Agenda and minutes

Council
Tuesday 3 March 2020 2.00 pm

Venue: Committee Rooms, East Pallant House. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services  Email:  democraticservices@chichester.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

91.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 195 KB

The Council is requested to approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 28 January 2020.

Minutes:

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

 

There were two amendments to the minutes:

 

·         Minute 86 to add that several members referred to the motion as a gimmick

·         Minute 88 should refer to Mrs Lishman not Miss Lishman

 

Mr Brown also requested multiple additions to the minutes relating to comments he had made during several of the debates. Mr Ward explained that the minutes are not verbatim. Those who wish to hear the debates in full are referred to the audio recording on the council’s website. Mr Bennett added that only factual amendments should be made to the minutes.

 

In a show of hands the Council voted to approve the minutes of the Council meeting held on 28 January 2020.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 28 January 2020 subject to the above amendments be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record of the meeting.

 

92.

Urgent Items

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

Minutes:

The Chairman confirmed that there were no late items.

 

93.

Declarations of Interests

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.

Minutes:

Mrs Apel and M Bell declared personal interests in relation to item 11 as Trustees of Stonepillow.

 

Mr Plowman declared a personal interest in relation to item 11 as the Chairman of the Mayors Rough Sleepers Forum.

 

Rev Bowden declared a personal interest in relation to agenda item 13 with regard to the Church Commissioners. He confirmed that he received no financial benefit from the Church Commissioners.

 

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in relation to item 13 as a member of Tangmere Parish Council.

 

Mrs Duncton, Dr O’Kelly, Mr Oakley and Mrs Purnell declared personal interests in relation to item 14 as members of West Sussex County Council.

 

94.

Chairman's Announcements

Apologies for absence will be notified at this point.

 

The Chairman will make any specific announcements.

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Cllr Barrett, Cllr Barrie and Cllr Page.

95.

Public Question Time pdf icon PDF 98 KB

In accordance with Chichester District Council’s scheme for public question time as amended by Full Council on 24 September 2019 the Council will receive any questions which have been submitted by members of the public in writing by noon two working days before the meeting. Each questioner will be given up to three minutes to ask their question. The total time allocated for public question time is 15 minutes subject to the Chairman’s discretion to extend that period.

Minutes:

The following public questions were asked at the meeting (responses in italics). The Chairman explained that on this occasion there would be no supplementary questions and if there was not enough time in the 15 minute allocation for all the questions submitted then a written response would be provided (please see subsequent supplement to the agenda for all agenda items).

 

Questions from Mr Dicker

 

The council has recently announced that, and I quote: “Local Plan timetable to be reviewed following Government advice” I believe that it is very convenient for the officers and the council to delay.

 

I have been warning for 15 months that this is a flawed process that would never succeed with the examiner but I have always been told not to say “I told you so”. As a result of this last minute change I would like answers to the following:

 

Why as a registered consultee and regular contributor to this planning process I still have not been informed directly of these changes.

 

Answer:

 

To ensure the widest possible coverage, a press release was issued by the Council which appeared in the Observer newspaper last week together with an email which was sent all Parish Councils.  Further community engagement and consultation options are currently being considered but I can advise that an email will be sent to all respondents regarding the Local Plan timetable as soon as possible.

 

With the very clear and unambiguous advice of Sir James Bevan, and I quote: “Properties should not be built on the floodplain” what CDC are going to do with the land availability assessment in this inevitable delay period whatever that may be and particularly AL6.

 

Answer:

 

The latest information in relation to flooding and advice from the Environment Agency, will be used to inform both the update to the land availability assessment and subsequent site selection, and will form part of the Sustainability Appraisal considerations.  As any further updates to flooding evidence are received, these will also be taken into account – this is a normal part of the iterative process of plan preparation. To be clear, only part of site AL6 lies within the floodplain – it was never intended that any housing would be built within those parts of the site subject to flood risk, hence the proposal for a large area of open space and Country Park within the policy.

 

Having been lied to at full council in responses to my previous questions when will we the public now be reconsulted and when will CDC be submitting this to the examiner.

