[Note This item is allocated a maximum duration of 40 minutes]
Minutes:
Mrs Hamilton invited members to indicate if they wished to ask questions of the Cabinet and the names of those so desiring were noted. She reminded members that a maximum of 40 minutes was allocated for this item.
The questions asked and the responses given were as follows:
Question by Mrs Apel: Closure of The Chichester Foyer
Mrs Apel asked Mr Dignum (the Leader of the Council) about several aspects to this issue. She wished to know (a) when he had first known about the closure of The Chichester Foyer in Velyn Avenue in the city; (b) whether he knew which officers had been aware of the closure plan; (c) what would be happening to the vulnerable young people and young asylum seekers who were currently being accommodated and supported there; (d) what would be the position of those in need of accommodation of the kind provided by The Foyer in the future; and (e) whether the cut-backs to benefits for 18-21 year olds had been one of the main factors in the closure decision. She pointed out that these young people were some of the most vulnerable and The Foyer provided not only a roof over their heads but a range of advice and assistance. It was unfortunate that this category of vulnerable people was now seriously at risk and that this decision could well mean an increase in rough sleeping on the streets with all the associated dangers such a lifestyle posed.
Response by Mr Dignum, Mrs Lintill and Mrs Shepherd
Mr Dignum said that he had possessed no advance knowledge of the closure. There were clearly detailed questions which CDC officers would wish to ask to ascertain how to assist those affected.
Mrs Lintill (the Deputy Leader and the Cabinet Member for Community Services) added that CDC had become aware only very late in the day of the closure decision. Meetings would be taking place at the end of this week with West Sussex County Council (WSCC) and other agencies and partners. Mrs Apel’s concern was shared by the Cabinet and further information would be shared once it became available.
Mrs Shepherd (Chief Executive) explained that The Foyer was run by a charity which had decided for whatever reason no longer to operate in the city. The decision had surprised CDC and WSCC, which respectively had housing and social care responsibilities. The two councils were concerned about this outcome and would be monitoring the situation very carefully.
Supplementary Question by Mrs Apel: Financial Factor in the Closure of The Chichester Foyer
Mrs Apel asked whether the benefits cut-backs to 18 to 21 year olds had played a part in the closure decision.
Response by Mrs Shepherd
Mrs Shepherd (Chief Executive) said that she understood that it was a personal decision by the charity no longer to engage in that type of work. Welfare reforms had had an impact. CDC would continue to support the work with the most vulnerable clients.
Question by Mr Brown: Infrastructure Funding
Mr Brown asked Mr Dignum (the Leader of the Council) two points about infrastructure funding: (a) as to the report that funding for the A27 Chichester bypass improvements had been made available once again, could the money be used for the previously supported option 2 or for whatever potential options might emerge out of the ongoing consultation arrangements and (b) with regard to the Southern Gateway development, whether there was any possibility for using a funding model similar to what was used in London for Crossrail by seeking to capture increases in property values via the business rate supplement - this was a device used around the world to fund in part infrastructure projects and was known as land value finance.
Response by Mr Dignum
Mr Dignum (the Leader of the Council) said with respect to question (a) that a letter from the Chief Executive of Highways England (HE) had stated that the A27 funding had been reinstated within the current Road Investment Strategy for the southern route and that the only deliverable options were included in the final consultation document (HE had never expressed a preference for any of the options) and in a second statement that the northern options were not deliverable. Louise Goldsmith, the Leader of WSCC, and he were working together to support a solution via a community effort which took into account the constraints imposed by HE. Very good progress was being made; at a very recent meeting at Lavant Parish Council with representatives from further afield on the Manhood Peninsula there was widespread agreement for a very innovative development alongside the extant route but one which would have a much reduced construction time and would cause far less inconvenience to Manhood residents in terms of east, west and northern access, which was always one of the problems with the options previously considered. As to question (b), whilst there would be a commercial element in the Southern Gateway masterplan development, housing would constitute the principal component and so the point being made about the business support rate was irrelevant.
