Chichester District Council
Agenda item

Agenda item

Questions to the Executive

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

Minutes:

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

 

Question by Mr J F Elliott: Provision of drinking fountains in Chichester District parks

 

Mr Elliott (Bury) referred to the motion listed later on the agenda to promote working towards making Chichester District plastic free and referred to the availability of government funding which local authorities could utilise to provide drinking fountains in parks within their area.

 

Response by Mr Barrow

 

Mr Barrow (Cabinet Member for Residents Services) undertook to provide a written reply.

  

Question by Mr J F Elliott: (a) Dead tree stumps in New Park Road and (b) more use of colour in Chichester District’s parks

 

Mr Elliott (Bury) said that (a) he had previously raised his concerns about rotten and decaying tree stumps close to the carriageway in New Park Road and he wished to know what action would be taken to address this situation and (b) he felt that Chichester District’s parks were very drab colour-wise and that this should be rectified as an important way of helping to improve people’s sense of wellbeing. 

 

Response by Mr Barrow

 

With respect to (a), Mr Barrow (Cabinet Member for Residents Services) said that he thought that matter had been resolved but in view of what was being said he undertook to look into the matter and provide a written reply.

 

Response by Mrs Lintill

 

Mrs Lintill (Cabinet Member for Community Services) gave examples of the considerable amount and variety of work CDC was doing to improve well-being for individuals and communities. She said that since it could be very difficult and expensive to lay out and maintain parks (which were very well frequented by residents and visitors) there was an emphasis on planting shrubs.

 

Response by Mrs Hamilton

 

Mrs Hamilton (Chairman of the Council) added that the previous Saturday afternoon she had been walking in the Bishop’s Palace Gardens in the city and was most impressed with the high standard of presentation and maintenance; in her estimation well-being was clearly being promoted in this park.

 

Question by Mr J F Elliott: Addressing the A27 and the Southern Gateway as one project

 

Mr Elliott (Bury) asked the Leader of the Council to give serious consideration to addressing the issues of achieving improvements to the A27 and delivering the Southern Gateway scheme in one combined project.

 

 

 

 

Response by Mr Dignum

 

Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council) said that West Sussex County Council was carrying out a transport study of the whole city including the A27, the Southern and Northern Gateways and all aspects of the Chichester Vision, and so Mr Elliott’s point was in fact being addressed.

 

Question by Mr Moss: Underspend of government funding to assist local businesses after business rates re-evaluation

 

Mr Moss (Fishbourne) sought an explanation for the underspend by CDC by £179,806 of the funds allocated to it by the government for use in assisting local businesses which suffered from the effect of the re-evaluation of business rates in April 2017.  He alluded to the correspondence he had had with the Cabinet Member for Community Services with regard to Dell Quay. The business in question had in fact had its rateable value reassessed and as a result a substantial discount had been secured, which outcome had been co-ordinated with the assistance of Gillian Keegan MP.   

 

Response by Mrs Lintill

 

Mrs Lintill (Cabinet Member for Community Services) explained that the use of these funds was left by the government to local authorities to administer. The Cabinet had approved a scheme to facilitate the allocation of funding which would run until September 2018 but it was entirely a matter for individual businesses as to whether or not they chose to apply for assistance. All relevant businesses had been contacted and a number had applied for and been awarded a grant.  It was not known why some chose not to apply but CDC would continue to encourage applications up to the deadline. It was for businesses to seek a review of their rateable value assessment with the Valuation Office Agency; assessments were not CDC’s responsibility.  Noting the outcome in the Dell Quay case, she pointed out that the terminology used by Dell Quay in the correspondence with Mr Moss had not been entirely accurate.

 

Question by Mrs Apel: Dissatisfaction with the 999 and 101 emergency response service

 

Mrs Apel (Chichester West) gave an example within her ward of an unacceptably long wait for a 999 emergency call made by a concerned constituent about drug-dealing in the area to be answered and the failure of the police to visit the complainant after two days when a visit within an hour had been promised. This in turn raised the high levels of dissatisfaction with the 101 service and she wished to know how to obtain from the police a service which was fit for purpose and improved.