 

Answer:

 

If you believe that officers or members have lied to you, you should write to the Monitoring Officer and ask him to investigate your complaint, in respect of members under the Council’s Code of Conduct and in relation to officers, under the Council’s formal complaints process.

 

In accordance with the press release and statement on the Council’s website, the timetable for the Chichester Local Plan is being updated and this will be made  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

96.

2020-21 Treasury Management and Investment Strategies and Capital Strategy update

The material relevant to this item is the report on pages 15 to 17 of the Cabinet agenda for 4 February 2020 and pages 1 to 55 of the Cabinet appendices for 4 February 2020.

 

The following recommendations were made to Council:

 

1.    That the Treasury Management Policy Statement, the Treasury Management Strategy Statement, the Investment Strategy, and the relevant Indicators for 2020-21, as amended be approved and;

2.    The Capital Strategy for 2020-21 to 2024-25 be approved.

Minutes:

The Chairman invited Mr Wilding to introduce the item and drew attention to the report which could be found on pages 15 to 17 of the Cabinet agenda for 4 February 2020. She confirmed that there were two recommendations to Council detailed on the agenda front sheet.

 

Mr Wilding explained that the council is required by both the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHCLG) to approve a Treasury Management Strategy, an Investment Strategy and Capital Strategy each year. He drew attention to new section to the Treasury Management Strategy (page 14 of the Supplement to the agenda pack). The new section to read as follows:

 

Ethical Investments

Statutory guidance issued by CIPFA and MHCLG makes it clear that all treasury investments must adopt security, liquidity and yield (SLY) principles; ethical issues then play a subordinate role to those priorities. Nevertheless, there are a growing number of financial institutions and fund managers promoting Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) products. The Director of Corporate Services will consider such investments when deemed appropriate within the Council’s overall treasury management policies, objectives and the risk management framework set out in this document.

 

Mr Wilding outlined a number of other changes to the draft Treasury Management and Investment Strategy (the page numbers referenced relate to the small figures in the agenda pack):

 

·         On page 6, the figures in Table 2 now include Forecast CIL balances.

·         On page 7, a new section on proportionality has been included.

·         On page 9 and 10: The limit on non LAPF pooled funds has been increased from £25 million to £30 million and a new investment vehicle, Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) included with an investment limit of £4 million.

·         On page 14, Table 5 increased Treasury Investment Limits for each type of investment.

·         On page 16, Table 6 increased limits for external debt.

 

Mr Wilding added that last year the council was required to publish a Capital Strategy for the first time. The Strategy is an overview of how capital expenditure, capital financing and treasury management activity contribute to the provision of local services and how associated risk is managed by the council. The Capital Strategy for 2020/21 to 2024/25 remains unchanged from last year except for updated figures in the tables.

 

Mr Wilding explained that the Treasury Management, Investment and Capital

Strategy were reviewed by the Corporate Governance an Audit Committee on 23 January 2020 and the Committee made the following recommendations:

 

·         In the Treasury Management Strategy, a new section on Ethical, Social and Governance Investments should be included at the end of the section on pooled funds on page 12. A copy of this has been distributed to members of the Cabinet.

·         Before making a potential investment decision with respect to Real Estate Investment Trusts (REIT) officers will after obtaining the appropriate professional advice consult the Cabinet Member for Financial Services and the chairman of the Corporate Governance and Audit Committee.

 

Further to the February Cabinet  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

97.

Infrastructure Business Plan (IBP) - Approval Following Consultation,

The material relevant to this item is the report on pages 27 to 31 of the Cabinet agenda for 4 February 2020 and pages 119 to 143 of the Cabinet appendices for 4 February 2020.

 

The following recommendations were made to Council:

 

1.    That the proposed responses to the representations received and subsequent modifications to the Infrastructure Business Plan (IBP) as set out in Appendix 1 be approved; and

2.    The amended IBP including CIL Spending Plan attached as Appendix 2 be approved.

Minutes:

The Chairman invited Mrs Taylor to introduce the item and drew attention to the report which could be found on pages 27 to 31 of the Cabinet agenda for 4 February 2020. She confirmed that there were two recommendations to Council detailed on the agenda front sheet.

