Agenda item

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.

[FOUR PUBLIC QUESTIONS – DETAILS IN 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 unsuitable in my view both for the local townscape and for future residents of any care home. Older vulnerable people with limited mobility, and particularly those with dementia, require bright natural light, open planning, plenty of space and a pleasant and relaxing outlook. The proposed site cannot offer this.

In conclusion the proposal does not offer the "right growth in the right place", "protect the landscape" for either townspeople or for future care home residents; allow for either community to flourish; or likely to provide for a better place for either community to live and work and therefore should be rejected.

 

The above views also reflect those of many in the community who have kindly given their time to express their concerns to me.

 

My question is as follows:

 

Does the Cabinet consider the proposed recommendation, regarding the development of a Care Home on the former Grange site, to be in the best interests of Midhurst residents and that it is a recommendation that is likely to secure the health and well-being of future residents of the proposed Care Home?’

 

[Monday 3 September 2018]

 

Response by Tony Dignum - Leader of the Council

 

‘The disposal of land by the Council must accord with section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972, whereby “a Council shall not dispose of land …for a consideration less than the best.” The recommendation proposed to the Cabinet is considered by officers to reflect such best value. It is not for officers to suggest what individual residents may view as the ‘best interest’ as that is a subjective issue and not one that forms part of the land disposal process.’

 

Supplementary Question – Margaret Guest – Midhurst Town Council

 

Mrs Guest asked if the Cabinet really thought that her evidence as to the absence of a need for further care home provision in Midhurst was based on feelings rather than facts.

 

Response by Tony Dignum - Leader of the Council

 

‘It was a matter for private enterprise to assess the state of the market and the viability of the proposal to introduce another care home in the town.’  

 

(2) Harvey Tordoff – The Midhurst Society

 

Mr Tordoff was unable to attend the meeting. Mr Dignum invited Mr Morley (Midhurst) to read out Mr Tordoff’s questions without the preamble or postscript. The full text of the questions appears below:

 

‘On behalf of The Midhurst Society I am expressing our concern that Chichester DC is considering accepting an offer to build a Care Home on the derelict site adjacent to The Grange Centre in Midhurst. I would be grateful if you could read out these comments at the Cabinet meeting on 4 September 2018.

 

Recent activity on social media has indicated there is strong resistance to the idea of a care home on this site.  There are several care homes in and around Midhurst, and there can be no justification for using this prime location for yet another.  On our own Facebook page we have seen an incredible amount of support for the idea of a swimming pool: 2,500 views; 21 shares; 162 likes; 97 comments. There have been no adverse reactions.  Looking at rising national levels of obesity a swimming pool would appear to be an excellent idea and one which would complement the existing facilities in The Grange Centre.

It is admirable that CDC is seeking to maximise the financial returns for the ultimate benefit of the taxpayer, but that should not involve providing something that is not wanted or needed.  I would suggest that the remit of any local authority is to provide the best services affordable that provide the best overall benefit.

 
I understood that in the SDNP Local Plan the site had been identified as suitable for retail development. There is no mention of a care home. I appreciate that in the current economic climate there is little appetite from retailers to invest in new developments, but if the Local Plan is to be disregarded it is important that all options are considered.

I would like to ask the following questions:

 

1. What statistical evidence is there to justify a care home?

 

2. What research has been conducted into examining alternative uses for the site if the Local Plan is to be ignored?

 

3. In what way is CDC financially involved in this site?

 

4. In what circumstances would CDC allow Midhurst to arrange redevelopment of this site?

 

And I would like to suggest the following course of action:

 

1. All decisions on the future of the site are deferred.

 

2. The views of the people of Midhurst are sought on alternative uses, including but not restricted to a swimming pool.

 

3. Midhurst Town Council and/or The Midhurst Society or similar organisation should put forward proposals based on the opinions expressed by the people.

 

4. Any proposals put forward should include financing options to the extent that CDC is unable or unwilling to provide funding.’

 

[Monday 3 September 2018]

 

Response by Tony Dignum - Leader of the Council

 

‘

                                     i.          The offer made by the preferred bidder will have taken account of the needs and demand for a care home in this location; in cases such as this where the site is openly marketed for a non-specified use, it is not part of the Council’s land disposal process to carry out research into potential uses for a site.

 

                                    ii.          The SDNPA Local Plan is not yet a formally adopted document.  Matters relating to planning are for the preferred bidder to make their own enquiries and this is separate to the land disposal process.

