Agenda and minutes

The Council is requested to approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 19 July 2022.

Before going any further the Chair made the following statement:

On behalf of everyone in our district and at Chichester District Council, we wish to express our great sadness and sincere condolences to the Royal Family following the incredibly sad news of the death of Her Majesty, The Queen. The love and admiration for the Queen has continued throughout the years. Her Majesty's dedication and commitment to her role and country is unrivalled and her historic reign will never be forgotten. We were all deeply saddened by this news and our thoughts and prayers remain with the Royal Family at this time. Please will everyone who is able now stand for a two minutes silence.

A two minute silence then took place.

The Chair then turned to the minutes of the previous meeting.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Full Council meeting held on 19 July 2022 be approved.

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

The Chair allowed two late items. An Independent Renumeration Panel appointment and a change to the Vice-Chair of Planning Committee. The proposal was made by Cllr Lintill and seconded by Cllr Taylor. Mr Bennett outlined the changes.

In a vote the following appointments were approved:

1.    To appoint Richard Andrews as a member of the Independent Remuneration Panel of the Council.

2.    To appoint Councillor Brisbane as Vice Chair of planning.

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.

In relation to agenda item 6 Mr Bennett the Monitoring Officer referred members to a general reminder email that had been circulated regarding personal and prejudicial interests.

Cllr Dignum as a member of Chichester City Council declared a prejudicial interest in relation to agenda item 6 and withdrew from the room for the duration of the discussion and vote.

Cllr Dignum as a member of the Chichester BID Board declared a personal interest in relation to agenda item 11.

Cllr Donna Johnson as a member of Chichester City Council declared an interest in relation to agenda item 6.

Cllr Purnell as a member of Selsey Town Council declared a prejudicial interest in relation to agenda item 6 and withdrew from the room for the duration of the discussion and vote.

Cllr Purnell as a member of Selsey Town Council also declared a personal interest in relation to agenda item 11.

Cllr Oakley as a member of Tangmere Parish Council declared a personal interest in relation to agenda item 6.

Cllr Oakley as a member of West Sussex County Council declared a personal interest in relation to agenda items 10 and 11. 

Cllr Plowman as a member of Chichester City Council declared a prejudicial interest in relation to agenda item 6 and withdrew from the room for the duration of the discussion and vote.

Cllr Apel as a member of Chichester City Council declared a prejudicial interest in relation to agenda item 6 and withdrew from the room for the duration of the discussion and vote.

Cllr Bell as a member of Chichester City Council declared a prejudicial interest in relation to agenda item 6 and withdrew from the room for the duration of the discussion and vote.

Cllr Barrie as a member of Chichester City Council declared a prejudicial interest in relation to agenda item 6 and withdrew from the room for the duration of the discussion and vote.

Cllr Sharp as a member of Chichester City Council declared a personal interest in relation to agenda item 6 not being a member of the City Council’s Finance Committee.

Cllr Sharp as a member of West Sussex County Council also declared a personal interest in relation to agenda items 10 and 11.

Cllr Oakley raised a point of order. He asked the Monitoring Officer if he had recommended a course of action or made a suggestion? Mr Bennett clarified that declarations are a personal judgement of the individual member. He referred to advice he had given after being asked directly that if a member sits on the Financial Committee at the City Council that would indicate a prejudicial interest. Cllr Dignum questioned whether all City Councillors should declare a prejudicial interest. Mr Bennett reiterated that it was individual members decisions.

Cllr Sutton asked Cllr Donna Johnson to clarify her declaration. She explained she would declare a prejudicial interest in relation to agenda item 6 and withdrew from the room for the duration of the discussion and vote.

Cllr Duncton as a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 153.

Apologies for absence will be notified at this point.

The Chair will make any specific announcements.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Brisbane, Cllr Fowler, Cllr Lishman and Cllr Palmer.

The Chair then made the following statement:

It is with great sadness that I announce the passing of Kevin Hughes. Kevin was a memberfor Chichester East from 3 May 2019 to 12 April 2021. He also Vice-Chaired the Overview and Scrutiny Committee during his term. I will ask you all to hold a minutes silence in Kevin’s memory.Please will everyone who is able now stand.

A minutes silence was held.

In accordance with Chichester District Council’s scheme for public question time 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 Chair’s discretion to extend that period.

There were no public questions.

Cllr Moss explained that he had submitted a Motion for consideration for the meeting which had been refused. Mr Bennett explained the Motions Procedure and the appeal process that had taken place. Cllr Sharp asked for further information about the Motion which Mr Bennett agreed to provide in writing.

Members are requested to consider the report as set out on pages 49-53 of the Cabinet agenda for 6 September 2022 and make the following resolution as recommended by Cabinet:

That funding of 50% of the total cost of the Community Warden Service for 3 years from 1 April 2023 (as set out in para 5.2) be approved, subject to match funding being secured by partners.

Cllr Briscoe proposed the recommendation which was seconded by Cllr Taylor. He then introduced the report. Mrs Bushby added that early indications were positive from the discussions with funding partners.

Cllr Tim Johnson gave his support to the community warden service and the 50% funding model.

Cllr Oakley gave his support to the 50% funding model. He asked members to consider the order of council priorities in the current economic climate.

Cllr Barrett noted the community support for the service in the Witterings.

Cllr Sharp gave support to the service and the support for it in her ward.

Cllr Brown, Cllr Moss and Cllr O’Kelly also gave support to the service.

In a vote the following recommendation was approved:

That funding of 50% of the total cost of the Community Warden Service for 3 years from 1 April 2023 (as set out in para 5.2) be approved, subject to match funding being secured by partners.