 

Mrs Taylor explained that the Infrastructure Business Plan (IBP) is updated each year. The IBP prioritises the strategic infrastructure projects from the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) necessary to deliver the growth identified in the Chichester Local Plan, particularly within the five year period 2020-2025. It includes updates and new projects put forward by West Sussex County Council (WSCC) and the key infrastructure commissioners. The IBP sets out the methodology for selecting which infrastructure projects have been prioritised for funding from the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) during the five year period from 2020 to 2025 which will be funded from S106/S278 agreements and which infrastructure projects are or would need to be, funded from other sources.

 

Mrs Taylor confirmed that the IBP was subject to six weeks consultation from

7 October to 18 November 2019 with the city, town and parish councils, WSCC, Neighbouring Planning Authorities including the South Downs National Park Authority and key infrastructure delivery commissioners.

Mrs Taylor then drew attention to appendix 1 and appendix 2 which details the views of the Chichester Growth Board which met on 9 January 2020 and the Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel (DPIP) which met on 16 January 2020 to consider the proposed responses to the representations received as a result of the consultation. Mrs Taylor explained that since the implementation of the CIL on 1 February 2016 at total of £9,828,007 had been collected to date (4 December 2019). At the end of October 2019 the total amount handed over to parishes was £1,666,648.

 

Mrs Taylor then outlined two new transport projects requested by WSCC:

 

·           IBP/840 - (College Lane/Spitalfields Road Junction improvements) to make it suitable for shared use in years 2021/22 (cost estimate £60,000 to be fully funded from CIL)

·           IBP/841 - (Chidham Sustainable Transport Improvements) to widen the existing footways to accommodate shared use to start 2022/23 (requesting £500,000 from CIL together with S106 from new developments at total cost estimate of £1.8 – 2 million)

 

Mrs Taylor explained that WSCC also sought a number of amendments.

With regard to IBP/349 - A286 Birdham Road/B2201 (Selsey Tram Roundabout) junction WSCC is currently undertaking feasibility work. The project is currently included in the CIL Spending Plan for £111,000 however the costs have increased and the CIL request is now for £440,000. Mrs Taylor explained that the increase is due to a change in the options under consideration which are different from the scheme envisaged at the time planning permission was granted.

 

With regard to IBP/353 (Sustainable transport corridor, City Centre to Westhampnett) Mrs Taylor explained that the project had been moved back from 2019/20 to 2020/21.

 

With regard to IBP/659 (school access improvements – drop off and pick up arrangements at expanded primary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.

98.

Allocation of Commuted Sums to Deliver Affordable Housing

The material relevant to this item is the report on pages 15 to 18 of the Cabinet agenda for 3 March 2020.

 

At the time of printing the following recommendations were due to be made to Council:

 

1.    The allocation of grant of £438,750 to Worthing Homes to support the development of 9 social rented homes on a site at Middleton Close, Bracklesham, funded from commuted sums.

2.    The allocation of grant of £160,000 to Chichester Greyfriars Housing Association to support the development of 8 social rented homes at Royal Close, Chichester, funded from commuted sums.

Minutes:

The Chairman invited Mrs Graves to introduce the item and drew attention to the report which could be found on pages 15 to 18 of the Cabinet agenda for 3 March 2020. She confirmed that there were two recommendations to Council detailed on the agenda front sheet.

 

Mrs Graves explained that in certain circumstances the council accepts commuted sums from developers in lieu of the provision of affordable housing. The funding is used to support alternative schemes which Registered Providers are able to bring forward. She confirmed that the council is keen to support schemes which deliver homes at social rent levels which both the schemes recommended do. The Worthing Homes scheme in Bracklesham will provide nine homes for rent including one wheelchair accessible unit. The Chichester Greyfriars’ scheme will provide eight new homes for older people as part of their existing development at Royal Close, Chichester. Both schemes will also attract Homes England funding.

 

Mr Brown requested clarification on whether any of the council’s registered providers have additional capacity to deliver additional affordable housing. Mrs Graves explained that the schemes addressed by the report are suitable for funding and the council will take such opportunities as they arise. Mrs Rudziak added that the council’s registered providers have all been made aware of the funding available (approximately £1 million). She explained that each provider has a different level of capacity that they can offer. In some cases the provider will have to acquire the land and borrow money to build, whereas in other cases the land may already be owned with reserves available.