 

                                  iii.          CDC is the freehold owner of the site and as such will receive the capital receipt on completion of a disposal.

 

                                  iv.          The site has been widely and openly marketed since Spring 2017; during that time any interested party was able to make enquiries about a proposed purchase of the site; it is for Cabinet to now discuss the report prepared by officers and decide whether to agree the recommendations made in that report.’

 

In the absence of Mr Tordoff, Mr Morley declined to ask a supplementary question.

 

(3) Ian Buchanan

 

Mr Buchannan read out his question but without the full preamble. The full text of the question appears below:

 

‘‘The  overwhelmingmajority (90%of 560)of Midhurst residentswho votedin therecent poll object tothe saleof theGrange Centresite ownedby ChichesterDistrict Councilto a carehome company.

 

Theapproval inprinciple bythe Cabinetof theoffer submittedby thepreferred bidderappears torely, apartfrom thehighest priceoffered, to thereport fromthe EconomicDevelopment Team. HoweverI mustask youthe questionas tohow thisevidence wasgathered and whetherit ismerely anecdotal?

 

EconomicDevelopment TeamFeedback:

1.                       The development willprovide jobsfor localpeople whowill notneed totravel outof Midhurst.

ThelocalcarehomeagencyisalreadystrugglingtosupplysufficientcarerswithinMidhurstforthepresentdemand -pleaseseeconstantstaffadverts.

 

2.                 It is possiblethat widerbenefits willbe feltby localbusinesses andshops asthese employeesmay chooseto shoplocally.

Presumably iftheseemployeesarealreadylivinginMidhursttheywillbeshoppinglocallyanyway.NoadditionalbenefittoMidhurst.

 

3.                Benefit to localshops sellingproducts whichvisitors tothe carehome maywish to purchasewhen visiting.

Frompersonal experiencevisitorstocarehomesendtodrivetothesiteand leaveimmediatelyafterwards.

 

4.                 Many  care  homes  also  encourage  visits  to  the  home  by  hairdressers,  chiropodists    etcApart from  charityshops, thesecond mostcommon categoryof retailerin Midhurstis theeight hairdressingsalons. Theoccasional visitto thecare homeby oneof theseprofessionals is notexactly goingto addto theeconomy ofMidhurst.

Theonebusinessbenefitnotmentioned bytheeconomicdevelopmentteamwouldbetheincreasedbusiness for thelocal funeraldirector.

 

5.                 Returningthe siteto themarket will entailadditional officertime. Alsothere isa possiblerisk ofprospective purchasers believing thereare issueswith thesite whichare causingthe delayin disposal.

Ibelievethis additionalofficer timewill bewell spent. The secondsentence isconjecture.

 

Mostcare homesnow utiliseoutside catererssuch asCompass andWiltshire FarmFoods for theprovision ofmeals forresidents ratherthan employinga brigadein their ownkitchens. Howeverthere couldbe arequirement forone ortwo localcleaners. Inshort theeconomic benefitof thisdevelopment tothe economyof Midhurst isextremely minimal.

This townalready hasan imbalancein itsage demographicswith itselderly andretired residentsmaking upa largeproportion. There are furtherretirement flatsto bebuilt onthe entrance siteto theBudgens supermarket.Further accommodationfor non-activecitizens runs the riskof exacerbatingthe viability ofthe towncentre businessesthat remain.

The siteby TheGrange isa preciouspiece ofland whichcan makeor breakthis town.The democraticview isthat weshould bethinking ofthe future,and notshort termfinancial considerations.Almost anydevelopment otherthan acare homeor retirementflats ispreferable forthe futurewell-being of Midhurst.The councilhas lookedafter itsfinances well.It can affordto takea longerand morepragmatic stanceon thisoccasion.’

[Monday 3 September 2018]

 

Response by Tony Dignum - Leader of the Council

 

‘The input to the Cabinet report from the Economic Development Team (as with comments made from other service areas) is intended to help inform the recommendation, rather than be the basis on which the recommendation is made.  In this case, the comments made by the Economic Development Team were based on the officers’ knowledge of the Midhurst area with other comments qualified as ‘possible’ or ’likely’, indicating these are not definitive statements but views on what wider benefits might be seen.’

 

Mr Buchanan did not have a supplementary question.

