Agenda and minutes

The Council is requested to approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 23 July 2019.

The Chairman extended a warm welcome to all those present and read out the emergency evacuation procedure.

There were no amendments to the minutes.

In a show of hands the Council voted to approve the minutes of the Council meeting held on 23 July 2019 without amendment.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 23 July 2019 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record of the meeting.

The Chairman will announce any urgent items which due to special circumstances are to be dealt with under Late Items.

The Chairman confirmed that there were no late items.

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

Dr O’Kelly declared a personal interest in relation to agenda items 19 and 20 as a member of West Sussex County Council.

Apologies for absence will be notified at this point.

The Chairman will make any specific announcements.

The Chairman made the following announcements:

·         Item 25 relating to Southern Gateway had been withdrawn from the agenda.

·         Apologies for absence had been received from Mrs Apel and Mr Evans.

·         Members should return their Independent Remuneration Panel members’ allowances questionnaires to the Democratic Services team.

The Chairman then explained that she had been invited to a High Sheriff Service and had also visited the new St Wilfrid’s Hospice site. She added that the Vice-Chairman attended a presentation of the Queens Award Voluntary Service at St Richard’s Hospital.

Questions submitted by members of the public in writing by noon on the previous working day (for a period up to 15 minutes).

The Chairman invited Atholl Forbes to the table to read his public question:

Gatwick Airport recently announced its Master Plan which includes:

(1) Increasing the capacity of its main runway

(2) Turning its standby runway into a second runway and

(3) Safeguarding land for a potential third runway.

Should Gatwick’s plans proceed, they have confirmed that flight numbers would increase by almost 40%, passenger numbers by over 50%. The result will be devastating for the long-suffering communities of West Sussex already adversely impacted by Gatwick’s operations. Such growth would result in:

-       Even more intolerable noise for communities

-       More adverse health impacts for ourselves and our children

-       A reduction in the value of our homes

-       Additional strain on already fragile road and rail infrastructure 

-       Permanent environmental damage to our beautiful countryside and

-       An extra million tonnes of CO2 emissions pa, risking our planet’s future

With the above in mind, can the Council please confirm what action it intends to take in order to ensure the protection of its residents from Gatwick Airport’s opportunistic growth plans.

Mrs Taylor gave the following response:

Thank you for your question. The Council responded to the Government’s consultation on the Gatwick Airport Draft Master Plan in January 2019.  An analysis of potential impacts on Chichester District was provided (full details are available within Appendix 1 to the Cabinet report of Tuesday 8 January 2019 - Item 636) and the Council will make necessary representation through response to any further consultation on Gatwick expansion proposals.

The Chairman invited Katy Blunden to read her public question:

I recently became a resident (rental) of Russell street and noticing all the ‘zone O’ signs around the area dutifully went down to the council to purchase a permit. But No! I was informed that I was not eligible to apply for one as Russell street is not a permitted street, despite being slap bang in the middle of zone O and surrounded by permitted streets (Oving Road, Green Lane, Armadale road) this means that I have no option but to try and get a space down Russell street. This is becoming almost impossible due to a constant lack of spaces, partly obviously due to other residents with the same issue, but also from commuters who have worked out that it’s not permitted and are parking there all day whilst at work. Russell Street is a tiny little road which doesn’t even have room for very many residents cars let alone any others and we have no option to park elsewhere due to being surrounded by permitted roads. This seems very unfair and is becoming dangerous as people are parking in all sorts of wild ways just to squeeze in.  I would like to see Russell Street included in the Zone O banding for two reasons:

1.    It will discourage non-residents using it for “free parking”

2.    It will enable the residents to have the option of parking in the surrounding areas of zone O  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

The material relevant to this item is the report on pages 13 to 14 of the agenda pack of the Cabinet at its meeting on 3 September 2019.

The following recommendation was made to Council:

That the membership of the Chichester District Growth Board be increased from 3 to 4 for both Chichester District Council and West Sussex County Council.

The Chairman invited Mrs Lintill to introduce the reportand referred members to pages 13 and 14 of the Cabinet agenda for 3 September 2019.

