue: Committee Room 2, East Pallant House. View directions

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

Items
No. Item

559.

Chairman's Announcements

The chairman will:

 

·       make any specific announcements for this meeting and

 

·       advise of any late items for consideration under agenda item 15 (a) or (b).

 

Apologies for absence will be taken at this point.

Decision:

[DETAILS IN THE MINUTES]

 

Minutes:

Mr Dignum greeted the members of the public and Chichester District Council (CDC) members and officers and the two press representatives who were present for this meeting.

 

He summarised the emergency evacuation procedure.

 

There were no apologies for absence and all members of the Cabinet were present.

 

There were no late items for consideration.

 

He advised that agenda item 6 (Development Site – The Grange Midhurst) would be taken at the end of the meeting after agenda item 14 (2017-2018 Treasury Management Out-turn). This was in case any of the four CDC non-Cabinet members who would be speaking during that item wished to refer to the confidential exempt appendix 2, in which case the need to exclude and then re-admit the press and the public could be avoided. 

 

[Note Hereinafter in these minutes CDC denotes Chichester District Council]

 

[Note Minute paras 560 to 574 below summarise the Cabinet’s discussion of and decision on agenda items 2 to 14 inclusive but for full details of the items* considered in public session please refer to the audio recording facility via this link:

 

http://chichester.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=135&MId=979&Ver=4]

 

*[Note There is for technical reasons no audio recording of the first eight minutes of the meeting or of the entirety of agenda item 14]

560.

Approval of Minutes pdf icon PDF 108 KB

The Cabinet is requested to approve as a correct record the minutes of its ordinary meeting on Tuesday 3 July 2018, a copy of which is circulated with this agenda.

Decision:

RESOLVED

 

That the minutes of the Cabinet’s meeting on Tuesday 3 July 2018 be approved without amendment.

 

Minutes:

The Cabinet received the minutes of its meeting on Tuesday 3 July 2018, which had been circulated with the agenda.

 

There were no proposed changes to the minutes.

 

Decision

 

The Cabinet voted unanimously on a show of hands to approve the aforesaid minutes without making any amendments.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the minutes of the Cabinet’s meeting on Tuesday 3 July 2018 be approved.

 

561.

Declarations of Interests

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

Decision:

[NONE]

 

Minutes:

No declarations of interests were made at this meeting.

 

562.

Public Question Time

In accordance with Chichester District Council’s scheme for public question time and with reference to standing order 6 in part 4 A and section 5.6 in Part 5 of the Chichester District Council Constitution, the Cabinet will receive any 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 subject to the chairman’s discretion to extend that period.

Decision:

[FOUR PUBLIC QUESTIONS – DETAILS IN MINUTES]

 

 

Minutes:

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

 

The text of the questions had been circulated to CDC members, the public and the press immediately prior to the start of this meeting. Mr Dignum invited each person or his or her representative (if present) in turn to come to the designated microphone in order to read out the question (but not the preamble) before he provided an oral response.

 

The questions (with the date of submission shown within [ ] at the end of the text), any supplementary questions and the answers given by Mr Dignum were as follows.

 

(1) Margaret Guest – Midhurst Town Council Member

 

Mrs Guest read out her question with some additional commentary but without the full preamble. The full text of the question appears below:

 

I am expressing my objection, as a local Midhurst Town Councillor, to the proposed planning request for a Care Home on the former Grange site in Midhurst.

 

Councillors will be well aware of the South Downs National Park Local Plan which is currently coming to the end of the consultation period. This clearly states “The South Downs Local Plan puts our nationally important landscapes first and will ensure they sit at the heart of every planning decision we make,” says Margaret Paren, Chair of the National Park Authority. “Putting the landscape first means making sure we get the right growth in the right places. This will both protect our landscapes and allow our communities to flourish, providing better places to live and work for the 112,000 people who call the South Downs National Park home.”

 

I believe that what Midhurst requires to allow it to flourish is a better retail offer, while sustaining existing business; more local opportunities for employment; and more properly affordable housing together with good quality social housing. These objectives are also well understood and supported by the Midhurst Vision, which in turn are confirmed by Chichester District Council, as a leading partner of our Vision.

