Agenda and minutes

The Council is requested to approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 22 September 2020.

The Chair made the following statement:

I would like to take the opportunity to clarify that at the last meeting of Full Council I made a decision not to take some public questions submitted by Mr Dicker.  In error that decision was not listed to my papers to be reported at full Council.  Mr Dicker has since written in raising a complaint about that error.  A formal response was sent by the Chief Executive.  However I would like to take this opportunity to confirm that I did reject the public questions under my powers to do so as Chairman under my general duties to manage meetings.

Mr Dicker has re-submitted the questions, along with some new questions.  Again, I considered the meeting agenda including the significant business we are debating today some of which the Council is required to complete to comply with legal duties such as the membership of committees.  I also considered the large number of other public questions being submitted by persons which will be responded to today.  I also considered the future right of Mr Dicker to raise questions in respect of the Local Plan through its statutory processes in the future.

I have therefore decided not to take Mr Dickers questions again and instead am asking that officers respond in writing to his questions.  The questions he submits, and a copy of the answer, will be placed on the public questions folders for public examination in the same way as if they had been heard at the meeting.

To give a second perspective on this decision I did consult with the Vice Chairman, Clare Apel, who agreed with my decisions on this matter.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Full Council meeting held on 22 September 2020 be approved.

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

There were no urgent 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.

The following declarations of interest were made in respect of agenda item 6:

·         Cllr Apel declared a pecuniary interest as a Trustee of Stonepillow and left the virtual room during the item.

·         Cllr Bell also declared a pecuniary interest as a Trustee of Stonepillow and left the virtual room during the item.

The following declarations of interest were made in respect of agenda items 7 and 16:

·         Cllr Duncton declared personal interests as a member of West Sussex County Council.

·         Cllr O’Kelly declared personal interests as a member of West Sussex County Council.

·         Cllr Oakley declared personal interests as a member of West Sussex County Council.

·         Cllr Purnell declared personal interests as a member of West Sussex County Council.

Cllr Briscoe also declared a personal interest in respect of agenda item 16 as a Chichester District Council appointed member to the Police Crime Commissioner Panel.

Apologies for absence will be notified at this point.

The Chair will make any specific announcements.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Graves.

The Chair announced that the motion submitted by Cllr O’Kelly had been withdrawn at this stage. She then explained that she would be taking the part II item prior to the review of political balance and committee amendments, motion submitted by Cllr Bowden and Questions to the Executive.

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.

The Council received the following public questions and answers:

Question from Lucia Barbato:

Do you agree that our current high food standards benefit both our local farmers and consumers and if so will you write to our MP to ask her to lobby Parliament and the Government to ensure that they are maintained in law - including in any new trade deals - and that no food that is produced beneath them will ever be permitted in schools, hospitals or other public places that offer food in the district?

Answer from Cllr Plant:

In West Sussex, WSCC Trading Standards have a key role in ensuring food complies with food standards law together with DEFRAs Animal and Plant Health Agency which support the food and farming industry.  The Animal and Plant Health Agency role is to safeguard animal and plant health for the benefit of people, the environment and the economy.  The District Council’s role is one of ensuring food safety through its statutory food hygiene work and therefore it is not within the Councils area of expertise to comment on whether high food standards benefit our local farmers and consumers.

The UK has some of the highest food standards and the Government’s new Agriculture Bill, which is currently passing through Parliament, continues this with a key policy objective of ensuring high standards of animal health and welfare.  DEFRAs “Farming for the future” document, Feb 2020, outlines a priority for a productive, competitive farming sector – one that will support farmers to provide more home grown, healthy produce made to high environmental and animal welfare standards.  The District Council and it’s food safety team supports the continued high food safety and welfare standards as is outlined in the Governments policy documents.  Should these not be incorporated into the new National Food Strategy, due to be published winter 2020, the Council though the policy consultation process will, within its remit, respond by calling for continuation of existing standards.

Question from Bruce Garrett:

Many of you can very probably bear witness to the terrible consequences of traffic and other accidents on the A27. A large lorry jackknifing across all 4 lanes early on Friday 9th October created chaos for very close to twelve hours.

My concern is that progress on rerouting the A27 and ridding it of dangerous roundabouts appears to reveal the inability of all the concerned bodies, statutory and others, to sit down and hammer out a plan of action. 