Supplementary Question by Mr Brown: A27 Infrastructure Funding and the Northern Option
Mr Brown asked the Leader of the Council to clarify his remark that for any A27 improvement works option to receive funding it would need to comply with HE’s constraints by stating whether this meant, therefore, that the northern option had in fact been excluded from consideration.
Response by Mr Dignum
Mr Dignum said that this was what HE in its letter was understood to be saying insofar as it was concerned although of course there were many in the communities who thought otherwise. It was for local people to decide whether they were prepared to accept the HE constraints in order to secure improvement works or if not to continue with the current situation. The recent meeting with Lavant Parish Council had been very promising because the innovative proposal was recognised as a genuine effort to meet the concerns of Manhood Peninsula residents; it would not involve the destruction of any houses whatsoever and it had received very wide support.
Question by Mr Martin: Road Investment Strategy 2 Funding for A27 Improvement Works
Mr Martin said that it should be borne in mind that the context for the comments made about the A27 options was the Road Investment Strategy 1. He pointed out that HE had published in March 2017 the South Coast Network document, which formed the groundwork for the emerging Road Investment Strategy 2. From what he had heard and read it could be that if there were not sufficient monies to achieve proper improvements to the A27 within the current £250m allocation, then perhaps the advent of Road Investment Strategy 2 should be awaited in the hope that there would be funding available to achieve a long-term strategic solution rather than a short-term solution via Road Investment Strategy 1. It was his impression from all the consultation events he had attended to date with Mrs L Goldsmith (WSCC Leader) that the consensus at this stage was that no options should be ruled out and that limiting oneself to online solutions only should be avoided.
Response by Mr Dignum
Mr Dignum said that Mr Martin might be correct as to Road Investment Strategy 2 but everyone was currently in a state of ill-information and it was a case of having to wait and see.
Question by Mr Hayes: Professionalism of Recycling Bin Crews
Mr Hayes informed Mr Barrow (the Cabinet Member for Contract Services) that recently his recycling bin had been left unemptied by CDC staff because they had discovered an item in the bin which ought not to have been there and an advisory note had been affixed to the bin. Mr Hayes made no complaint about that but commended the professionalism of the recycling crew for the way they had correctly handled the situation.
Response by Mr Barrow
Mr Barrow acknowledged Mr Hayes’ compliment and his honest admission. From having joined the crews on their rounds he was well aware that they were conscientious in carrying out their duties. It was not easy to check a bin’s contents for contaminated or inadmissible items but if any were noticed on lifting the lid the bin would not be collected and a sticker would advise the resident accordingly. He took the opportunity to encourage members to support CDC’s next recycling week in the last week of September 2017 when they could engage with members of the public at local supermarkets including, it was hoped, for the first time the Asda store in Selsey.
Question by Mr Plowman: State of Pavements in the City and Removal of Level Crossings
Mr Plowman referred to the work being done on two important CDC documents now being prepared, the Vision for Chichester District and the Southern Gateway Masterplan, and said that there was an imperative need first of all to address the state of the city’s pavements. There had been four accidents in the city during the past week alone. Clearly the defective condition was causing a lot of problems and the situation was shocking. He advocated to Mr Dignum (the Leader of the Council) the need to address this issue as a priority before taking forward the aforementioned schemes. He also urged the need to secure the removal of the level crossings in the city as soon as possible. Repeatedly when various city schemes came forward the opportunity in one way or another was missed to addressed this critically important issue and if it was not grasped and resolved with these two schemes the problem would remain for another 50 years.