 

The proposed Care Home development does not, in my view, meet the requirements of the SDNP Local Plan or the aspirations of the Midhurst Vision.

 

1) It will not provide economic growth locally as supplies will most likely be sourced from central suppliers (catering, medical supplies and equipment etc); staff will have to come from out of area - there is already a major issue of supply of care staff around Midhurst (i.e. for care at home, care home staff and nursing staff as evidenced by the closure of the Midhurst Community Hospital).

 

2) Midhurst already has a number of good quality "high end" Care Homes. The demand and lack of supply for Care Home places are for those people, particularly those with dementia, requiring Council- funded places. I think it most unlikely that the current Care Home planning proposal will meet these local demands and needs.

 

3) The proposed site for the Care Home, at the edge of a large car park, is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 562.

563.

Award of Contract for East Beach Outfall Replacement pdf icon PDF 60 KB

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and its appendix (which is confidential Part II exempt* material and is printed on salmon-coloured paper for members and relevant officers only) and to make the resolutions set out below:

 

(1)  That the contract for the East Beach outfall replacement be awarded to Contractor B, the details of which are set out in the exempt appendix to the agenda report.

 

(2)  That a variation to the capital programme for 2018-2019 be approved by including the replacement of East Beach surface water outfall at a cost of £149,000.

 

(3)  That the cost of replacing this asset in future years be added to the Asset Replacement Programme.

 

(4)  That the proposed expenditure be funded from Community Infrastructure Levy funds of £100,000 already approved in the Infrastructure Business Plan 2018-2019 and the balance be funded from revenue resources to the extent that it is not otherwise met from external grant from Southern Water.

 

(5)  That authority be delegated to the Divisional Manager for Environmental Protection to approve the funding conditions and the detailed spend of any grant funding awarded by Southern Water for the project.

 

*[Note Paragraph 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]

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED

 

(1)  That the contract for the East Beach outfall replacement be awarded to Contractor B, the details of which are set out in the exempt appendix to the agenda report.

 

(2)  That a variation to the capital programme for 2018-2019 be approved by including the replacement of East Beach surface water outfall at a cost of £149,000.

 

(3)  That the cost of replacing this asset in future years be added to the Asset Replacement Programme.

 

(4)  That the proposed expenditure be funded from Community Infrastructure Levy funds of £100,000 already approved in the Infrastructure Business Plan 2018-2019 and the balance be funded from revenue resources to the extent that it is not otherwise met from external grant from Southern Water.

 

(5)  That authority be delegated to the Divisional Manager for Environmental Protection to approve the funding conditions and the detailed spend of any grant funding awarded by Southern Water for the project.

 

Minutes:

The Cabinet received and considered the agenda report and its confidential appendix, which was circulated to members and officers only.

 

This item was presented by Mr Connor.

 

Mr Henly was in attendance for this matter.

 

Mr Connor summarised the report with particular reference to sections 3 and 5. He outlined the history, nature and purpose of the existing outfall at East Beach Selsey, CDC’s legal liability to maintain it, the clear case for replacement rather than repair of the asset in terms of the benefits it would bring to Selsey and the area, and the tender process which had resulted in the recommendation of contractor B, in whose capability he expressed confidence.

 

Mr Henly did not add to Mr Conor’s introduction.   

 

Mr A Moss (Fishbourne) addressed the Cabinet with the permission of Mr Dignum. He asked two questions: (a) did the recommendation in para 2.2 of the report to approve a variation of the capital programme for 2018-2019 imply that the replacement of the outfall had been an unexpected event? and (b) in view of the mention in para 3.1 of the report that surface water and sewage overflows were conveyed to the sea, had the issue of sewage contamination been discussed with Surfers Against Sewage to ensure everything could and would be done to ensure that the sea would remain safe for surfers, swimmers and sailors? Sailing clubs had advised sailors from time to time not to use Chichester Harbour because of sewage contamination and it was vital for CDC to ensure that the situation continued to be kept under careful control.   

