[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 to the Executive asked by members and the responses given were as follows:
Question: Consultation with members about land disposal at The Grange Midhurst
Mr S Morley (Midhurst) stated that he was confused by the statement in para 3.8 of the agenda supplement report to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Tuesday 18 September 2018 regarding the Grange disposal namely: ‘District members were kept informed regarding progress of the tender returns at Full Council and were aware that it would come to the September Cabinet for a decision. This was also publicised through the forward plan. A pre-cabinet briefing for ward members was also offered.’ He said that he did not recall receiving the level of information suggested in that paragraph and additionally he was unable to attend the eleventh hour briefing prior to the Cabinet meeting which had been arranged for local members.
Response
Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place) replied that he would defer to officers for a written response to be prepared.
[Note A written response by Mrs J Hotchkiss (Director of Growth and Place) was circulated by e-mail to all members on Wednesday 3 October 2018]
Question: Information for members about land disposal at The Grange Midhurst
Dr K O’Kelly (Rogate) remarked that the Cabinet’s decision on this matter had been very controversial in the community. She said that for members to be able to carry the community with them on the narrative of this process, it would be really helpful to have as much information as possible to explain how the resultant position was reached. She requested details of the three marketing exercises, namely when, how long and how widely they were undertaken, and details also of the bids received, in particular the significant bids and the less credible ones. Such information would assist local members and the communities they represented to understand how the outcome occurred and how to go forward from this point. Members would observe confidentiality in what they told their constituents.
Response
Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place) replied that he would defer to officers for a written response to be prepared but pointed out that some of the details requested might be exempt material.
[Note A written response by Mrs J Hotchkiss (Director of Growth and Place) was circulated by e-mail to all members on Monday 29 October 2018]
Question: Preferred bidder for land disposal at The Grange Midhurst
Caroline Neville (Stedham) referred to an e-mail from a constituent sent to her after the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC) meeting on Tuesday 18 September 2018, which mentioned a pre-application made by the preferred bidder and received by CDC on Wednesday 29 August 2018. This came as a surprise to her and other local ward members. She wished to know why they had not been informed of this fact at the Cabinet, the pre-OSC briefing for local members and at the OSC meeting itself. She wished to know when CDC decided to choose that particular preferred bidder. She had also received a letter from another constituent which mentioned his efforts to obtain information from CDC about the site since January 2018 and that he had been told that CDC had a preferred bidder and that it would not be considering any other offers. She asked if that preferred bidder was the same as the one mentioned to her in late August 2018.
Response
Mrs D Shepherd (Chief Executive) said that the pre-application enquiry was a planning matter which was outside the Council meeting’s remit [Standing Order 16.4 in Part 4 of the Constitution] and since the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) was the local planning authority it was likely that the SDNPA would determine the matter. Details of the preferred bidder were known to members both at the Cabinet’s meeting on Tuesday 4 September 2018 and when the OSC considered the call-in request on Tuesday 18 September 2018.
Mrs J Hotchkiss (Director of Growth and Place) added that said the point about whether it was the same or different preferred bidder had been asked and answered at the meeting of the OSC.
Question: Request for a policy to brief local members sooner and more frequently
Mr F Hobbs (Easebourne) advocated having a CDC policy of bringing together local ward members to brief them about relevant issues and matters of concern in their communities more frequently and at an early stage ie sooner rather than later than was currently the case.
Response
Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place) said that members were aware of CDC’s intention since 2006 to dispose of the site and that there had been three marketing exercises. Members were entitled to ask officers any questions they had about the process. He said that Mrs J Hotchkiss (Director of Growth and Place) would provide in due course details of the process followed.
Mrs D Shepherd (Chief Executive) reminded members that they were or ought to have been aware that officers had throughout been implementing a policy decision to sell the land at The Grange in order to recover part of the cost of rebuilding the leisure centre.
Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place) replied to further comments by two members, namely (a) Mr S Morley (Midhurst) was not a CDC member at the time that the policy decision was made and so he was not aware and as a member he had not known how to answer his constituents’ repeated questions as he was not been kept informed as he should have been and (b) it had been apparent to Mrs E Hamilton (now West Wittering but formerly Easebourne) that whatever had been told to residents by CDC, the local perception was that Waitrose would be opening a store in Midhurst and this was very keenly anticipated. Mr Dignum said that it was or ought to have been plainly obvious to everyone that Waitrose would not introduce a store in the town since it had been very well publicised that its national store opening programme had been discontinued. It was then for the rest of the market to seize the initiative but CDC had received just one retail bid since that time which itself was not substantive.