Housing targets and fragile infrastructure are the talk of the day, almost every day. What is the status and what is the timeline for the A27 project please?

Answer from Cllr Taylor:

Thank you for your question. The first thing to say is that the A27 forms part of the strategic road network and so is the responsibility of Highways England rather than the District Council.

I can however advise that the A27 Chichester Bypass is identified as a ‘pipeline’ project in national Road Investment Strategy 2 (RIS2). This does  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

The material relevant to this item can be found on pages 7-9 of the Cabinet agenda pack for 3 November 2020.

The following recommendations were made to Council:

1.    The allocation of commuted sums of £100,000 to Stonepillow to enable the acquisition of a property in Chichester to provide move-on accommodation for Rough Sleepers.

2.    The allocation of commuted sums of £100,000 to Chichester Greyfriars Housing Association to support the construction of five one bedroom flats at Royal Close, Chichester.

As per their previous declarations Cllr Apel and Cllr Bell were placed in the virtual waiting room for the duration of the item and did not participate in the item or its vote.

Cllr Sutton was invited to introduce the report.

Cllr Sutton then moved the recommendations which were seconded by Cllr Lintill.

Members voted virtually on the recommendations which were carried.

RESOLVED

1.    The allocation of commuted sums of £100,000 to Stonepillow to enable the acquisition of a property in Chichester to provide move-on accommodation for Rough Sleepers.

2.    The allocation of commuted sums of £100,000 to Chichester Greyfriars Housing Association to support the construction of five one bedroom flats at Royal Close, Chichester.

The material relevant to this item can be found on pages 11-13 of the Cabinet agenda pack for 3 November 2020 (the appendix can be found in the supplementary pack for the same meeting).

The following recommendation was made to Council:

That the proposed Council Tax Reduction Scheme for 2021-2022 be approved by Full Council.

Cllr Apel and Cllr Bell returned from the virtual waiting room.

Cllr Wilding was invited to introduce the report.

Cllr Wilding then moved the recommendations which were seconded by Cllr Lintill.

Members spoke in favour of the Scheme.

Members voted virtually on the recommendation which was carried.

RESOLVED

That the proposed Council Tax Reduction Scheme for 2021-2022 be approved by Full Council.

The material relevant to this item can be found on pages 15-18 of the Cabinet agenda pack for 3 November 2020.

The following recommendation was made to Council:

That the merge of the Community Recovery Grants Fund and Economic Recovery Grants Fund be approved.

Cllr Briscoe was invited to introduce the report.

Cllr Briscoe then moved the recommendations which were seconded by Cllr Lintill.

Members voted virtually on the recommendation which was carried.

RESOLVED

That the merge of the Community Recovery Grants Fund and Economic Recovery Grants Fund be approved.

The material relevant to this item can be found on pages 19-22 of the Cabinet agenda pack for 3 November 2020 (the appendices and background papers are available in the supplement packs).

The following recommendations were made to Council:

1.    That the revised Statement of Licensing Policy for the period 2020-2022 and revised Sex Establishment Policy for the period 2020-2025 be approved and referred to Council for consideration on 24 November 2020.

2.    That, subject to consideration of any comments referred by Cabinet, the revised Statement of Licensing Policy for the period 2020-2022 and revised Sex Establishment Policy for the period 2020-2025 is approved for subsequent publication.

Cllr Bowden had to temporarily leave for part of this item.

Cllr Sutton was invited to introduce the report.

Cllr Sutton then moved the recommendations which were seconded by Cllr Lintill.

Members voted virtually on the recommendations which were carried.

RESOLVED

1. That the revised Statement of Licensing Policy for the period 2020-2022 and revised Sex Establishment Policy for the period 2020-2025 be approved and referred to Council for consideration on 24 November 2020.

2. That, subject to consideration of any comments referred by Cabinet, the revised Statement of Licensing Policy for the period 2020-2022 and revised Sex Establishment Policy for the period 2020-2025 is approved for subsequent publication.

The Council is asked to consider in respect of agenda item 16 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.

Cllr Lintill proposed that the meeting went into part II in relation to the Southern Gateway agenda item which was seconded by Cllr Taylor.

The Council then voted to go into part II.