 

Response by Mrs Lintill

 

Mrs Lintill (Cabinet Member for Community Services) said that at the last Police and Crime Panel (PCP) meeting she had attended the issue of 101 had been addressed. The police service itself was well aware of the problems with 101 and the need to address staffing and technology issues. It was said at the meeting that emergency calls should be made to 999. In non-urgent cases, the public should report matters via 101 or online. The PCP was looking to the Police and Crime Commissioner to hold the police to account over the Police and Crime Plan. She could not comment on the specific instance of the failure to respond promptly or at all to that 999 call and this should be raised directly with the police and furthermore she would pursue it at the PCP.       

Question by Mr Barrett: Dissatisfaction with police response times

 

Mr Barrett (West Wittering) echoed concerns expressed by Mrs Apel (Chichester West) by describing a similar situation experienced by the Canal Society which had contacted the police about drug-dealing but there was failure to attend and one of the reasons given was the wish to pursue and catch higher-level drug-dealers.

 

Response by Mrs Lintill

 

Mrs Lintill (Cabinet Member for Community Services) said that she was aware that the police and CDC officers were focussing on and seeking to deal with drug-dealing in the canal area. The police were understandably focussing on higher-level dealers in order to sever or seriously reduce the flow of drugs to the smaller dealers, a strategy which was working. However there were also fewer officers available than was once the case.

 

Question by Mr Plowman: Review by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee of resource levels in Chichester District Council’s historic buildings advisory service

 

Mr Plowman (Chichester West)expressed his concerns about the adequacy of resource levels within CDC’s historic buildings advisory (HBA) service with increased workloads caused for example by having to respond to the government consultation on the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and he requested that this issue be investigated by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. He was concerned about there being, in an area of southern England where it was difficult to recruit due to high house price levels, several vacancies within CDC Development Management currently, with an unremitting workload (including the delays with the strategic development locations and the ever-constant demand to comply with an increasing five-year housing land supply). Accordingly a review of staffing levels was necessary. Moreover it was likely that planning policy reforms would result overall in more rather than less work for officers.

 

Response by Mrs Taylor and Mr Frost

 

Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services) said that CDC had just submitted its response to the draft NPPF consultation, the planning policy team was currently fully-resourced and staffing levels were kept under review. In 2017 CDC assessed the HBA service and the team was reduced from three to two officers, who were more experienced and senior, and other planning officers had been given appropriate training to deal with HBA issues. In the past an HBA officer had also worked for Arun District Council but the current officers were dedicated solely to CDC and South Downs National Park cases.                 

 

Mr A Frost (Director of Planning and the Environment) added that the outcome of the draft NPPF consultation insofar as housing numbers were concerned remained to be seen but there was an expectation that higher housing numbers were likely to be imposed. The impact of the five-yearly NPPF reviews on planning policy resources could both rise and fall in various areas, for example changes to calculating housing methodology, and he considered that the planning policy team was quite well-placed to respond accordingly and appropriately with its current (and recently increased) resources. He acknowledged that in the south-east of England it was a constant challenge to recruit and retain planning staff but over the last two years CDC had done what it could to improve the situation.

 

 

 

Question by Dr O’Kelly: Delivery of electrical charging points for motor vehicles

 

Dr O’Kelly (Rogate) expressed her concern about the serious air pollution within the county, citing as an example that Rumbolds Hill in Midhurst was an air quality area, and she pointed out how all the major car manufacturers were producing electric cars. She wished to know what CDC in conjunction with West Sussex County Council (WSCC) was doing to deliver in a significant way electric charging points in Chichester District, for example in on-street locations, on housing estates, in villages and towns and in the district’s strategic development location sites.