 

Mrs Sharp wished to note that when building additional housing consideration should be given to road crossings. Mr Oakley suggested that Mrs Sharp may wish to investigate the West Sussex County Council Communities Highway Scheme further.

 

Mrs Lintill confirmed that at the Cabinet meeting earlier in the day Mr Moss had read out Mrs Sharp’s statement relating to this item in full.

 

Mr Graves proposed the recommendations which were seconded by Mrs Lintill.

 

In a show of hands the Council voted in favour.

 

RESOLVED

 

  1. The allocation of grant of £438,750 to Worthing Homes to support the development of 9 social rented homes on a site at Middleton Close, Bracklesham, funded from commuted sums.
  2. The allocation of grant of £160,000 to Chichester Greyfriars Housing Association to support the development of 8 social rented homes at Royal Close, Chichester, funded from commuted sums.

 

99.

Housing Strategy 2020-25

The material relevant to this item is the report on pages 19 to 21 of the Cabinet agenda for 3 March 2020 and pages 1 to 25 of the Cabinet appendices for 3 March 2020.

 

At the time of printing the following recommendation was due to be made to Council:

 

That the Housing Strategy 2020-25 be adopted.

Minutes:

The Chairman invited Mrs Graves to introduce the item and drew attention to the report which could be found on pages 19 to 21 of the Cabinet agenda for 3 March 2020. She confirmed that there was one recommendation to Council detailed on the agenda front sheet.

 

Mrs Graves explained thatthe purpose of the Housing Strategy is to set out a long term vision of the council’s aspirations for meeting housing need over the next five years. The strategy replaces a number of separate documents which have been produced in the past, the intention being to provide a single comprehensive housing strategy covering:

 

·         Homelessness

·         Private sector renewal

·         The delivery of new affordable housing

 

Mrs Graves then clarified the aim to provide a concise statement of the council’s priorities, indicating the reasons why these priorities had been chosen and setting them in the context of the resources opportunities and constraints. She explained that the Strategy aims to strike a balance between producing something which is detailed enough to be meaningful but concise enough to be readable and accessible. The strategy is the product of work with a variety of stakeholders and partners and has been the subject of consultation with members including the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. It represents an ambitious but achievable plan to respond to the pressing housing issues so many residents face.

 

With reference to page 7 of the agenda pack Mr Johnson drew attention to the number of homes being built on the coastal plains which do not account for the affordable housing numbers set. Mrs Rudziak explained that the affordable housing figures are under review and if the delegation were to be approved could be amended under delegated powers in line with the Local Plan Review.

 

Mr Johnson requested clarification on whether certain locations would be required to have a specific number of affordable homes or whether the figures are for the district as a whole. Mr Frost explained that how best to meet the affordable housing need would be a matter for Cabinet and Council going forwards.

 

Dr O’Kelly referring to page 22 of the agenda pack emphasised the need for housing to identify what is needed to boost community resilience. She requested clarification of how the districts housing stock can achieve the zero carbon targets and suggested that a strategy be put in place. Mrs Plant explained that the Environment Panel would be considering the council’s own buildings primarily.

 

Mr Brown requested the addition of a clear definition of affordable housing. Mrs Lintill explained that the same request had been raised at Cabinet in the morning.

 

Mrs Lishman requested confirmation that the figures detailed at point 6 on page 2 of the appendices pack of 1000 affordable homes by 2025 remain accurate. Mrs Rudziak explained that the figures are intended although the locations are yet to be defined.

 

Mr Hughes requested the following considerations be made when creating the strategy:

 

·         The green agenda

·         Infrastructure

·         Enforcement of council standards on Registered Housing Providers

·         Relating  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

100.

Report of the Independent Remuneration Panel

The material relevant to this item is the report on pages 181 to 184 of the Cabinet agenda for 3 March 2020 and pages 115 to 146 of the Cabinet appendices for 3 March 2020.

 

The recommendations made by the Cabinet will be advised orally.