 

In reply to Mr Moss, Mr Connor and Mr Henly explained that (a) the need to replace the outfall was an anticipated event which had been carefully monitored and the decision to proceed had awaited the outcome of negotiations with Southern Water to see if it would assume responsibility and (b) there were two separate discharge pipes for conveying surface water and sewage and these functioned correctly (this was the only method for dealing with overflows in the absence of additional storage capacity) and in addition the Selsey Bathing Water Enhancement Programme, with which Southern Water was involved, would help to ensure that the number of overflows would be reduced and carefully monitored.

 

Mr Connor and Mr Henly also answered questions by Cabinet members about the contractor and tender process and the prospect of a financial contribution by Southern Water to the cost of the outfall replacement. 

 

Decision

 

The Cabinet voted unanimously on a show of hands to make the resolutions below. 

 

RESOLVED

 

(1)  That the contract for the East Beach outfall replacement be awarded to Contractor B, the details of which are set out in the exempt appendix to the agenda report.

 

(2)  That a variation to the capital programme for 2018-2019 be approved by including the replacement of East Beach surface water outfall at a cost of £149,000.

(3)  That the cost of replacing this asset in future years be added to the Asset Replacement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 563.

564.

Development Site - The Grange Midhurst pdf icon PDF 63 KB

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and its three appendices (the second and third of which are confidential Part II exempt* material and are printed on salmon-coloured paper for members and relevant officers only) and to make the resolution set out below:

 

(1)  That the offer submitted by the preferred bidder for the Grange disposal land be approved in principle, the details of which are set out in the confidential exempt appendix 2 to the agenda report.

 

(2)  That the Director Growth and Place be authorised, after consultation with the Cabinet Member for Growth and Place, to conclude a freehold sale, initially through a contract subject to planning, at not less than the figure stated in the confidential exempt appendix 2 to the agenda report.

 

*[Note Paragraph 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]

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED

 

(1)  That the offer submitted by the preferred bidder for the Grange disposal land be approved in principle, the details of which are set out in the confidential exempt appendix 2 to the agenda report.

 

(2)  That the Director Growth and Place be authorised, after consultation with the Cabinet Member for Growth and Place, to conclude a freehold sale, initially through a contract subject to planning, at not less than the figure stated in the confidential exempt appendix 2 to the agenda report.

 

Minutes:

[Note As stated in minute 559, this item was considered at the end of the meeting after agenda item 14 but is recorded here in accordance with the published order of business]

 

The Cabinet received and considered the agenda report and its three appendices in the agenda supplement, the second and third of which were confidential exempt material and circulated to members and officers only.

 

This item was presented by Mr Dignum.

 

Mrs Hotchkiss and Mrs McKay were in attendance for this matter.

 

Mr Dignum commented as follows:

 

In 2015 CDC invested over £6.7 m into the new Grange sports facility in Midhurst. At the same time it was hopeful that a well-known retail brand, namely Waitrose, would like to take on the area of land on which the original sports facility stood.  The local community was particularly keen on such an outcome as it would naturally promote Midhurst into a more substantial retail centre.  The current grocery shops were Budgens, Tesco Express, two garages with retail facilities, the Cowdray shop complex and an independent baker and butcher. Clearly the arrival of Waitrose would have increased the range of options for local residents, particularly those with limited transport means.

 

The site of the former Grange leisure facilities had been marketed three times:

 

·       In 2015 on the completion of the new Leisure Centre and Library facilities. A proposed purchaser was identified, Kimberley Developments working with Waitrose, but sadly the retail economic climate turned downward very quickly in late 2015 at the wrong moment. As a result Kimberley acting for Waitrose withdrew. Waitrose scrapped plans to open new stores anywhere in the UK in September 2016 and had since then even announced some store closures.

 

·       The site was remarketed in 2016. However this exercise was terminated by the Cabinet in November 2016 as none of the offers presented was adequate.

 

·       The site was recently re-marketed extensively yet again and all options considered on an ‘open ended’ basis, including going back to previously interested parties which had expressed an interest in the site.A large retail outlet had always been the preferred option but given the economic challenges facing the food industry CDC had to consider a range of other uses, which included offices, start-up accommodation, non-food retail, residential property, sheltered housing and care home facilities.