Mrs Lintill explained that the Cabinet recommended the proposal to increase the Chichester District Growth Board’s membership for both Chichester District Council and West Sussex County Council.

Mr Moss wished to note his support for the proposal.

Mrs Lintill proposed the recommendation which was seconded by Mrs Taylor.

In a show of hands the Council voted in favour.

RESOLVED

That the membership of the Chichester District Growth Board be increased from 3 to 4 for both Chichester District Council and West Sussex County Council.

The material relevant to this item is the report and its appendix on pages 15 to 32 of the agenda pack of the Cabinet at its meeting on 3 September 2019.

The following recommendation was made to Council:

That the revised Local Development Scheme be approved.

The Chairman invited Mrs Taylor to introduce the reportand referred members to pages 15 - 32 of the Cabinet agenda for 3 September 2019.

Mrs Taylor explained that the Local Development Scheme (LDS) is the statutory requirement to publish an up-to-date timetable that demonstrates the progress of the council’s development plan and supplementary plan documents. The LDS informs all interested parties of progress and provides a method for monitoring that progress.

At present the proposed date for the Local Review is June 2020 which although later than originally planned falls within the required five years from the adoption of the current Local Plan. Mrs Taylor explained that a number of issues came from the preferred approach plan consultation which will require an update to the evidence base. In addition the recent developments relating to the discharge of nitrates has resulted in the need to draft a Nitrates Neutral Policy. Two additional planning documents are also in draft; a Noise Supplementary Planning Document and an Air Quality Supplementary Planning Document.

Mrs Taylor confirmed that all member briefings are planned.

Mr Moss endorsed the proposal but wished to note the importance of ensuring consultation with the public and members, particularly given the number of new members. He explained that although all member briefings are important they should not be arranged to the detriment of cancelling Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel (DPIP) meetings.

Mrs Sharp explained that she hoped to work together to deliver the best for the community including the best environmental promises.

Mr Oakley asked when the 2025 review would commence. Mrs Taylor explained that it would be likely to be straight after the adoption of the Local Plan.

Mrs Taylor proposed the recommendation which was seconded by Mrs Plant.

In a show of hands the Council voted in favour.

RESOLVED

That the revised Local Development Scheme be approved.

The 2018-2019 Annual Governance Statement and Corporate Governance Report is attached to this agenda.

The following recommendation was made by the Corporate Governance and Audit Committee at its meeting on 25 July 2019:

Recommendation to the Council

That the Annual Report on Corporate Governance, the Annual Governance Statement 2018-2019 and the Internal Audit and Corporate Investigations Annual Report 2018-2019 be approved.

The Chairman invited Dr O’Kelly to introduce the reportand referred members to pages 15 – 17 of the agenda pack and also pages 91 - 115 of the Corporate Governance and Audit Committee (CGAC) agenda for 25 July 2019.

Dr O’Kelly explained that the council is responsible for ensuring that its business is carried out in accordance with the law and proper standards and public money is safeguarded and properly accounted for and used economical, efficiently and effectively. She confirmed that members and senior officers are responsible for ensuring proper arrangements are in place for the governance of the council’s affairs. 

Dr O’Kelly then explained that the CGAC considers the organisational risk registers and in 2018/19 found the following eight highest risks:

·         Southern Gateway

·         The Local Plan

·         Universal Credit

·         Financial Resilience

·         Business Continuity

·         Cyber Crime across ICT

·         Brexit

·         The changing use of the High Street

In addition ongoing risks such as the loss of key staff in Procurement and Communications, Licensing and Events will continue to be reviewed.

Dr O’Kelly added that in January 2018 the Financial Strategy was approved by the Council and the Annual Governance Statement was prepared in accordance with CIPFA. It sets out the seven fundamental principles of good governance as detailed on page 16 of the agenda pack. CIPFA advises a greater level of evaluation should be applied against the seven principles with less description. The CGAC concluded that the council’s supporting controls and procedures are strong and robust and Dr O’Kelly hoped to see less description in the reporting next year. 