 

Responses by Mr Connor, Mrs Taylor and Mr Hayes

 

Mr Connor (Cabinet Member for Environment Services) said that the installation of more electrical charging points was currently in progress and he could supply details in due course. On-street installations fell within the remit of WSCC. CDC was working with WSCC on this important issue. CDC was also addressing the Rumbolds Hill situation. He would provide further details by way of a written response.

 

Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services) said that although electrical charging points did not feature in the current Chichester Local Plan, there was the opportunity to address this matter in the preparation of Local Plan Review.

 

Mr Hayes (Southbourne and Chairman of the Planning Committee) commented that the Planning Committee ensured that all new developments included a condition relating to electrical charging points.

 

Question by Mr Oakley: Electrical charging points for vehicles in new developments and other new technologies

 

Mr Oakley (Tangmere) confirmed the foregoing point by Mr Hayes (Southbourne and Chairman of the Planning Committee) about the Planning Committee being alert to the need for planning conditions to require provision of electrical charging points but he wondered about the risk of not taking into due account other emerging technologies.

 

Responses by Mr Connor and Mr Frost

 

Mr Connor (Cabinet Member for Environment Services) acknowledged the point about alternative technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells. He would supply a written response regarding these points in due course. CDC was considering with West Sussex County Council about applying for a grant for on-street electric charging points but there was no need for CDC to apply for grants to install electric vehicle charging points in its car parks.  

 

Mr Frost (Director of Planning and the Environment) acknowledged the fast developing progress with electrical vehicle charging and that the Local Plan Review would reflect this by containing more prescriptive requirements for developers to meet. The cost of providing these charging points in CDC’s car parks would not be significant. 

 

Question by Andrew Shaxson: Velo South cyclist event on Sunday 23 September 2018

 

Mr Shaxson (Harting) referred to the Velo South event on Sunday 23 September 2018 when it was anticipated that 15,000 cyclists would be participating in a major closed route cycling experience which would begin and end at Goodwood Motor Circuit. This would have the potential to cause major disruption to the lives and activities of tens of thousands of people who lived on the route or who would otherwise be affected by it. There was and would continue to be considerable concern and complaints about the handling of this event. He understood that a small number of CDC officers and members had been involved in 2017 in the proposal to arrange this occasion and the impact of it should surely have been foreseeable. He wished to know why CDC seemingly supported the event without first striving to obtain a reassurance that proper consultation had occurred with parish councils and other relevant parties before the organiser CSM Active Ltd (CSM) was given permission by West Sussex County Council (WSCC) to proceed. Although clearly WSCC had questions to answer, he hoped that CDC would make every effort to review the process to date, examine very carefully on behalf of the residents and businesses in the CDC area all future events of this kind (CSM aspired to make it an annual occurrence) including financial and practical impact, and publish the findings. Whilst he appreciated that CDC was not responsible for the event, he hoped that CDC could exercise due influence where appropriate. He pointed out that many residents had only become aware of the event through ticket sales. 

 

Response by Mr Connor, the Chief Executive and Mr Hobbs           

 

Mr Connor (Cabinet Member for Environment Services) said that he and Mrs Lintill (Cabinet Member for Community Services) had attended a meeting in 2017 about the proposed event but had been under the impression that it would not take place before 2019 because of the work involved in arranging it.

 

Mrs Shepherd (Chief Executive) referred to an e-mail which had been sent to all members stating very clearly that the event was not one for CDC to approve or disapprove. If the organiser had not responded to parish councils’ concerns and questions then this should be raised with CSM. Likewise, local businesses along or in the vicinity of the route which feared a loss of trade should raise their concerns with CSM.  

 

Mr Hobbs (Easebourne) remarked that notwithstanding the initial disruption the event would cause, the prospect of 15,000 cyclists coming to the area could be welcomed by many on account of the tourism potential this would afford on this inaugural occasion and in subsequent years.