Question: Fracking and acidisation and permitted development rights
Mr A Moss (Fishbourne) referred to the consultation by the government on whether test drilling for fracking and acidisation sites should be treated as permitted development, thereby removing the need for the local planning authority to grant planning consent. The dangers of fracking and acidisation in the South Downs were well known as those processes could cause serious contamination to water courses and Chichester Harbour. He asked Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place) to agree with him and to confirm that it was critical that such activities should be subject to the planning process and determined locally.
Response
Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place) replied that he would very much prefer such matters to be the subject of locally determined planning applications.
Question: Conservative councillors’ views on planning consent for fracking and acidisation
Mr A Moss (Fishbourne) pointed out that 65% of Conservative councillors surveyed by the Campaign for Rural England said that in such cases the local planning authority should decide whether or not to grant planning consent.
Response
Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place) agreed with that finding and added that fracking and acidisation applications fell to be determined by West Sussex County Council or the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA).
Mrs N Graves (Fernhurst) cited the example of a fracking application within her ward which was refused after a thorough consideration (including a site tour) by the SDNPA.
Question: Fracking and acidisation: permitted development or development consent order
Mr S Oakley (Tangmere) queried whether the government proposal might in fact be to treat such infrastructure projects as part of the development consent order process rather than be a matter for permitted development rights.
Response
Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place) thought that was probably correct but he could not provide confirmation in the absence of Mr A Frost (Director of Planning and Environment).
Question: Impact of Brexit on public services
Mr J Brown (Southbourne) referred to the September 2018 issue of First magazine for local government, which reported that ‘dozens of councils had seized the initiative and produced their own analyses of the potential impact of Brexit on public services’. He said that the government continued to publish Brexit impact reports and CDC was conducting its own Brexit impact assessment, which was due to report in November 2018. He asked: (1) whether CDC had received any advice from the government at this stage to assist it with planning for Brexit with or without a deal; (2) whether the government was going to provide CDC with any information; and (3) whether CDC was working with others in the region to identify risks and/or opportunities to lobby for devolution of additional powers to local level including over inward investment, transport, infrastructure and skills for if or when the UK left the EU.
Response
Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place) said that the impact of Brexit was being considered on CDC, the community and certain services it provided eg in particular the housing market due to growing unemployment if there was instability after Brexit. CDC did have a stress and strain buffer in its reserves if required to respond to any economic turbulence post-Brexit. A report was due to be considered later in the week at an informal meeting of the Cabinet with the Senior Leadership Team. He was unaware as yet of any information from the government. There was not at this point any co-ordination by CDC with other councils.
Mrs D Shepherd (Chief Executive) confirmed that very little information on the subject had so far been made available. She noted that the detail on the Local Government Association website was of a very high level.
Question: Cancellation of the Vélo South cycling event
Mr A Shaxson (Harting) referred to the longstanding concerns he and local residents and businesses had expressed about this event, particularly the lack of adequate consultation with the communities about the extensive road closures and the consequent impact on their lives and livelihoods. CDC might have been a so-called bit-player in all of this (it was a member of the Safety Advisory Group) but it was nonetheless an important one. The CDC logo appeared on Vélo South publicity material. Despite the late cancellation of the event for inclement weather reasons, lessons needed to be learned in readiness for a similar event which could be held in 2019 or thereafter and so (a) a fresh proposal should be debated on behalf of the community at a Council meeting and (b) proper consultation should occur before a future event was given approval to proceed.
Response
Mr J Connor (Cabinet Member for Environment Services) said that CDC was not even a bit-player; it had had no role at all. The event was arranged by a private organisation. Highways issues were the responsibility of West Sussex County Council and Sussex Police. CDC’s sole involvement was as a member of the Safety Advisory Group. The use of the CDC logo would be investigated by the Cabinet and CDC’s Senior Leadership Team (SLT).
Question: Use of the Chichester District Council logo on Vélo South promotional material
Dr K O’Kelly (Rogate) asked whether in his previous response Mr Connor (Cabinet Member for Environment Services) meant that the Cabinet rather than the Council would decide CDC’s position vis-à-vis future Vélo South events.
Response
Mr J Connor (Cabinet Member for Environment Services) clarified his comments by saying he meant that the unauthorised use by CSMSport and Entertainment LLP (CSM) of the CDC logo would be considered by the Cabinet at its informal meeting with SLT later in the week. In his opinion CSM would need to give appropriate assurances to CDC about such events before it could use the logo. In his personal opinion CDC should not express a view either way on future events and confine itself to participating in the Safety Advisory Group.
Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place) added that CDC had given its support in principle without knowing the details of the event. It became apparent later that it was difficult to balance the competing factors of the obvious pleasure the event would give to thousands of cyclists and the serious adverse impact on local businesses (which had not been entirely avoided with the cancellation of the event). In future CDC would have to be satisfied and confident first of all as to the details of route closures and diversions (some of these had been unacceptably extensive and involving main instead of using available minor roads) and also that there was clear community support before it would signal its approval, a decision in respect of which should be made by the Council. He hoped that there could be an event in the future but it might have to be on a smaller scale.