Response by Mr Dignum and Mrs Duncton
Mr Dignum conceded the serious state of the city’s pavements. He exhorted the three CDC members who were also members of WSCC to raise repeatedly the issue until something was done and to prevail on Mr J Hunt (the WSCC Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources) to release funds for this purpose and also to press for a review of the height threshold for carrying out repairs to uneven pavements; the threshold needed to be reduced. He did not agree that progress with the Vision and Southern Gateway schemes should be dependent on first resolving the issue of the pavements, which fell within the remit of another local authority. A very good meeting of the Chichester Vision Steering Group had just taken place at which having considered the consultation responses it had drawn up an action/delivery plan to improve Chichester for the benefit of residents and visitors. The Southern Gateway Masterplan would be brought for consideration to the June 2017 ordinary and special meetings respectively of the Cabinet and the Council. The Masterplan, which was an exciting document, contained very detailed studies of transport scenarios, which proposed the retention of the level crossings but with one used only by buses, cyclists and pedestrians and the other by cars. The Masterplan was a very well designed document. He felt that members would be very pleased with the results of both the Vision and Masterplan documents.
Mrs Duncton (CDC member for the Petworth Ward and WSCC member for the Petworth Division) said that there was a large fund available for West Sussex parish councils and Chichester City Council to apply for pavement repairs. She drew attention to the Love West Sussex app which enabled complaints about the state of pavements to be reported to WSCC. Alternatively parish, district and county councillors could take complaints from the public and report them to WSCC on its behalf.
Supplementary Question by Mr Plowman: Removal of the Level Crossings
Mr Plowman expressed his disappointment at hearing of the proposal to retain the level crossings and said it was technically possible to deal with this acute problem notwithstanding the expense.
Response
There was no response to the remarks made by Mr Plowman.
Question by Mr Lloyd-Williams: Chichester District Council’s Policy on IT Malware Ransom Payments
Mr Lloyd-Williams referred to the recent cyber-attack sustained by the NHS at many hospitals which involved the demand of a ransom payment to unlock computer systems and asked Mr Dignum (the Leader of the Council) to state CDC’s policy to deal with ransom payment demands.
Response by Mrs Shepherd and Mr Dignum
Mrs Shepherd (Chief Executive) answered this question at the request of Mr Dignum. She said that there was no policy in place but CDC was well aware of the advice that a ransom should not be paid. This national incident served to emphasise the constant need for all IT users to be ever vigilant. CDC treated IT security as a matter of imperative importance and its Risk Management Group regarded IT security as a very high priority issue. CDC had had in place full IT protection controls during the weekend of the NHS cyber-attack. Mr Dignum added that there was an onus on members and officers to be very vigilant about opening suspect e-mail attachments or links.
Question by Mr Oakley: Clearance of Litter and Dog Fouling
Mr Oakley began by alluding to the earlier question about the state of the city’s pavements. He remarked that the circumstances of trip incidents needed to be taken into account before funds were allocated for pavement repairs.
Mr Oakley asked Mr Barrow (the Cabinet Member for Contract Services) about whether consideration had been given by the Cabinet or CDC to engaging a private company to deal with the ongoing issues of litter and dog fouling. Concerns about such detritus in Chichester District had been raised by members over the years and the advice given was that members should report such incidences and individuals should take personal responsibility for their litter and dogs. However the problem was not lessening but was becoming a persistent and growing nuisance. A reliance on voluntary responsibility through publicity etc clearly was not working.
Response by Mr Barrow
Mr Barrow acknowledged that this was a currently a big issue. Fly-tipping, litter and dog-fouling were the scourge of society and the countryside. The issue had to be addressed. The public would, he believed, support a responsible approach to the problem. There were no immediate plans but he had brought together a small working group of officers and members; the issue cut across both his portfolio (clearance) and that of Mrs Purnell, the Cabinet Member for Housing and Environment Services (enforcement). There had not been hitherto a joint working approach by the two sections and he was very keen to remedy this. The working group was examining various potential initiatives. Litter was a particular problem on the roads including the A27; the relatively recent street scene report prepared for CDC revealed that litter within Chichester District’s town centres was not so bad. Enforcing litter on the highways was not easy to implement. He was, therefore, considering what could be done and he hoped to present ideas and initiatives at a future date.