Minutes:

The Chairman welcomed and introduced Mr Pressdee, Mr Bevis and Mr Thompson who make up the council’s Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP). Mr Pressdee the IRP Chairman then outlined the methodology used by the Panel and referred members to the recommendations made on pages 4 and 5 of the agenda supplement for the Cabinet meeting of 3 March 2020. Mr Pressdee drew particular attention to the Carers Allowance recommendation to bring the amount in line with the West Sussex County Council Carers Allowance. He added that 25 out of 36 members had responded to the questionnaire sent out and the response to the time taken to carry out tasks had been considered in making the recommendations.

 

Mrs Apel questioned whether the Overview and Scrutiny (OSC) and Corporate Governance and Audit (CGAC) Chair’s should be given the same allowance.

 

Mr Brown referred members to a proposal which had been circulated in hard copy to members prior to the meeting. The proposal was as follows:

 

Council has considered the report of the Independent Remuneration Panel and in particular parts 3.13, 3.14 and 3.15. In light of the increased workload and time commitment required of councillors since boundary changes took effect in 2019 this council resolves to accept the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel except for 2.2 and 3.18.

 

Instead, the Council resolves to increase the Members Basic Allowance such that the total financial impact to the council and the tax-payer after the changes to councillor numbers and ward boundaries is cost-neutral.

 

Mr Brown emphasised that the proposal is cost neutral and would recognise the additional work of all members since the boundary changes and acknowledge those members who take annual leave to attend meetings.

 

Mr Moss seconded the proposal.

 

Mr Oakley requested clarification on where Chichester stands in relation to other council’s.

 

Several members referenced the need for allowances to allow the membership to be more widely representative.

 

Mrs Johnson wished to note her appreciation for the acknowledgement of carers.

 

Mr Johnson commented that the Leader of the Opposition and the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny if the same person can only receive one allowance which is less than a Cabinet member although he felt the work was equivalent.

 

Mrs Purnell reminded members that the allowance should not be viewed as a salary.

 

Mr Ward confirmed that the draft budget had not been reduced to reflect the reduction in membership from 48 to 36, and could therefore accommodate £35,400 for Mr Brown’s proposal.

 

Mr McAra drew attention to the Licensing Sub-Committee allowance which he explained is no longer relevant and should be removed.

 

Mrs Duncton explained that the work of the IRP should be supported given the research and time spent on carrying out the review.

 

Mr Johnson proposed that 3.23 be amended to state:

 

If the Leader of the Opposition is also the Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny Committee then the allowance shall match that of a Cabinet member.

 

The proposal was seconded by Rev Bowden.

 

Mr Pressdee in response to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

101.

Budget Spending Plan 2020 - 21 & Council Tax Resolution pdf icon PDF 112 KB

Please note that although not a Cabinet recommendation this item links to item 15 and the Council is requested to make the following resolutions:

 

1.            That the following, as submitted to and recommended by the Cabinet as the Budget for 2020-21 be approved:

                      i.        the 2020-21 Net Revenue Budget in respect of the Council’s own services be approved at £14,235,800.

                    ii.        the 2020-21 Council Tax Requirement in respect of the Council’s own services be approved at £8,975,796.

                   iii.        that Council approve a Council Tax of £165.81 (Band D equivalent).  This represents a £5.00 (3.11 %) increase on the Band D charge.

                   iv.        That the uncommitted revenue budget of £483,900 be transferred to the General Fund Reserve to mitigate the deficit expected in 2021-22.

                    v.        That the capital programme, including the asset renewal programme (appendix 1c and 1d of the February Cabinet report) be approved.

 

2.    That Council approve the Resolutions in Appendix A.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chairman invited Mr Wilding to introduce the item and drew attention to the report which could be found on the amended document circulated to members prior to the meeting. He confirmed that there were six recommendations to Council detailed on the front sheet.

 

Mr Wilding explained that the report follows on from Council’s approval of the Financial Strategy in December. Cabinet reviewed and then recommended the budget and level of Council tax in February.  The Report to February’s Cabinet set out the Budget Spending plans of each of the portfolios and these plans together with the various funding streams, underpin the balanced budget. The budget process involves close working between individual budget managers and the Council’s finance team.  The process ensures that service delivery priorities are met within the constraints on public sector financial resources.