 

(4) Carol Lintoff – Midhurst Town Council Member

 

Mrs Lintoff was unable to attend the meeting and so Mrs Guest (who was also a member of Midhurst Town Council) asked her question on her behalf without the preamble. The full text of the questions appears below:

 

‘I am unable to appear in person at the Cabinet’s meeting on Tuesday 4 September 2018 due to work commitments but I wish members to be made aware of my thoughts and comments regarding the officers’ recommendation of a preferred bid for the sale of land at The Grange Midhurst.  I am happy for my comments to be read out on my behalf.

 

I really feel very strongly about the use of this prime site in central Midhurst. I understand this land has to be sold to recompense CDC for the building of our new Grange Centre and I note that one of the 13 bids is from a food store.  In my opinion this is the bid the officers should be actively pursuing and recommending to the Cabinet.  Unfortunately there appears to be an element of contempt about the way in which CDC officers are looking at this in that they are not taking any account of what is best for the community for this prime location, instead focusing on achieving the ‘highest bid’ regardless of the impact to our town.

 

Point 2.3 states that one of the offers is for a food store, in my opinion for the economy of the town to prosper Cabinet should ask the Officers to pursue this bid or hold out for another retail bid in the future. The value of the land is not likely to decrease after all.  The report states that non-residential is the Cabinet’s preferred use of the site but in effect a care home is indeed ‘residential’.

 

The medical infrastructure of Midhurst cannot sustain more elderly accommodation, whether independent accommodation or a care home, ambulance response times are dreadful and the surgery is full to capacity.  Retirement homes are due to be built across the road on the Dundee House site (formerly Fraser Nash), that is more than enough new retirement accommodation provision for a small ‘market’ town. 

 

The most appropriate development for the town would actually be a community facility to compliment The Grange, such as a swimming pool. However, given that funding for a pool is unlikely, a new supermarket has to be more beneficial to the town than any of the other bids currently being considered.

 

A new food store would reduce car journeys as the majority of Midhurstians travel for the bulk of their shopping, only using Tesco Express and Budgens for top-up shopping.  A care home development may bring new employment to the town, but they are unlikely to come from the town, and if they do, they will still have to leave the town to do their shopping.

 

The wider benefits to economy quoted by the Economic Development team are in my opinion flawed and a nonsense to anybody actually living in Midhurst and in my opinion have been added purely to sway the cabinet towards acceptance of the ‘highest bid’ regardless of actual benefit to the town.

 

Whether a food store bid be detrimental to the value of the land or not, in terms of value to the town as a whole, a ‘ roper’ supermarket is of paramount importance to the area and this is the last parcel of land within the ‘town’ that could be considered for this purpose, it would benefit:

 

• The community in terms of competition in food store offering

 

• Economy in terms of the sustainability of the businesses in West Street and the Old Town

 

• Employment in terms of new non skilled job openings

 

• The Grange in terms of footfall

 

• Environment in terms of less traffic travelling away from the town to shop

 

I am unsure whether it is really up to CDC’s officers to determine whether a food store is ‘viable’ on the site, surely it is up to the bidder to determine if a business opportunity is viable, not the vendor of the land. One only has to see how successful the recently opened M&S Simply store at Easebourne is to see how viable a new food store would be in the town. In my opinion CDC is taking the view that the highest bidder wins without thinking through the longer term impact on a small market town which is desperate for competition in its food store offering and for that reason the Cabinet should reject the offer from the care home developer and pursue the bidder who wishes to provide a food store or hold out for a better retail offer.

 

Another privately run care facility in this area isn't good for anyone apart from the developer and the new owner and Chichester District Council’s bottom line, it is certainly no good for Midhurst.

 

My question is as follows:

 

The Community Hospital has struggled to find appropriate staff to keep the Bailey Unit open, how will this care home be different in attracting staff with similar skills and experience who can afford to live in Midhurst…?’  

 

[Sunday 2 September 2018]

 

Response by Tony Dignum - Leader of the Council

 

‘The offer made by the preferred bidder will have taken such matters into account when identifying an operator for the care home. The Bailey Unit referred to provides patient rehabilitation, which is a different service area to that provided by a care home; care homes generally will require a range of staff with different skills and qualifications and the detail of that will be a matter for the operator to consider should the Cabinet decide to proceed with the recommendations of the report.’

 

Mrs Guest asked on behalf of Mrs Lintoff a supplementary question, namely whether the Cabinet was aware of how the preferred provider had reached its conclusion. 

 

Response by Tony Dignum - Leader of the Council

 

Mr Dignum replied that the Cabinet did not have that evidence as it was not required; all that was needed was the receipt of a bid from a prospective purchaser.

 

There were no further questions or responses.