Supplementary Question by Mr Oakley: Clearance of Litter and Dog Fouling
Mr Oakley noted the interim position as just outlined and expressed the hope that the measures would succeed; he felt, however, that there was a need to be much more proactive about this.
Response by Mr Barrow
Mr Barrow hoped it was appreciated from what he had said that he was determined to address this issue; the public expected this to happen.
Question by Mr Ransley: Delivery of Affordable Housing via Local Housing Companies
Mr Ransley drew to the attention of the Cabinet and the Council to a feature in the current issue of First magazine about Wokingham Borough Council’s (WBC) initiative to deliver new affordable homes by establishing local housing companies for local people using capital funding coming from commuted sums, borrowings and grants from central government and thereby benefitting all residents by generating an income stream to fund local services. He asked if Mr Dignum (the Leader of the Council) and the Cabinet (a) would be willing to follow WBC’s lead in resolving Chichester District’s housing need as well as establishing a new revenue stream for CDC and (b) considered that parish councils, which were trusted to set up community land trusts with similar objectives, would be even more motivated by seeing CDC itself seeking to develop affordable housing and, if so, would Mr Dignum or the relevant Cabinet member commit to advising the Council in due course of the outcome of their review of the potential of such a scheme.
Response by Mrs Purnell
Mrs Purnell (the Cabinet Member for Housing and Environment Services) said that it was her understanding that such a scheme was considered by CDC two or three years ago and at that time it was not felt to be a viable option but it was something which would be re-examined.
Supplementary Question by Mr Ransley: Delivery of Affordable Housing via Local Housing Companies
Mr Ransley asked if this meant that in due course there would be a report back to the Council once the details had been reviewed.
Response by Mr Dignum
Mr Dignum (the Leader of the Council) confirmed that there would be such a report.
Question by Mrs Westacott: Monitoring of Air Quality in Chichester
Mrs Westacott asked Mrs Purnell (the Cabinet Member for Housing and Environment Services) (a) that in the light of the government being required to publish its air quality plan was not this the time to look more critically at the levels of pollution around Chichester District, (b) for the number and location of the air quality monitoring stations, (c) what were they measuring ie noise and air pollution and (d) what monitoring was being planned as further housing was being developed.
Response by Mrs Purnell and Mr Ballard
Mrs Purnell (Cabinet Member for Housing and Environment Services) said that there were three air quality management areas in the city namely Orchard Street, The Hornet and Stockbridge Road. As far the government consultation document (to be commented on by Mr Ballard) was concerned, CDC was under the thresholds cited therein and each monitoring station had different functions.
Mr Ballard (Senior Environmental Protection Officer) gave further advice as follows. CDC monitored air quality in ten locations in Chichester using nitrogen dioxide diffusion tubes and two locations using real-time monitoring devices, one on Orchard Street monitoring nitrogen dioxide and one at Stockbridge adjacent to the A27. CDC had been monitoring across the city since 2000 and the five-year trend indicated modest improvements in air quality. CDC continued to monitor at Rumbolds Hill in Midhurst. CDC had three air quality management areas (AQMA) in place which were declared for the non-compliance of air quality with the UK Air Quality Objective for Nitrogen Dioxide. The Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) had published its consultation document Tackling nitrogen dioxide in our cities. The consultation would close on 15 June 2017 and the government would publish its resulting plan on 31 July 2017. The consultation document indicated that CDC would not be mandated to implement a clean air zone but the duty to tackle its AQMA issues remained. A briefing note regarding the DEFRA consultation would be forwarded to all members soon after this meeting for their information.
Supplementary Question by Mrs Westacott: Monitoring of Noise Pollution
Mrs Westacott asked if noise was routinely monitored.
Response by Mr Ballard
Mr Ballard (Senior Environmental Protection Officer) advised that in common with almost all local authorities there was no routine noise monitoring undertaken save for the specific noise control monitoring at the Goodwood Motor Circuit. Any noise pollution monitoring would normally occur, if relevant, as part of assessing a planning application.