 

Question by Mr Oakley: The need to preserve the gap between Chichester and Arun districts from encroaching development

 

Mr Oakley (Tangmere) referred to the housing targets set by the five-year housing supply and which had to be kept under review and expressed his concern at the ever-present threat which they posed to the gap between the Chichester and Arun district areas and also the impact on the Pagham and Chichester Harbours as well as the South Downs National Park (SDNP). He asked if it were now time to produce a joint policy to safeguard the gap.

 

Responses by Mrs Taylor, Mr Frost, Mr Connor and Mr Dunn

 

Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services) said that CDC worked in co-operation with its neighbouring authorities on strategy and she would ensure this issue was discussed.

 

Mr Frost (Director of Planning and Environment) emphasised the ongoing fulfilment by CDC of the duty to co-operate through meetings between its officers with those from Arun District Council (ADC). CDC needed to meet its objectively assessed need requirement in the most sustainable way possible. The concept of strategic gaps no longer existed and officers would raise this issue with ADC. 

    

Mr Connor speaking in his capacity as a ward member (Selsey North) rather than Cabinet Member for Environment Services emphasised what he called the huge threat from development to Medmerry, Pagham Harbour, the SDNP (and for that matter also the Chichester Harbour AONB) and the wildlife in each of those areas.

 

Mr Dunn (Westbourne and CDC’s representative on the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA)) said that the SDNPA was very concerned to protect rural corridors, the landscape and the rural environment, it took its statutory remit very seriously and it wished to resist significant development in the SDNP.

 

Question by Mr Dunn: Value for money in consultancy fees being paid to Systra for advice on the A27 Chichester bypass improvement works options

 

Mr Dunn (Westbourne)asked the Leader of the Council if he was satisfied that CDC was obtaining value for money from the fee being paid to Systra, the consultants engaged to advise on the A27 options.

 

Response by Mr Dignum

 

Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council) explained that so far CDC had not paid anything to Systra

 

Question by Mr Lloyd-Williams: Business plan option to sell The Novium for commercial or residential redevelopment

 

Mr Lloyd-Williams (Chichester North) asked if the business plan being developed, as he understood it, for The Novium would include the option to sell the building for commercial or residential redevelopment. As this was a Conservative administration, he wished to know how much money the Leader thought should be poured year-on-year into what he termed a bottomless pit.

 

Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council) said that was not an option. Since he had become the leader, CDC had been examining options for The Novium and to date there had been no interest shown in taking over running the museum as a trust. The option of converting the museum into residential use was not being entertained because Chichester was a cultural, historical centre and the wish was for The Novium to be one of the city’s four cultural pillars alongside the Cathedral, the Pallant House Gallery and the Chichester Festival Theatre. The new manager was charged with producing a business plan to realise that objective and this would be considered in due course by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Cabinet. In his opinion an annual net cost of approximately £600,000 (compared with £300,000 to £400,000 for the former museum) was reasonable value for money as part of CDC’s cultural strategy and should be seen in the context of the grants made to the Pallant House Gallery and the Chichester Festival Theatre.

 

 

 

Question by Mr Barrett: Control of Goodwood airplane disturbance over the Manhood              

 

Mr Barrett (West Wittering) asked the Leader of the Council about complaints he had received about the noise made by a particular airplane flying out of Goodwood Airfield and conducting low-level aerobatics over Chichester Harbour, West Wittering village and the western Manhood which was causing a disturbance, including the apparent over-revving of its engine.

 

Responses by Mr Dignum and Mr Connor

 

Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council) said that he and Mr Barrett (West Wittering) had been in correspondence about this issue and he was due to be CDC’s new representative on the Goodwood Airfield Consultative Committee following the next Cabinet meeting and he would be directly involved in pursuing this matter and to seek and secure a resolution.

 

Mr Connor (Cabinet Member for Environment Services) commented that in the past when he had raised complaints he had been referred to the Civil Aviation Authority and in his experience that was a fruitless exercise with little or no response received. Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council) concurred with Mr Connor’s remarks.

 

[Note End of Questions to the Executive]

 

Top of page