Mr Plowman requested clarification on whether the risks are listed in order. Dr O’Kelly confirmed that the risks would be reviewed by the council’s Strategic Risk Group shortly but are listed in no particular order. Mrs Shepherd confirmed that each risk is assessed by its significance and impact.

Dr O’Kelly proposed the recommendation which was seconded by Mr Wilding.

In a show of hands the Council voted in favour.

RESOLVED

That the Annual Report on Corporate Governance, the Annual Governance Statement 2018-2019 and the Internal Audit and Corporate Investigations Annual Report 2018-2019 be approved.

The Council is requested to note the urgent decision taken.

The Chairman explained that the Council is requested to note the urgent decision taken relating to the acceptance of grant offer form the Office for Low Emission Vehicles and resolution to spend the related monies.

On behalf of the Council the Chairman formally noted the decision.

Following changes to the Cabinet member portfolios and titles it is necessary to amend the delegation relating to the Grants and Concessions in order to ensure a stand in decision maker where the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services has a disclosable or prejudicial interest in an item. At present Part 3, Section 2, page 42 of the Constitution reads as follows:

For the avoidance of doubt, where a request exceeds the delegation, arecommendation will be made to Cabinet. The Cabinet Member for Corporate
Services is also delegated the powers relating to Grants and Concessions andNew Homes Bonus (Parish Allocations) held by the Cabinet Member for CommunityServices, where that member has a prejudicial interest or is otherwise unavailable.

It is proposed that it be replaced with:

For the avoidance of doubt, where a request exceeds the delegation, arecommendation will be made to Cabinet. The Leader or Deputy Leader is also delegated the powers relating to Grants and Concessions andNew Homes Bonus (Parish Allocations) held by the Cabinet Member for CommunityServices, where that member has a prejudicial interest or is otherwise unavailable.

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

That the Constitution, Part 3, Section 2, page 42 be approved for amendment as follows:

For the avoidance of doubt, where a request exceeds the delegation, arecommendation will be made to Cabinet. The Leader or Deputy Leader is also delegated the powers relating to Grants and Concessions andNew Homes Bonus (Parish Allocations) held by the Cabinet Member for CommunityServices, where that member has a prejudicial interest or is otherwise unavailable.

The Chairman explained that following changes to the Cabinet member portfolios and titles it is necessary to amend the delegation relating to the Grants and Concessions in order to ensure a stand-in decision maker where the Cabinet Member for Community Services has a disclosable or prejudicial interest in an item. The Chairman referred members to the current text and the proposed amendment detailed on your agenda front sheet.

Mr Briscoe proposed the recommendation which was seconded by Mrs Lintill.

In a show of hands the Council voted in favour.

RESOLVED

That the Constitution, Part 3, Section 2, page 42 be approved for amendment as follows:

For the avoidance of doubt, where a request exceeds the delegation, a recommendation will be made to Cabinet. The Leader or Deputy Leader is also delegated the powers relating to Grants and Concessions and New Homes Bonus (Parish Allocations) held by the Cabinet Member for Community Services, where that member has a prejudicial interest or it otherwise unavailable.

The Constitution provides for three parish councillors to be co-opted to the Standards Committee in a non-voting capacity.  Nominations were sought at the All Parishes Meeting on 15 July 2019. The following were nominated by representatives of parish councils and meetings for co-option to the Standards Committee.  The Council is asked formally to co-opt them to the Standards Committee:

·       Mr Ray Cooper (Lurgashall Parish)

·       Mr David Ribbens (Plaistow & Ifold Parish)

·       Mr Jose Galego (Easebourne)

The Chairman explained that the Constitution requires three parish councillors to be co-opted to the Standards Committee in a non-voting capacity. Nominations were sought at the All Parishes Meeting on 15 July 2019. The following were nominated by the representatives of parish councils and meetings for co-option to the Standards Committee.

Mrs Lintill proposed the recommendation which was seconded by Mrs Taylor.

In a show of hands the Council voted in favour.