 

He added that the draft financial settlement from the Government was broadly as anticipated, and this draft was finalised last week unchanged.  Effectively the 2020-21 settlement is an extension to the previously agreed four-year settlement due to the Government Funding reforms being delayed until at least 2021-22.    

 

He confirmed that it is an important statutory requirement that the council has a balanced revenue budget over the period of the 5 year financial strategy. Some of the key variables and issues that impact the forthcoming financial year are detailed in this report and supporting appendices, namely, income from fees, charges and rents; use of reserves; and Council tax.

Mr Wilding explained that he recommended that the council takes up central government’s offer of allowing a rise in Council Tax by £5 for Band D properties (or less than 10 pence per week) and equivalent increases for other property Bands. The change would help to offset the continued reduction of central government funding. The Council Tax increase will generate an extra £270,667 per year and assist in closing the budget deficit that would otherwise emerge in the medium term.  Not to approve would leave the Council with a deficit to address in later years. This measure is taken alongside the continuing work on the 2016 deficit reduction plan which aims to generate further income and savings amounting to just under £1m over the next 5 years. Mr Wilding pointed out that this Council continues to protect the most vulnerable in our community by maintaining 100% council tax relief for those in most need.

 

Mr Wilding then referred to the agenda supplement for the Cabinet on 4 February where the overall 2020-21 budget is summarised in the income and expenditure statement at page 62 and 63.  A corrected page 63 was circulated as a supplementary Cabinet agenda paper. The correction shows a net revenue requirement of £14.236 million.  The draft budget shows a net surplus of £484,000 for 2020-21.  However, the Council’s approved Financial Strategy shows that in the two subsequent years the total deficit is forecast to be £500,000.  This deficit is largely due to spending reductions by WSCC which have resulted in additional costs to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101.

102.

Request for delegated authority - Carry forward requests

The material relevant to this item is the report on pages 23 to 25 of the Cabinet agenda for 3 March 2020.

 

At the time of printing the following recommendations were due to be made to Council:

 

1.    That the Council’s Financial Regulations are updated in order to delegate authority for the approval of budget carry forward requests to the Director of Corporate Services (the Council’s S151 officer) following consultation with the Chief Executive.

2.    To ensure transparency of budget carry forwards to members, the details of all carry forwards agreed by the S151 Officer to be included in the draft Statement of Accounts outturn report considered annually by the Corporate Governance and Audit Committee.

Minutes:

The Chairman invited Mr Wilding to introduce the item and drew attention to the report which could be found on pages 23 to 25 of the Cabinet agenda for 3 March 2020. She confirmed that there were two recommendations to Council detailed on the agenda front sheet.

 

Mr Wilding explained thatthe report seeks permission for an update to be made the Council’s Financial Regulations for the approval of budget carry forward requests. The current approval process for budget carry forward requests is now considered to be an inefficient use of both officer and member time as outlined in paragraph 3.1 of the report. It is proposed that the Council’s Financial Regulations are updated to delegate authority for the approval of budget carry forward requests to the S151 Officer following consultation with the Chief Executive. These senior officers will scrutinise each request to ensure that there is a genuine reason for slippage on the budget and guarantee that the funds are used for the same purpose as was originally agreed by members when the budget was set. In order to maintain transparency of this new procedure with members, it is proposed that the details of all carry forwards agreed by the S151 officer are included in the Statement of Accounts outturn report considered annually by the Corporate Governance and Audit Committee. This new approach will allow officers of the Council to manage the resources made available to them by members in a more efficient and effective way in order to deliver the Council priorities, and free up member time in Committees considering reports on topics that could be dealt with more efficiently by senior officers.

 

Mr Johnson asked whether given the Coronvirus outbreak members would have an option to decide whether to use the funds to mitigate any impact. Mr Ward explained that if the funds were to be used for a different purpose a report to Cabinet (or Council if over £100,000) would be required as per the Constitution. Mr Hobbs added that officers with delegated authority are held to account via the Corporate Governance and Audit Committee.

 

Mr Wilding proposed the recommendations which were seconded by Mrs Lintill.