 

Thirteen offers had been received: ten were for residential, of which two were for retirement homes; one was for a food store; and one was for either residential or retail depending on planning. The remaining offer was for a care home. There had been no interest submitted for new office accommodation. This was a strong indicator that there was no current demand. Indeed recently some office accommodation in the town had been converted to residential units. As for retail, the industry was clearly going through a difficult phase for an as yet indeterminate period. In contrast a care home would provide much-needed facilities in the area with an ageing population and increasing demand for care.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 564.

565.

Future Funding for the Community Warden Service pdf icon PDF 64 KB

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and its three appendices within the agenda supplement and to make the resolutions set out below:

 

(1)  That the Community Warden Service continue to be funded at 50% for three years (as set out in para 5 of the agenda report) subject to match funding being secured by partners.

 

(2)  That the Senior Community Warden post continue to be funded at 100% for three years (as set out in para 5 of the agenda report) subject to a review should more than one warden patrol fail to be funded.

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED

 

(1)  That the Community Warden Service continue to be funded at 50% for three years (as set out in para 5 of the agenda report) subject to match funding being secured by partners.

 

(2)  That the Senior Community Warden post continue to be funded at 100% for three years (as set out in para 5 of the agenda report) subject to a review should more than one warden patrol fail to be funded.

 

Minutes:

The Cabinet received and considered the agenda report and its three appendices in the agenda supplement.

 

This item was presented by Mrs Lintill.

 

Mrs Bushby was in attendance for this matter.

 

Mrs Lintill summarised the report with particular reference to sections 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8. 

 

Mrs Bushby remarked that the consultation (section 8 of the report) reflected, with its appreciably higher number of respondents compared with the previous one in 2015, very clearly the public’s support for what they regarded as an invaluable service.   

 

During the discussion members commended the community wardens for their sterling service within Chichester District, which was a self-evident and well-proven success story in dealing promptly and professionally with a variety of issues such as deprivation and organising community events such as beach-cleaning days. The prospect of the wardens being conferred with limited enforcement powers (para 8.4 of the report) was noted with interest.

 

Mrs Bushby answered questions about (a) the reach of the community warden service in Chichester District and how parish councils could initiate an approach to CDC for their areas to be considered for inclusion but they would need to fund the full cost of the extra community warden and (b) the understandable concern felt by residents at the removal of police community support officers (PCSO) within Chichester District, which was well recognised but the hope that community wardens could directly fulfil the PCSOs’ role could not be met since the wardens were not a substitute and could only report on low-level crime and work with the police as appropriate in dealing with such issues.  

 

Decision

 

The Cabinet voted unanimously on a show of hands to make the resolutions below. 

 

RESOLVED

 

(1)  That the Community Warden Service continue to be funded at 50% for three years (as set out in para 5 of the agenda report) subject to match funding being secured by partners.

 

(2)  That the Senior Community Warden post continue to be funded at 100% for three years (as set out in para 5 of the agenda report) subject to a review should more than one warden patrol fail to be funded.

 

 

566.

'Breathing Better' - West Sussex County Council's Partnership Approach to Improving Air Quality pdf icon PDF 67 KB

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and its two appendices in the agenda supplement and to make the resolutions set out below:

 

(1)  That West Sussex County Council’s air quality plan ‘Breathing Better’ be endorsed.

 

(2)  That the draft terms of reference for the West Sussex County Council proposed Inter-Authority Air Quality Group be endorsed.

 

(3)  That the Council’s participation in the proposed West Sussex County Council Inter-Authority Air Quality Group be supported.

 



 

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED

 

(1)  That West Sussex County Council’s air quality plan ‘Breathing Better’ be endorsed.

 

(2)  That the draft terms of reference for the West Sussex County Council proposed Inter-Authority Air Quality Group be endorsed.

 

(3)  That Chichester District Council’s participation in the proposed West Sussex County Council Inter-Authority Air Quality Group be supported.

 

 

Minutes:

The Cabinet received and considered the agenda report and its two appendices in the agenda supplement.

 

This item was presented by Mr Connor.

 

Mr Ballard was in attendance for this matter.