RESOLVED

That the following Parish representatives be formally co-opted to the Standards Committee:

·         Mr Ray Cooper (Lurgashall Parish)

·         Mr David Ribbens (Plaistow and Ifold Parish)

·         Mr Jose Galego (Easebourne)

The report relating to this item is included in the agenda pack.

The Council is requested to make the following resolution:

That the review of political balance arrangements as set out in tables 1, 2 and 3 of the report be approved and applied in making appointments to committees.

The Chairman invited Mr Bennett to introduce the reportand referred members to pages 23 – 27 of the agenda pack. Mr Bennett explained that the only change since the report was presented to Annual Council in May relates to Mrs Hume moving to the Green Party.

Mrs Lintill proposed the recommendation which was seconded by Mrs Taylor.

In a show of hands the Council voted in favour.

RESOLVED

That the review of political balance arrangements as set out in tables 1, 2 and 3 of the report be approved and applied in making appointments to committees.

The report relating to this item is included in the agenda pack.

The Council is requested to make the following resolution:

That the membership of Committees for 2019-2020 following the change to political balance along with resultant changes to their Chairmen and Vice-Chairman as set out in the report be approved.

The Chairman invited Mr Bennett to introduce the reportand referred members to agenda supplement. Mr Bennett explained that there were a number of minor amendments since the report to Annual Council in May to reflect members wishes.

Mrs Lintill proposed the recommendation which was seconded by Mrs Taylor.

In a show of hands the Council voted in favour.

RESOLVED

That the membership of Committees for 2019-2020 following the change to political balance along with the resultant changes to their Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen as set out in the report be approved.

The report relating to this item is included in the agenda pack.

The Council is requested to make the following resolution:

That the appointment of members to serve on the Boundary Review Panel 2019-2023 and their Chairman as set out in the report be approved.

The Chairman invited Mr Bennett to introduce the reportand referred members to pages 37 - 39 of the agenda pack and the additional tabled sheet. Mr Bennett confirmed that political balance does not apply to the Boundary Review Panel and as such the membership is made at the Leader’s discretion. He outlined the proposed membership as follows:

·         Mr Oakley – Chairman

·         Mr Brown

·         Mrs Hamilton

·         Mr McAra

·         Mrs Purnell

·         Mrs Sharp

Mr Hughes requested clarification of when to expect the next major boundary review. Mr Bennett confirmed that there is no fixed date but must be more than five years since the previous review.

Mrs Lintill proposed the recommendation which was seconded by Mrs Taylor.

In a show of hands the Council voted in favour.

RESOLVED

That the appointment of members to serve on the Boundary Review Panel 2019-2023 and their Chairmen as set out in the supplementary paper be approved.

The report relating to this item is included in the agenda pack.

The Council is requested to make the following resolutions:

1.     That Council notes the responses to the consultation and that based upon the responses to that consultation confirm that timings of meetings remain unchanged at this time.

2.     That a working group be established by the Leader after the trial period to consider whether a change to Committee meetings should be recommended to Council for the subsequent four year committee cycle from 2023.

The Chairman invited Mr Bennett to introduce the reportand referred members to pages 41-44 of the agenda pack. Mr Bennett explained that the report had been a result of comments made by several members at the Annual Council meeting. Officers were instructed to carry out an internal consultation on meeting times. He confirmed that the majority of members had expressed a preference to maintaining the status quo. The main reasons including timings of parish councils and the prospect of travelling back through the large geographical area of the district late in the evening. Mr Bennett acknowledged that there is not a perfect meeting time to suit all and recommended that a review take place ahead of the next district election.

Mr Sutton commented that he works full time and still attends seven parish councils and council meetings. He explained that there is no current evidence to suggest that evening meetings would produce a greater turnout from the general public.