Question by Mr Morley: Air Quality Monitoring at Rumbolds Hill Midhurst
Mr Morley asked if air quality was still being monitored at Rumbolds Hill Midhurst.
Response by Mr Ballard
Mr Ballard (Senior Environmental Protection Officer) confirmed that such monitoring was continuing at that location.
Question by Mr Ransley: Availability of CDC Briefing Paper on DEFRA Consultation Document
Mr Ransley asked when the aforementioned CDC briefing paper on the DEFRAair quality consultation document Tackling nitrogen dioxide in our towns and cities would be made available to members.
Response by Mr Ballard
Mr Ballard (Senior Environmental Protection Officer) advised that after this meeting it would be sent to Democratic Services for circulation to members.
Question by Mr Hixson: Establishment of Environmental Protection Working Group
Mr Hixson expressed the hope that a working group could be established similar to the litter/dog fouling one mentioned earlier by Mr Barrow (the Cabinet Member for Contract Services) to increase CDC’s remit with respect to environmental protection issues such as recyclable plastic bottles to save the oceans and electrical buses etc.
Response by Mr Barrow and Mr Dignum
Mr Barrow suggested that he and Mr Hixson take the opportunity to confer in due course about the scope of the small member/officer working group he had already mentioned.
Mr Dignum (the Leader of the Council) acknowledged the good point that had been made in the tranche of environment-related questions about air pollution and he would be raising the issue with the relevant Cabinet member and officers. As had been said, CDC was not bound to have a clean air zone but members were nonetheless very disturbed about the degree of pollution in and around the city, at Rumbolds Hill in Midhurst and elsewhere. There was a need to look at how to address this and the Waste and Recycling Panel might be the appropriate means for doing so. It should be noted that the government had only just published what was at this stage a consultation document albeit on a major issue.
Question by Mr Potter: Southern Gateway Development and Road Bridge over City Railway Lines
Mr Potter asked why the Southern Gateway development would proceed without constructing a road bridge over the railway lines, which was a perfectly possible engineering option. Without doing so the Southern Gateway scheme was doomed to failure.
Response by Mr Dignum
Mr Dignum (the Leader of the Council) replied that the debate on the Southern Gateway Masterplan at the forthcoming special meeting of the Council would be the opportunity to contend that point.
Question by Mr Shaxson: Road Bridge over City Railway Lines
Mr Shaxson commented that the Southern Gateway Masterplan represented the one and only opportunity to seek to resolve the obstacle posed by the city’s level crossings. He hoped that when the Council debated the Masterplan there would be up-to-date information available about the projected future rail line usage. If there were to be an increase in the number of train movements it would constitute not a barrier but a dam to car movements.
Response
There was no response to the remarks made by Mr Shaxson.
Question by Mr Hobbs: Chichester District Council’s IT Data Back-up Arrangements
Mr Hobbs referred to the earlier exchange about IT cyber-attacks and ransom payment demands. He asked for confirmation of his understanding that CDC had all of its IT data back-up held off-site and whether that meant, therefore, that the response to a ransom payment was in fact academic.
Response by Mrs Shepherd
Mrs Shepherd (Chief Executive) confirmed that CDC had a back-up policy and further details could be supplied to members if required. In any event, as she had said in an earlier reply she did not expect that CDC would accede to a ransom demand.
Question by Mr Hayes: State of the Pavements in Chichester
Mr Hayes referred to the comment made earlier by Mr Oakley about looking into the circumstances of trip incidents on the city’s pavements before agreeing to release funds for repairs. He did not share that view. Accidents should be prevented wherever possible. More importantly people with disabilities using wheelchairs actually avoided Chichester city centre because of the discomfort of traversing the cobbles and pavements.
Response
There was no response to the remarks made by Mr Hayes.
[Note With the foregoing point by Mr Hayes, questions to the executive were concluded]