RESOLVED

That with regard to the Southern Gateway agenda item the public including the press should be excluded from the meeting on the grounds of exemption in Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 namely Paragraph 3 (Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)) 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.

Members took a short break.

The papers for this report will be available to members in the Special Cabinet agenda for 24 November 2020.

Cllr Dignum was invited to introduce the report.

Cllr Dignum then moved an amended recommendation which was seconded by Cllr Lintill.

Cllr Dignum, Mrs Shepherd, Mrs Hotchkiss, Mr Frost and Mr Bennett responded to questions and comments from Cllr Brown, Cllr Moss, Cllr Plowman, Cllr Hughes, Cllr Oakley, Cllr Apel, Cllr Tim Johnson, Cllr Sharp, Cllr Briscoe and Cllr Lintill.

Members voted virtually on the recommendation which was carried.

RESOLVED

That the proposal as set out in section 4.10 as amended be approved.

Cllr Sutton then proposed that the meeting return to public session. This was seconded by Cllr Lintill. No members objected.

Having complied with the Motions Procedure as set out in the council’s Constitutionthe motion below will be proposed by Cllr Bowden and if duly seconded it will then be discussed at this meeting:

This Council has serious concerns about the performance of the Statutory Wastewater Company for this District, Southern Water, and in particular:

•      Currently, in the light of known Wastewater Treatment capacity limitations at seven of the District’s ten Wastewater Treatment Works, about Southern Water’s normal response to Planning Application consultations, that it can connect the proposed unplanned developments, without apparent regard to the cumulative capacity effect of developments already permitted and planned, including those in neighbouring Districts (Havant and Arun) that share two of the Works;

•      In the immediate future, the Council therefore has well-founded doubts about the capability of Southern Water (whether financial or otherwise) to build in good time the greatly enhanced wastewater treatment capacity that will be required to provide for the needs of the District’s new residents foreseen, and required by HM Government, in the Local Plan Review;

•      In the medium term, 1) five of the ten Wastewater Treatment works will be at risk of inundation from rising sea-levels due to Climate Change, and 2) there is a clear risk of outflow of Nitrates to Pagham Harbour; but the Council has no evidence of any plan by Southern Water to address either of these risks;

•      and accordingly the Council requests the Leader and Chief Executive Officer to write to OFWAT to detail our concerns and call on the Regulator to intervene.

Cllr Bowden was invited to read his motion as follows:

This Council has serious concerns about the performance of the Statutory Wastewater Company for this District, Southern Water, and in particular:

•      Currently, in the light of known Wastewater Treatment capacity limitations at seven of the District’s ten Wastewater Treatment Works, about Southern Water’s normal response to Planning Application consultations, that it can connect the proposed unplanned developments, without apparent regard to the cumulative capacity effect of developments already permitted and planned, including those in neighbouring Districts (Havant and Arun) that share two of the Works;

•      In the immediate future, the Council therefore has well-founded doubts about the capability of Southern Water (whether financial or otherwise) to build in good time the greatly enhanced wastewater treatment capacity that will be required to provide for the needs of the District’s new residents foreseen, and required by HM Government, in the Local Plan Review;

•      In the medium term, 1) five of the ten Wastewater Treatment works will be at risk of inundation from rising sea-levels due to Climate Change, and 2) there is a clear risk of outflow of Nitrates to Pagham Harbour; but the Council has no evidence of any plan by Southern Water to address either of these risks;

•      and accordingly the Council requests the Leader and Chief Executive Officer to write to OFWAT to detail our concerns and call on the Regulator to intervene.

The motion was seconded by Cllr Potter.

Cllr Brown was then invited to put forward his amendment as follows:

To add to the original motion:

This Council notes that the Chichester Water Quality Group (a multi-agency meeting hosted by CDC Planning and Chaired by the Environment Agency) currently includes representatives from:

CDC Planning Policy; CDC Environment Team

The Environment Agency

Natural England

Chichester Harbour Conservancy

West Sussex County Council (as Lead Local Flood Authority), and

Southern Water

To further the “transparent scrutiny of evidence and decision making”, that comprises part of the Group’s Terms of Reference, this Council calls for:

A)   The publication of the minutes of its meetings (noting that they may need to be ‘Part II’ confidential documents with viewing restricted to elected members), and

B) A representative elected by members of the Council to be afforded observer status for meetings of the Group.