Mr Brown commented on the lack of a working group to consider the findings. He then quoted some anonymous responses to the member questionnaire that had been circulated and suggested that those comments had not been included in the report. He asked members to consider where the member input is within the proposals and the 172 district and borough authorities of which only 10 have daytime meetings. He explained that the majority start meetings between 5.30pm and 7.30pm. In response to the members who had suggested that attending parish council meetings would make attending evening meetings difficult he commented that it should be possible to find six evening meeting dates a year to hold Full Council meetings. He further added that he had taken 11 days annual leave and given up most holiday allowance in order to attend council meetings. He then emphasised the need for inclusivity and diversity of members to represent the districts wards who may be put off by daytime meetings. He requested the Leaders support in establishing a working group to discuss the matter in more depth.

Mrs Lintill responded by explaining that all members were aware of the daytime meeting structure when they stood for election. She agreed that a review should take place prior to the next election. She explained that a number of factors would need to be taken into account including financial implications and staffing implications. She confirmed that she felt it would be too soon to establish a working group.

Mr Johnson suggested a small scale trial period prior to the establishment of a working group in order to provide relevant feedback. He also explained that a variety of start times may be a better solution.

Mr Moss then proposed a counter motion as follows:

That members note the summarised responses to the consultation provided in the agenda papers and propose that:

1.    A working group is established by the Leader to undertake a detailed review of meeting times, taking into account the consultation and reviewing best practice with other similar  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

The report and appendix relating to this item are included in the agenda pack.

The Council is requested to make the following resolution:

That the Councils procedure for public questions be amended as set out in the Appendix to the report.

The Chairman invited Mr Bennett to introduce the reportand referred members to pages 45-50 of the agenda pack. He explained the importance of public question time and the need for informed answers to be provided. He added that the number, detail and complexity of public questions had increased with officers receiving public questions up until noon on the day before the meeting. He explained that this does not allow a great deal of time to produce a detailed informed response. He confirmed that the last few public questions had not related to the agenda so would be unlikely to be impacted on the deadline being brought forwards. He outlined the recommendation to move the public question time deadline and amend the associated document.

Mrs Purnell suggested amending the time allowed per questioner to three minutes rather than five minutes to enable five questions in the 15 minute timeslot on the agenda.

Mr Moss proposed the following amendments to the public question time document:

·         Three minutes per question rather than five minutes per question.

·         Rather than questions by noon three working days before, questions should be submitted by noon two working days before (for Cabinet on Tuesday the deadline would be noon on Friday).

·         Include a list of meetings where public questions may be submitted in the final document.

He suggested amending the recommendation as follows:

That the council’s procedure for public questions be amended (subject to the amendments listed above) and that the council will use best endeavours to publish agenda seven working days prior to the meeting.

Mrs Lintill confirmed that she would be comfortable to support the amendments put forward by Mr Moss if officers were content with the proposed timescales.

Mrs Sharp noted her agreement with Mr Moss in supporting a deadline of two working days before a meeting as a reasonable compromise as three working days would be too long. She also noted her agreement that the agenda publication dates should be brought forward.

Mr Hobbs asked Mr Bennett to confirm whether the term reasonable endeavours would be more appropriate for the recommendation. Mr Bennett agreed that it would.

Mrs Shepherd clarified that the Cabinet papers are usually published seven working days before the meeting already.

Mr Moss proposed the following which was seconded by Mrs Lintill:

1.    That the council’s procedure for public questions be amended as follows:

a.    Three minutes per question.

b.    Questions to be submitted by noon two working days before (for Cabinet on Tuesday the deadline would be noon on Friday).

c.    A list of meetings where public questions may be submitted to be included in the final public question time document.

2.    That the council will use reasonable endeavours to publish agenda seven working days prior to the meeting.

In a show of hands the Council voted in favour.

RESOLVED

1.    That the council’s procedure for public questions be amended as follows:

a.    Three minutes per question.

b.    Questions to be submitted by noon two working days before  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

The report and appendix relating to this item are included in the agenda pack.

The Council is requested to make the following resolution:

That the committee calendar of meetings for May 2020 to May 2021 be approved.

The Chairman invited Mr Bennett to introduce the reportand referred members to pages 51-55 of the agenda pack. Mr Bennett explained that the calendar provides future meeting dates in order to allow for work programme planning.