 

Mr Connor summarised the report, emphasising the high profile air pollution had gained in the political and judicial spheres and giving examples of its adverse impact on the quality and longevity of human life. He outlined the action taken by CDC to fulfil its statutory obligations with respect to air quality, notably the declaration of three air quality management areas (AQMA) in Chichester District, the need for which being due principally to vehicle emissions. He emphasised the vital importance of partnership working in tackling air pollution, exemplified in the Breathing Better plan produced by West Sussex County Council as a partnership approach to improving air quality in West Sussex. One of its proposals was the establishment of an Inter-Authority Air Quality Group (I-AAQG) to achieve the implementation and governance of the plan.          

 

Mr Ballard emphasised that each of the AQMAs in Chichester District were created for transport-related reasons. He said that a fourth air quality monitoring station would be established in Westhampnett Road in Chichester.

 

Mr Connor and Mr Ballard responded to members’ questions and comments with respect to (a) the principal cause of air pollution being vehicle emissions, especially from diesel engines; (b) the active steps currently being taken by CDC to procure electric vehicles for its public services and to provide more charging points and bays in its car parks throughout Chichester District; and (c) the input (without additional cost to CDC) from officers and the Cabinet Member for Environment Services to the I-AAQG.

 

Decision

 

The Cabinet voted unanimously on a show of hands to make the resolutions below. 

 

RESOLVED

 

(1)  That West Sussex County Council’s air quality plan ‘Breathing Better’ be endorsed.

 

(2)  That the draft terms of reference for the West Sussex County Council proposed Inter-Authority Air Quality Group be endorsed.

 

(3)  That Chichester District Council’s participation in the proposed West Sussex County Council Inter-Authority Air Quality Group be supported.

567.

Corporate Plan Projects 2018-2019 pdf icon PDF 59 KB

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and to make the following resolution:

 

The release of £17,500 allocated by the Cabinet at its meeting on 9 January 2018 to progress the options appraisals identified in the Corporate Plan 2018-2019 for The Old Bakery Petworth and land at Bracklesham Bay be approved.

 

 

Decision:

RESOLVED

 

That the release of £17,500 allocated by the Cabinet at its meeting on 9 January 2018 to progress the options appraisals identified in the Corporate Plan 2018-2019 for The Old Bakery Petworth and land at Bracklesham Bay be approved.

 

Minutes:

The Cabinet received and considered the agenda report.

 

This item was presented by Mr Dignum.

 

Mrs McKay was in attendance for this matter.

 

Mr Dignum summarised sections 3 and 4 of the report.           

 

Mrs McKay said that the recently appointed temporary project officer would begin work in September 2018 in leading on implementation of The Old Bakery Petworth and Bracklesham Bay projects (section 7 of the report).

 

Several members expressed their strong support for these two projects and the benefits they would bring to their respective communities.

 

Mrs Purnell (Selsey North), who was present as an observer, asked if a task and finish group could be established to enable local members to be involved in the outcomes of the two projects. Mr Connor supported her proposal. Mr Dignum agreed with this request and undertook to appoint a small group of members and he would ask Mrs Hotchkiss (Director of Growth and Place) and Mrs McKay to make the necessary arrangements. 

 

Decision

 

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

 

RESOLVED

 

That the release of £17,500 allocated by the Cabinet at its meeting on 9 January 2018 to progress the options appraisals identified in the Corporate Plan 2018-2019 for The Old Bakery Petworth and land at Bracklesham Bay be approved.

568.

Housing Strategy - Proposed Revised Timetable pdf icon PDF 62 KB

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and to make the following resolution:

 

That (a) the life of the existing Housing Strategy be extended to 2020 and (b) a new overarching strategy be developed in accordance with the revised timetable set out in paragraph 5 of the agenda report.

 

Decision:

RESOLVED

 

That (a) the life of the existing Housing Strategy be extended to 2020 and (b) a new overarching strategy be developed in accordance with the revised timetable (as amended*) set out in paragraph 5 of the agenda report.

 

[*Note The date in the fourth bullet point in para 5.2 of the agenda report for ‘Draft Strategy to OSC’ was amended to read ‘January 2020’ instead of ‘January 2019’]

 

Minutes:

The Cabinet received and considered the agenda report.

 

This item was presented by Mrs Kilby.