 

In a show of hands the Council voted in favour.

 

RESOLVED

 

  1. That the Council’s Financial Regulations are updated in order to delegate authority for the approval of budget carry forward requests to the Director of Corporate Services (the Council’s S151 officer) following consultation with the Chief Executive.
  2. To ensure transparency of budget carry forwards to members, the details of all carry forwards agreed by the S151 Officer to be included in the draft Statement of Accounts outturn report considered annually by the Corporate Governance and Audit Committee.

 

103.

Rough Sleeper Initiative Grant

The material relevant to this item is the report on pages 27 to 29 of the Cabinet agenda for 3 March 2020.

 

At the time of printing the following recommendation was due to be made to Council:

 

1.    That Cabinet recommends to the Council that delegated authority is given to the Director of Housing and Communities, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing Services, to spend the Rough Sleeper Initiative (RSI) Grant set out in para 5.1 of the agenda report in accordance with the terms of the grant.

 

2.    That Council accommodate receipt and spending of the Rough Sleeper Grant when considering the annual Budget Spending Plan report 2020-21.

Minutes:

The Chairman invited Mrs Graves to introduce the item and drew attention to the report which could be found on pages 27 to 29 of the Cabinet agenda for 3 March 2020. She confirmed that there were two recommendations to Council detailed on the agenda front sheet.

 

Mrs Graves explained thatthe Strategy requires collaboration from central and local government as well as the local community. She confirmed that the council has received a total allocation of £230,465 to deliver rough sleeper services in Chichester. The Grant requires the funds to be spent on specific activities in line with the guidance. It is therefore proposed that funding be spent on the following:

 

·         Retention of the Navigator post appointed by Stonepillow last year on a 12 month contract

·         Retention of Lettings Officer post appointed by Stonepillow last year on a 12 month contract

·         Additional staffing resources to extend the council’s support of rough sleepers

·         Extending the opening hours of Stonepillow’s day services and hub

·         A new Duel diagnosis Worker post to be appointed by Stonepillow

 

Mrs Graves proposed the recommendation which were seconded by Mrs Lintill.

 

In a show of hands the Council voted in favour.

 

RESOLVED

 

  1. That Cabinet recommends to the Council that delegated authority is given to the Director of Housing and Communities, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing Services, to spend the Rough Sleeper Initiative (RSI) Grant set out in para 5.1 of the agenda report in accordance with the terms of the grant.
  2. That Council accommodate receipt and spending of the Rough Sleeper Grant when considering the annual Budget Spending Plan report 2020-21.

 

104.

Senior Staff Policy Statement

The material relevant to this item is the report on pages 31 to 33 of the Cabinet agenda for 3 March 2020 and pages 27 to 38 of the Cabinet appendices for 3 March 2020.

 

At the time of printing the following recommendation was due to be made to Council:

 

That the Senior Staff Pay Policy Statement 2020-2021 be published.

Minutes:

The Chairman invited Mr Wilding to introduce the item and drew attention to the report which could be found on pages 31 to 33 of the Cabinet agenda for 3 March 2020. She confirmed that there was one recommendation to Council detailed on the agenda front sheet.

 

Mr Wilding explained thateach year the Council is required to publish a Pay Policy Statement as part of the requirements of the Localism Act 2011. The statement must be agreed by Full Council. The intention of the statement is to ensure that as a public body the council is fully transparent in terms of our pay policies and levels of pay for senior staff. The Council publishes the Senior Pay Policy Statement (attached at Appendix A) and the associated appendices (1 to 9). Appendix 1 shows senior staff pay on 1 April 2020 and clarifies that during the last year the number of Directors has reduced from six to four with their responsibilities reallocated to the remaining Directors with an additional reduction in two Divisional Managers.  In Appendix 6, relocation expenses have increased in line with CPI.  The rest of the appendices remain unchanged since last year’s report and so have not been included but they are available on the council’s website.

 

Mr Wilding confirmed that the County Adaptions Manager role manages the Disabled Facilities Grants across West Sussex. The role is hosted by the council with the salary costs split across the West Sussex partnership.

 

Mr Wilding proposed the recommendation which were seconded by Mrs Lintill.