Mrs Lintill proposed the recommendation which was seconded by Mrs Taylor.

In a show of hands the Council voted in favour.

RESOLVED

That the committee calendar of meetings for May 2020 to May 2021 be approved.

The report and appendix relating to this item are included in the agenda pack.

The Council is requested to make the following resolutions:

1.     That the change of name of Singleton Parish Council to Singleton and Charlton Parish Council be authorised

2.     That the Divisional Manager for Democratic Services be authorised to serve notices upon the Secretary of State, the Director General of the Ordnance Survey and to the Registrar General of that name change

The Chairman invited Mr Bennett to introduce the reportand referred members to pages 57-61 of the agenda pack. Mr Bennett explained that the power to change a parishes name is rarely used but in this case it is the wish of the parishes involved to make the change in order to increase resident engagement in parish activities.

Mrs Lintill proposed the recommendations which were seconded by Mrs Taylor.

In a show of hands the Council voted in favour.

RESOLVED

1.    That the change of name of Singleton Parish Council and Charlton Parish Council be authorised.

2.    That the Divisional Manager for Democratic Services be authorised to serve notices upon the Secretary of State, the Director General of the Ordnance Survey and to the Registrar General of that name change.

Having complied with the advance written notice requirement in Standing Order 18.1 and the subject requirement in Standing Order 18.2 of the Chichester District Council Constitution the attached motion will be proposed by Cllr Sharp and if duly seconded it will then be discussed at this meeting.

The Chairman invited Mrs Sharp to move her motion. Mrs Sharp moved her motion which was seconded by Miss Barrie.

Mrs Sharp then outlined her motion below:

1)    Trees

The Council is requested to note:

·               The importance of trees in slowing the pace of climate change by absorbing carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen into the air, as well as providing a habitat for wildlife

·               The contribution trees make to the environment in our towns including shading and cooling, pollution and noise mitigation, as well speeding up floodwater drainage and improving the quality of our street scene

·               The Government’s pledge in 2018 to plant 11 million new trees by 2050, including in towns and urban areas

In support of the national campaign to increase the number of trees being planted, the Council is requested to:

1.    Appoint a District Tree Champion

2.    Agree a review of current policies on and attitude towards the planting of trees in our rural and urban area with a view to introducing a more proactive policy to increase the number and regularity of trees planted

3.    Recommend West Sussex County Council consider a strategy to educate children in understanding the benefits of trees and tree planting

4.    Recommend an urgent Tree Summit with the City Council, Parish Councils, District Council and County Council, BID and the Tree Wardens and members of the public to work out how to plant more trees

5.    Recommend officers investigate funding streams to enable residents and community groups to fund the planting and future maintenance of trees

2)   Wildflowers to support pollinators

The District Council is responsible for various areas of land in the district (for example New Park and Priory Park). The way in which the council’s teams manage this land which is under our control as a District Council assets has an impact on wildlife and amenity. Being cut several times each year means grass is cut before many wildflower plants have had a chance to flower. Wildflowers need to be available for insects when in flower and to be left long enough to have seeded before being cut. Cutting regimes should be timed to allow wildflower areas to self-perpetuate and improve the wildlife value of the land.

The Council is therefore requested to:

1.    Review and reduce the timing and frequency of grass cutting across the district to increase biodiversity and manage some of our land as wildlife habitats

2.    Work with partners to produce a pollinator action plan to guide cutting contracts and communicate the resulting plan and reasons to residents

3)   Pesticide Free District

The Council is requested to:

1.    Formally congratulate the Property Manager of the City Council on limiting the use of dangerous chemicals which could endanger the health of the City Council employees and the wider public

2.    Recommend that the Property Manager coordinates a city wide reduction in the use of pesticides

3.    Recommend that the City Council consider joining the Pesticide Free Towns Network which envisions minimised use of pesticides by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

Having complied with the advance written notice requirement in Standing Order 18.1 and the subject requirement in Standing Order 18.2 of the Chichester District Council Constitution the attached motion will be proposed by Cllr Sharp and if duly seconded it will then be discussed at this meeting.