 

Mrs Grange was in attendance for this matter.

 

Mrs Kilby summarised sections 3, 4 and 5 of the report.           

 

Mrs Grange did not add to Mrs Kilby’s introduction.

 

It was noted that a date required correcting in para 5.2 of the report: the fourth bullet point should state ‘January 2020’ and not ‘January 2019’.

 

Mrs Kilby agreed with Mr Dignum that an interim report on progress with housing matters and in particular homelessness should be presented to the Cabinet in due course; a report on Freeland Close was currently due to come to the November 2018 meeting.

 

Decision

 

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

 

RESOLVED

 

That (a) the life of the existing Housing Strategy be extended to 2020 and (b) a new overarching strategy be developed in accordance with the revised timetable (as amended) set out in paragraph 5 of the agenda report.

 

569.

Provision of Vehicle Wash Facility at Westhampnett Depot pdf icon PDF 61 KB

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and to make the following resolutions:

 

(1)  That £20,000 be released from capital reserves to fund the appointment of a civil engineering consultant to develop a costed design solution for a new vehicle wash facility and associated works at Westhampnett depot.

 

(2)  That officers be authorised to appoint the design consultant and to present a project initiation document to the Cabinet at its meeting on 4 January 2019.

 

Decision:

RESOLVED

 

(1)  That £20,000 be released from capital reserves to fund the appointment of a civil engineering consultant to develop a costed design solution for a new vehicle wash facility and associated works at Westhampnett depot, subject to Southern Water’s confirmation that there is sufficient capacity to accept the additional flow.

 

(2)  That officers be authorised to appoint the design consultant and to present a project initiation document to the Cabinet at its meeting on 4 January 2019.

 

Minutes:

The Cabinet received and considered the agenda report.

 

This item was presented by Mr Barrow.

 

Mrs Dodsworth was in attendance for this matter.

 

Mr Barrow summarised sections 3, 4 and 5 of the report and emphasised the several benefits and opportunities this project would secure in terms of services and savings.           

 

Mrs Dodsworth did not add to Mr Barrow’s introduction but answered a member’s question about the cost of engaging a consultant civil engineer.

 

With Mr Dignum’s permission, Mr Oakley (Tangmere), who was present as an observer, sought and obtained confirmation from Mrs Dodsworth that prior to engaging the consultant CDC would ascertain from Southern Water that there would be sufficient foul water capacity in the existing system to take the additional flows from the proposed vehicle wash facility without the need for an upgrade (which would add to the cost of the project).

 

In the light of the foregoing, the Cabinet agreed that the recommendation in para 2.1 of the report should be amended to be made subject to Southern Water’s confirmation that there was sufficient capacity to accept the additional flow from the vehicle wash facility.

 

Decision

 

The Cabinet voted unanimously on a show of hands to make the resolutions below. 

 

RESOLVED

 

(1)  That £20,000 be released from capital reserves to fund the appointment of a civil engineering consultant to develop a costed design solution for a new vehicle wash facility and associated works at Westhampnett depot, subject to Southern Water’s confirmation that there is sufficient capacity to accept the additional flow.

 

(2)  That officers be authorised to appoint the design consultant and to present a project initiation document to the Cabinet at its meeting on 4 January 2019.

570.

Section 106 Community Facilities - 5th Chichester Scout Group pdf icon PDF 66 KB

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and its appendix (which is confidential Part II exempt* material and is printed on salmon-coloured paper for members and relevant officers only) and to make the resolution set out below:

 

That the release of £62,724.73 Section 106 Community Facilities monies plus interest accrued to the date of release to the 5th Chichester Scout Group for enhancement of the Scout Hut at Whyke Road Chichester be approved.

 

*[Note Paragraph 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]

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED

 

That the release of £62,724.73 Section 106 Community Facilities monies plus interest accrued to the date of release to the 5th Chichester Scout Group for enhancement of the Scout Hut at Whyke Road Chichester be approved.

 

Minutes:

The Cabinet received and considered the agenda report and its confidential exempt appendix circulated only to members and officers.

 

This item was presented by Mrs Lintill.

 

Mr Hyland was in attendance for this matter.