Mr S Oakley (Tangmere) commented that in his view this event was clearly a matter for CDC given that the Cabinet frequently made decisions with respect to the local economy and economic development and this event gave rise to obvious CDC functions such as litter clearance, community safety and parking contingency provision.
Mr F Hobbs (Easebourne) pointed out that notwithstanding the separation of functions between the various tiers of local government, the reality was that in the community’s perception local government was viewed as a single entity and so CDC was at risk of being blamed along with other councils involved in the Vélo South event.
Question: Prospect of Chichester District Council building its own housing stock
Dr K O’Kelly (Rogate) referred to the Housing Task and Finish Group (HTFG) report on housing standards and future needs which had been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Tuesday 18 September 2018. In view of the work being undertaken with community land trusts and rough sleeping, and the prospect of losing funding from West Sussex County Council for housing related support services from April 2019, she asked if consideration would be given to CDC building its own housing stock to be let at a social rent.
Response
Mrs J Kilby (Cabinet Member for Housing Services) said that CDC did not have a housing revenue account and it was unlikely that the idea of creating a housing stock would be adopted, although it had not been discussed. It was hoped that CDC could provide additional housing via its housing partners by increasing the supply of affordable housing, redeveloping sites, improving housing for elderly persons and putting housing in more central locations. She and officers would be examining the proposals presented by the HTFG.
Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place) said that he was not in favour of CDC re-establishing a council house building department and in his view registered social landlords were the vehicle for doing this. The government had announced £2 bn of funding to be available for housing associations and councils which had a housing stock with effect from 2022. He hoped that members and officers would work with housing associations to secure a share of this funding. CDC would collaborate with Homes England to provide housing at the Southern Gateway development and (after a delay of several years) at the Portfield site.
Question: Local Plan Review housing targets and greenbelt biodiversity proposals
Mr S Oakley (Tangmere) sought an update on (a) the housing targets envisaged in the emerging Local Plan Review and (b) the greenbelt proposal to separate Chichester from nearby urban centres, thereby supporting CDC’s biodiversity objectives.
Response
Mrs S Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services) said that a report on greenbelt would be considered by the Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel at its meeting on 1 November 2018. CDC was waiting for the government to confirm the methodology to be adopted for calculating housing numbers. In the meantime the current formula had to be used.
Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place) added that the housing numbers for all local authorities in England were 266,000 and the government had pledged a target of 300,000. It was not known how the 12% increase would be applied eg whether all authorities would share this additional demand or instead that a differential would be applied.
Question: Collection of used disposable nappies and household waste for recycling
Mr A Moss (Fishbourne) sought confirmation that, in view of the urgency to increase its recycling targets, CDC was pursuing options to collect used disposable nappies and household waste for recycling.
Response
Mr R Barrow (Cabinet Member for Residents Services) said that CDC was in discussion with West Sussex County Council about this issue but no final decision had been made. He would be attending the next Inter Authority Waste Group meeting with Mr K Carter (Divisional Manager Chichester Contract Services) and would report back to members thereafter.
[Note Mr Carter, who had recently commenced as the successor to Mr B Riley (Contracts Manager), stood up in the Council Chamber to be introduced by Mr Barrow]
Question: The current number of unimplemented planning permissions
Mr M Hall (Lavant) asked, having regard to the issue of housing targets, for details of the current number of unimplemented planning permissions.
Response
Mrs S Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services) undertook to provide a written response with the up-to-date figures.
[Note A written response by Mrs S Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services) was circulated by e-mail to all members on Tuesday 25 September 2018]
Question: Increased powers for community wardens
Mrs C Apel (Chichester West) commended CDC’s community wardens for the fantastic job which they performed but with almost nil powers. She was aware of some mention being made in CDC of the wardens being given some powers in view of the police cut-backs and as a resultof which communities were feeling vulnerable in the face of drug problems. She asked if CDC would be making representations so that community wardens could have more powers.
Response
Mrs E Lintill (Cabinet Member for Community Services) acknowledged that CDC’s community wardens were very successful. Part of the reason for that success was that they were not considered by the public to be part of the police or acting in an otherwise official capacity. There was a concern that if they were given enforcement powers, there could be diminishing of their community contact role. They might then be viewed as akin to police constable support officers, which could discourage people from feeling as free to talk and open up to them as they currently did. It should be remembered that the wardens had a wide community remit beyond the enforcement role some would like them to develop. This was why they had not as yet been given powers but it was an issue which would be kept under review.
[Note End of Questions to the Executive]