The Chairman invited Mrs Sharp to move her second motion. Mrs Sharp moved her second motion which was seconded by Mrs Hume.

Mrs Sharp then outlined her motion below:

We note that the Council has declared a Climate Emergency in the summer. One of the key actions that individuals, businesses and councils can take to reduce their carbon footprint is to source their electricity from renewable sources and change to a Green Tariff.

We therefore recommend to the Council:

1.    That enquiries be made to compare different renewable energy providers to demonstrate the council’s commitment to reducing its impact on the environment

2.    That an evaluation of the comparison of prices between an 100% Green tariff and a Brown tariff takes place including consideration of fixed and flexible pricing and the length of the contracts

3.    That the council’s energy supply contracts be reviewed

4.    That an energy procurement strategy that supports local community energy providers be created (example: the County Council’s Your Energy Sussex https://www.yourenergysussex.org.uk/)

The Chairman invited Mrs Plant to respond as the Cabinet member for Environment. Mrs Plant thanked Mrs Sharp for her motion. She explained that the current energy contracts including Electricity and Gas are awarded to Kent County Council, LASER Buying Group. The council procurement strategy for energy supply has in previous years focussed upon lowest price but also required price certainty.  To achieve these things the council has opted for a “Purchase In Advance” agreement, which provides a fixed tariff price year on year over the 4 year framework which includes a 2 year break clause. These four year framework contracts will expire on 30 September 2020 and new contracts will be required to be awarded in good time prior to this date.

The council will therefore need to agree on its preferred procurement route for future energy supplies in the lead up to September 2020.

Mrs Plant then proposed a counter motion as follows which was seconded by Mrs Lintill:

That this matter be referred to the Environment Panel to consider and make its recommendation to the Cabinet as to the council’s energy procurement strategy for 2020 and beyond.

Mrs Hume responded by explaining that although a lot of the work will need to be carried out by the Environment Panel there is value to discussing the issues at Full Council as the climate emergency effects everything the council does.

Mr Moss wished to endorse the comments made by Mrs Hume and acknowledged the importance of renewable energy sources.

Mr Elliott requested clarification of the nature of the current contract. Mrs Plant confirmed that it is a brown contract.

Mr Plowman added that the Chichester City Council energy source is a renewable energy supplier.

Mrs Lintill confirmed that it was something which could be considered further.

Mr Brown asked if the Environment Panel minutes had been published. Mrs Plant explained that they had and members had been notified of how to access the minutes online.

Mrs Plant then read her counter  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

Having complied with the advance written notice requirement in Standing Order 18.1 and the subject requirement in Standing Order 18.2 of the Chichester District Council Constitution the attached motion will be proposed by Cllr Hughes and if duly seconded it will then be discussed at this meeting.

The Chairman invited Mr Hughes to move his motion. Mr Hughes moved his motion which was seconded by Miss Lishman.

Mr Hughes then outlined his motion below:

It is recommended that the Council notes the following:

1.    Home-ownership has fallen to a thirty-year low; the average home now costs 13.5 times the average annual pay packet in Chichester and 1.7 million households nationally pay over a third of their income each month to a private landlord.

2.    Building more market-price homes can help lower prices only over the long term, so more supply alone cannot fix the problem or help thousands of families in Chichester District with the housing pressures they face now. The crisis requires action to build genuinely affordable homes at scale, and ensure a better balance in the new homes built.

3.    Affordable housing is one of the best investments councils can make: not only does it create a home for a family, and regular rental income for the council as landlord, it reduces housing benefit spending in the more expensive private rented sector too. A recent report by Capital Economics confirmed that a national programme of 100,000 genuinely affordable homes a year “will deliver a sustained structural improvement to public sector finances”.

4.    Investing in affordable housing creates jobs and boosts local economies. It’s estimated that every £1 spent on house building generates £2.84 in extra economic activity, and social landlords are also significant local buyers and employers: for every £1 million of housing output, 12 jobs are created.