The amendment was seconded by Cllr Bangert.

Cllr Taylor as Cabinet Member for Planning was invited to respond first. Cllr Taylor agreed that writing to OFWAT was a good idea and as such she supported Cllr Bowden’s motion. With regard to Cllr Brown’s amendment Cllr Taylor explained that the Group is not chaired by the council and as such members would only be able to make a request. She explained that the Development Plan and Infrastructure Group gave members the opportunity to ask officers for progress updates of that nature.

Cllr Apel suggested the letter to OFWAT be copied to the two local MP’s and the Minister for Local Government.

In response to Cllr Brown’s amendment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

Having complied with the Motions Procedure as set out in the council’s Constitutionthe motion below will be proposed by Cllr O’Kelly and if duly seconded it will then be discussed at this meeting:

In 2006 the UN Principles of Responsible Investment (UNPRI) were introduced. Niche at the time, they now have mainstream adoption, with thousands of asset managers and owners from across the world signed up.  The West Sussex County Council Pension scheme has recently signed up too.

This Council welcomes the fact that the United Nations Principles of Responsible Investment are being increasingly adopted, including:

·         incorporating environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues into investment analysis and decision making,

·         being active owners,

·         seeking disclosure of ESG issues, and

·         promoting the principles within the industry.

This council agreed to consider ESG options in its Treasury Management Investment Strategy for 2020/21. Signing up to UNPRI is a further, logical step on this pathway towards making ethical investment decisions.

This Council therefore calls on the Cabinet Member for Finance to ask the Council’s investment advisers to ensure they follow the United Nations Principles of Responsible Investment for all of the Council’s investments. This will ensure that CDC achieves a more ethical investment policy by incorporating matters like human rights and environmental issues, such as reducing reliance on fossil fuels (in line with the Council’s Climate Change Strategy), into its investment decisions.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

The report for this item is attached. Members are requested to agree the following recommendations:

1.    the review of political balance arrangements to be submitted and settled at the meeting be approved; and

2.    that membership of committees and sub committees be approved by members at the meeting; and

3.    the calculations set out in this report are applied in making appointments to committees.

4.    that chairman responsibilities of committees and sub committees be approved by members at the meeting.

Mr Bennett was invited to introduce the report. He confirmed that the document that had been circulated as an appendix to the report had been agreed by the Group Leaders in advance of the meeting.

Cllr Lintill then moved the recommendations which were seconded by Cllr Taylor.

Members voted virtually on the recommendations which were carried.

RESOLVED

1. That the review of political balance arrangements as set out in the report be approved.

2. That the calculations set out in this report be applied in making appointments to committees.

3. That membership of committees and sub committees including their Chair’s and Vice-Chair’s as set out in the appendix to the report be approved.</AI14>

<AI15>

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

The Chair invited Questions to the Executive.

Cllr Oakley asked Cllr Taylor the reasons for continuing with the Local Plan Review. Cllr Taylor responded by explaining the importance of working as quickly as possible to ensure  a co-ordinated approach to securing the  required infrastructure to support new development and preventing speculative development without certainty.

Cllr Apel asked for information on the local Test and Trace numbers. Mrs Shepherd responded and explained that Cllr Apel would need to contact the NHS for that information as it is not provided to the council.

Cllr Duncton asked Cllr Lintill for information on the new Covid Marshalls. Cllr Lintill explained that the Covid Marshalls are there to inform rather than enforce. The Covid Marshalls are made up of BID Rangers. All have security training and are DBS checked and have been advised on procedures for reporting inappropriate behaviour and rule breaking.

Cllr Evans asked Cllr Sutton about how to handle Hyde issues in his ward. Cllr Sutton explained that there are procedures in place which would be recirculated to members. He also asked members to contact him directly if they were struggling to seek a resolution for their residents.

Due to the time of the meeting the Chair asked that any further questions be submitted to Democratic Services for written response. The responses would then be collated and published online with the Council papers.

Cllr Sutton asked to wish Cllr Bangert a very happy birthday on behalf of all the members.

To consider any late items as follows:

a)    Items added to the agenda papers and made available for public inspection.

b)    Items which the Chair 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.