 

Mrs Lintill summarised the report with reference to paras 3.1 to 3.4 inclusive, 4.2 and 5.1. 

 

Mr Hyland did not add to Mrs Lintill’s introduction.  

 

Mr Hyland answered a question on a point of detail about an alternative nearby community facility at a local public house.

 

Decision

 

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

 

RESOLVED

 

That the release of £62,724.73 Section 106 Community Facilities monies plus interest accrued to the date of release to the 5th Chichester Scout Group for enhancement of the Scout Hut at Whyke Road Chichester be approved.

 

 

571.

Tangmere Strategic Development Location - Selection of a Development Partner pdf icon PDF 76 KB

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and its six appendices (which are confidential Part II exempt* material and circulated within the agenda supplement and printed on salmon-coloured paper for members and relevant officers only) and to make the resolutions set out below:

 

(1)  That Countryside Properties (UK) Limited be appointed as the Council’s development partner to take forward the development of the Tangmere SDL.

 

(2)  That authority be delegated to the Director of Planning and the Environment following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning Services to agree and sign the finalised Development Agreement.

 

(3)  That officers and the development partner be instructed to continue dialogue with the landowners/site promotors to facilitate development of the site without the need for a compulsory purchase order if possible.

 

(4)  That the revised timetable be agreed for making the compulsory purchase order, if required, set out at paragraph 6.5 of the agenda report.

 

*[Note Paragraph 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]

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED

 

(1)  That Countryside Properties (UK) Limited be appointed as the Council’s development partner to take forward the development of the Tangmere SDL.

 

(2)  That authority be delegated to the Director of Planning and the Environment following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning Services to agree and sign the finalised Development Agreement.

 

(3)  That officers and the development partner be instructed to continue dialogue with the landowners/site promotors to facilitate development of the site without the need for a compulsory purchase order if possible.

 

(4)  That the revised timetable be agreed for making the compulsory purchase order, if required, set out at paragraph 6.5 of the agenda report.

 

Minutes:

The Cabinet received and considered the agenda report and its six confidential exempt appendices in the agenda supplement, the last of which had been revised and circulated in the second agenda supplement.

 

This item was presented by Mrs Taylor.

 

Mr Allgrove and Mrs Flitcroft were in attendance for this matter.

 

Mrs Taylor summarised the report with particular reference to sections 3, 4, 6 and 7. She outlined the process to select a development partner, the appointment of which was one of the recommendations in the report. She emphasised (as stated in sections 6 and 7) that while progressing the compulsory purchase order (CPO) option, CDC would continue to seek a negotiated solution if reasonably and timeously feasible with all the landowners. She drew attention to the revised timetable in section 6.5.           

 

Mr Allgrove and Mrs Flitcroft did not add to Mrs Taylor’s introduction.

 

Mrs Lintill enquired why the two lower scoring shortlisted bidders had been informed of the outcome prior to the Cabinet deciding at this meeting whether to approve the appointment of Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd (Countryside) and whether it was in fact necessary to make an appointment. Mr Allgrove explained that the Cabinet had previously authorised officers to seek a development partner and that bidders had at this stage been informed of the outcome of the scoring process. Mr Dignum felt that further clarification was necessary and so directed a short adjournment for officers to check the position. 

 

[Note The Cabinet meeting was adjourned between 10:47 and 10:54]

 

Mrs Shepherd confirmed that the Cabinet was required to approve at this meeting the appointment of the proposed development partner. No contract had been signed with Countryside and it was open to the Cabinet if it wished to decline to make the appointment and leave officers to pursue one of the other bidders.

 

Mrs Taylor said that she had been present at the selection meeting in early August 2018 as an observer. The process had been conducted in a very thorough and robust manner. In her view Countryside had given the strongest, most well-prepared and detailed presentation. All three bidders had been informed that the appointment would require the Cabinet’s approval.

 

Mr Wilding commented that it had not been easy to interpret the ownership details in the plan in exempt appendix 1.      

 

Decision

 

The Cabinet voted unanimously on a show of hands to make the resolutions below. 

 

RESOLVED

 

(1)  That Countryside Properties (UK) Limited be appointed as the Council’s development partner to take forward the development of the Tangmere SDL.