5.    There is a pressing need for urgent additional council, social and affordable housing in the District of Chichester as local residents face spiralling rents and house prices, meaning there is a grave shortage of affordable housing for families in the District, which may increasingly force residents’ children and grandchildren to move away from the area. This is an unacceptable situation which this council has a moral duty to act upon. There are currently 1358 households on the Council’s housing register; there are also currently 42 households in council-owned temporary accommodation and a further 18 households are in non–council-owned temporary accommodation. 

6.    Many of the residents on the District’s housing register will be in private rented accommodation, which costs the taxpayer greater amounts in housing support benefits because private rents are extremely high, and temporary accommodation, which means that this council has to spend money that could otherwise be used for other vital council services.

7.    This council also notes that there is an additional cost to the Council in the difference between the housing benefit paid and what the council can claim back from government, based on Local Housing Allowance rates: in the last year this was estimated to be around £20K.

8.    It is unacceptable for this council to fail to act positively to meet the housing needs this District has, particularly as significant investment in new council housing will in the long term make savings which will relieve the costs to this council in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

Members are invited to ask a question of a member of the Executive (maximum of 40 minutes duration).

The Chairman invited Questions to the Executive.

Mrs Bangert asked with regard to cuts to housing support services what the council is doing in relation to the Local Plan to address the shortfall of housing for vulnerable young people within the district who at present are being housed as far away as Crawley. Mrs Graves confirmed that the responsibility lies with WSCC. Mrs Rudziak then explained that the WSCC is the responsible authority and recent cuts to their budgets have impacted on young people’s services including the foyer which was run from within East Pallant House. Mrs Rudziak added that she is a member of a Task and Finish Group established to consider ways to best mitigate against the cuts. She acknowledged that there is no one easy solution. She added that going forwards the delivery of accommodation for vulnerable young people in the district will need to be identified and considered through the Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment.

Mr Brown explained that last year the Environment Planning and Engagement at the Environment Agency had advised a local resident that there is a partnership of key organisations called the Chichester Water Quality Group which provides a level of scrutiny and oversight on more strategic matters and consider whether any intervention may be necessary to facilitate development whilst ensuring the protection of the environment. As CDC does not have the expertise to understand and scrutinise the problems. Is it possible to ask OSC to set up a task and finish group to review this area. Mrs Shepherd explained that all groups established have to be set up and resourced by officers and have councillors to attend also. She emphasised the importance of prioritising new projects. Mr Brown agreed that the work could be deferred whilst priority is given to the Local Plan. Mr Frost explained that the Chichester Water Quality Group has been established as a multi organisation officer working group and members should be reassured that it is working well.

Mrs Hume in relation to the Government’s 0% greenhouse emissions commitment asked whether the council needs to introduce cycle networks throughout the district where residents are forced to travel to access vital services. If not, what will be done to mitigate against it. She confirmed that she did not expect an answer but requested that officers consider the comments made.

Mrs Sharp in relation to Rumboldswhyke School possible school closure asked whether the Leader could write a letter to WSCC outlining the transport impacts of their school closure decisions and commit CDC officers to work with WSCC officers to build up connections with local communities and local schools in order to reduce carbon emissions. Mrs Lintill advised Mrs Sharp to discuss the matter further with her local WSCC county councillor. Mrs Sharp emphasised the need to consider the wider picture of environmental issue not just the school numbers.

Mr Oakley asked in relation to the Tangmere Strategic Development Location whether there are appropriate resources for the Compulsory Purchase Order  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

To consider any late items as follows:

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.

There were no late items.

The Council is asked to consider in respect of agenda item 24 whether the public, including the press, should be excluded from the meeting on the grounds of exemption under Parts I to 7 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as indicated against the item 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.

There was no requirement to exclude the press or public.

The material relevant to this item is the report and its appendix on pages 93 to 99 of the agenda pack of the Cabinet at its meeting on 3 September 2019 and the subsequent supplement that was circulated to members only.

The following recommendation was made to Council:

That the purchase consideration plus associated costs be funded by the use of reserves.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.