 

In a show of hands the Council voted in favour.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the Senior Staff Pay Policy Statement 2020-2021 be agreed for publication.

 

105.

Tangmere Strategic Development Location - Chichester District Council (Tangmere) Compulsory Purchase Order 2020

The material relevant to this item is the report on pages 35 to 180 of the Cabinet public agenda for 3 March 2020 and pages 39 to 114 of the Cabinet appendices for 3 March 2020.

 

At the time of printing the following recommendations were due to be made to Council:

 

1.    The Council authorises the use of Compulsory Purchase powers as set out in Section 226(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to compulsorily acquire the Order Land identified within Appendix B, and in particular that the Council makes the Order;

 

2.    The Director of Planning and the Environment be authorised to settle the final form and content of the Order and all associated documentation and take all action needed to pursue the Order and secure its confirmation;

 

3.    The Director of Planning and the Environment be authorised to negotiate, agree terms and enter into agreements with interested parties including agreements for the withdrawal of objections or undertakings not to enforce the Order on specific terms including where appropriate removing land or rights from the Order or to request the modification of the Order by the Secretary of State;

 

4.    The Director of Planning and the Environment be authorised to implement the Order powers following confirmation of the Order, and so acquire title to and/or take possession of the Order Land.

Minutes:

The Chairman invited Mrs Taylor to introduce the item and drew attention to the report which could be found on pages 35 to 180 of the Cabinet agenda for 3 March 2020. She confirmed that there were four recommendations to Council detailed on the agenda front sheet.

 

Mrs Taylor explained that the current Local Plan makes provision for the delivery of 7,388 homes over the period 2012-2029. Of the 7,388 homes, 3,250 are to be provided at the Strategic Development Locations, the second largest of which at 1,000 dwellings at the Tangmere Strategic Development Location (TSDL). It represents approximately 14% of the total housing need for the Local Plan Area and 31% of the total housing need to be provided by the Strategic Development Locations. In addition the emerging Local Plan makes provision for 1,300.00 dwellings. Therefore delivery of the Tangmere TSDL is critical to delivery of the Council’s housing target. The land comprises approximately 76 hectares and is shown coloured pink in Appendix 2. The site has been identified for residential development since 2010 and was formerly allocated for residential development since 2015 after adoption of the current Local Plan.

 

Mrs Taylor further explained that the land has a number of land owners and promoters. Despite the council being assured by the landowners and site promoters over the past ten years that there was progress in terms of commitment to jointly deliver the residential development and associated infrastructure there has been no material progress in terms of comprehensive delivery of the site. It is essential that development comes forward comprehensively in order to provide certainty over delivery of the infrastructure requirements for the planned residential development and to guarantee that such infrastructure be delivered in a cohesive and co-ordinated manner. Comprehensive development is also necessary if best and most efficient use is to be made of the TSDL. A piecemeal approach could render some parcels unviable, resulting in the risk that the TSDL fails to come forward in its entirety and fails to provide the necessary infrastructure required. By taking a piecemeal approach it is highly unlikely the TSDL would deliver the 1000 homes or the 1,300 homes in the emerging Local Plan. Paragraph 6.8 of the report sets out in greater detail the reasons why a piecemeal approach is inappropriate.

 

Mrs Taylor confirmed that as a result of the lack of progress the council has no alternative but to make use of the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) powers available to it and after a tender exercise appointed a development partner in 2018 and subsequently entered into a Development Agreement with Countryside Properties (UK) Limited on 5 February 2019. A Masterplan of the proposed development was presented to and endorsed by the Planning Committee on 8 January 2020. Countryside are planning to submit a planning application for 1,300 dwellings in April 2020. Table 1 on page 48 sets out the current timetable for progress of the CPO.

 

Mrs Taylor added that although work is progressing on the CPO there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.

106.

Questions to the Executive

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

Minutes:

The Chairman announced that due to the time taken on previous items on this occasion Questions to the Executive would be removed from the agenda.

 

107.

Late Items

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.

Minutes:

There were no late items.

 

108.

Exclusion of the press and public

There is no requirement to exclude the press or public.

Minutes:

There was no requirement to exclude the press and the public.