 

(2)  That authority be delegated to the Director of Planning and the Environment following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning Services to agree and sign the finalised Development Agreement.

 

(3)  That officers and the development partner be instructed to continue dialogue with the landowners/site promotors to facilitate development of the site without the need for a compulsory purchase order if possible.

 

(4)  That the revised timetable be agreed for making the compulsory purchase order, if required, set out  ...  view the full minutes text for item 571.

572.

2017-2018 Treasury Management Out-turn pdf icon PDF 143 KB

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report with its three appendices and to make the following resolution:

 

The summary of treasury management activities and performance for 2017-2018 be noted.

Decision:

RESOLVED

 

The summary of treasury management activities and performance for 2017-2018 be noted.

 

Minutes:

[Note For technical reasons there is no audio recording for this item and accordingly a fuller summary of the Cabinet member’s introduction is provided]

 

The Cabinet received and considered the agenda report and its three appendices.

 

This item was presented by Mr Wilding.

 

Mrs Belenger was in attendance for this matter.

 

Mr Wilding said that the report (previously considered by the Corporate Governance and Audit Committee) summarised CDC’s treasury activities during the last financial year. Performance was summarised against a benchmark of other district councils (appendix B) and a compliance report of performance against CDC’s own treasury limits (appendix C). 

 

CDC’s treasury portfolio ranged between £50 and £70 m over 2017-2018.  At the year-end just under £54 m of funds were under management (table 1).  The £54 m figure comprised Capital Grants received in advance of spending £7.8 m (including the Community Infrastructure Levy and Housing Grants), Earmarked Reserves £24.3 m (set aside for planned future expenditure and which included the Asset Replacement Programme fund, New Homes Bonus and other funds), General Fund Reserve £14.8 m, section 106 receipts of £5.5 m to be spent in connection with new housing, and Cash Flow £1.6 m.

 

The most significant decision taken during the year was to invest a further £7.9 m in external pooled multi-asset and corporate bond funds - a summary of the CDC’s external pooled investments was shown in table 2.  Appendix A showed a graphical summary of the return and changes in capital values for these funds over the financial year.  Whilst revenue returns on these investments remained between 3 and 4%, since the end of 2017 external pooled funds had declined in value by around 2% - the main reason was the upfront cost of purchasing Local Authority Property Fund due to stamp duty and other related costs.  However, the decline in value of external pooled funds was much less than the income received.

 

The most pressing issue relating to these funds was the imposition of IFRS9 in 2018-2019 – without a suitable statutory override any unrealised gains or losses on those investments were likely to be chargeable to CDC’s General Fund at 31 March 2019.

 

With that in mind, it was encouraging that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) was currently consulting on issuing a statutory override for a time limited period of three years for this issue.  The consultation would close at the end of September 2018 and officers would respond on behalf of CDC.  In short, their view was that CDC should support the issue of this statutory override for all external pooled funds, but they did not understand why the override should be time-limited and so would ask MHCLG to review this aspect when finalising the statutory guidance.

 

There were revised Codes of Treasury Management Practice to comply with going forward, together with updated statutory guidance from the MHCLG.  A key theme of those documents related to greater consideration and disclosure of non-treasury investments (mainly CDC’s investment properties). As  ...  view the full minutes text for item 572.

573.

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

 

Decision:

[NONE]

 

 

Minutes:

There were no late items for consideration at this meeting.

 

 

 

574.

Exclusion of the Press and Public

Although there are no fully confidential Part II exempt items in this agenda, the reports for certain agenda items contain Part II appendices. If the Cabinet wishes to discuss all or any of the Part II appendices to agenda items 5 (Award of Contract for East Beach Outfall Replacement) and/or 6 (Development Site – The Grange Midhurst) and/or 12 (Section 106 Community Facilities – 5th Chichester Scout Group and/or 13 (Tangmere Strategic Development Location – Selection of a Development Partner), it will need first of all in each case to pass a resolution to exclude the press and the public from the meeting on the following ground of exemption in Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 namely Paragraph 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.

 

Decision:

[NOT APPLICABLE]

 

 

Minutes:

The press and public were not excluded from any part of this meeting.