Members are requested to consider the report as set out on pages 7-12 of the Cabinet agenda for 6 September 2022 and make the following resolution as recommended by Cabinet:

To approve the release of a further £288,750 of section 106 Sport and Leisure funding, towards a total project cost of £1,210,800, as the council’s contribution towards the delivery for the Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) at Oaklands Park, Chichester. This funding being conditional on partnership funding being achieved to cover the full costs of the project.

Cllr Briscoe proposed the recommendation which was seconded by Cllr Taylor. He then introduced the report.

Cllr Apel requested clarification of the location of the pitch. Cllr Briscoe confirmed that it was the football clubs pitch.

Cllr Oakley asked for information on the life expectancy of the pitch, annual contribution of the club for its maintenance and the council’s resources to present. Mrs Peyman confirmed that the carpet of the pitch lasts approximately 8 – 10 years. There is a protocol in place to reserve £25,000 per annum from pitch hire towards a fund for pitch replacement. Mrs Hotchkiss added that the Football Association had provided funding and resources towards the tendering process.

Cllr Sharp explained she would not support the recommendation due to the use of plastics and the level of funding being requested. Cllr Briscoe clarified that the pitch is made from nylon, rubber crumb and sand and is recycled at the end of its life. He added that it would increase the use of the pitch.

Cllr Brown asked whether the decision would prejudice the levelling up bid and if it is successful could some of the funding be withdrawn. Cllr Briscoe clarified that if the bid were successful some of the Section 106 funding could be repurposed. Mrs Hotchkiss added that the decision would not prejudice the bid.

Cllr Plowman gave his support due to the opportunity to increase the use of the pitch.

Cllr Oakley noted that Section 106 funding is ringfenced for capital projects.

Cllr Duncton and Cllr Lintill also gave their support to the project.

In a vote the following recommendation was approved:

The release of a further £288,750 of section 106 Sport and Leisure funding, towards a total project cost of £1,210,800, as the council’s contribution towards the delivery for the Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) at Oaklands Park, Chichester. This funding being conditional on partnership funding being achieved to cover the full costs of the project.

Members are requested to consider the report and make the following resolutions:

1.     That Council agrees an addendum to Chichester District Council’s UK Shared Prosperity Investment Plan is submitted to enable the release of the Rural England Prosperity Fund.

2.     That Council agrees delegated authority is approved for Chief Executive, Director for Corporate Services and the Director for Growth and Place to submit the addendum in consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Leader of the Opposition.

Cllr Lintill proposed the recommendation which was seconded by Cllr Taylor. She then introduced the report.

Cllr Sutton asked for clarification of what would happen if one of the decision makers voted against one of the projects. Mrs Shepherd explained that the projects going forward would require joint approval in order to give them greater weight when being considered.

Cllr Purnell asked what type of projects would be considered. Cllr Lintill drew attention to section 3.8 of the report. Mrs Shepherd added that officers were currently working through a list to present to the Leader and Leader of the Opposition if the recommendation is approved.

Cllr O’Kelly commented on the short timescale for providing a response. She supported the project.

Cllr Oakley agreed that the timescale was short. He suggested considering projects from parish infrastructure business plans.

Cllr Sharp also noted the short timescale.

Mrs Shepherd clarified that the City Council projects could be considered in the process.

Cllr McAra drew attention to the Midhurst Vision project submission.

Cllr Apel asked whether farm businesses could be included. Mrs Shepherd explained they could if they were looking to diversify their offer.

Cllr Moss commented on the short timescale. He gave his support to the project and explained that he would consult opposition members.

In a vote the following recommendations were approved:

1.    That Council agrees an addendum to Chichester District Council’s UK Shared Prosperity Investment Plan is submitted to enable the release of the Rural England Prosperity Fund.

2.    That Council agrees delegated authority is approved for Chief Executive, Director for Corporate Services and the Director for Growth and Place to submit the addendum in consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Leader of the Opposition.

Members are requested to note the Urgent Decision Notice related to the Alignment of Sickness Scheme for CCS Staff.

On behalf of the Council the Chair noted the Urgent Decision Notice relating to the alignment of the sickness scheme for CCS staff.

Members are requested to note the Urgent Decision Notice relating to the Levelling Up Fund – Financial Risks.

On behalf of the Council the Chair noted the Urgent Decision Notice relating to the Levelling Up Fund financial risks.

Members took a short break.

Having complied with the Motions Procedure as set out in the council’s Constitution the motion attached will be proposed by Cllr Richard Plowman and if duly seconded it will then be discussed at this meeting.

Cllr Plowman proposed his Motion which was seconded by Cllr Bell. He then explained that he was happy to except Cllr Sharp’s amendment as part of his Motion. Cllr Sharp confirmed she was happy with that approach. Cllr Bell agreed to second the Motion inclusive of the amendment.

Cllr Plowman then outlined his Motion. He explained it was primarily looking at things that could be easily improved straight away.

Cllr Sharp outlined her amendment to focus on younger people and families.

Cllr Bell as seconder to the Motion requested that the taskforce should be aimed at delivering immediate actions leaving a longer term strategy to the Chichester Vision Steering Group.

Cllr Lintill thanked both Cllr Plowman and Cllr Sharp for their Motion and amendment. She explained that she would support the Motion and request that officers prepare a report back to Cabinet.

Cllr Dignum supported the Motion. He asked that priority be given to improving pavements and carriageways.

Cllr Donna Johnson supported the Motion. She explained the importance of attracting visitors and tourism to the district for growth and sustainability.

Cllr Apel gave support to the Motion.

Cllr Purnell questioned whether the taskforce should be the responsibility of the council.

Cllr Oakley raised concerns about duplication of existing work.

Cllr Bangert gave support to the Motion.

Cllr Sutton noted Cllr Purnell’s comments. He gave support to the Motion.

Cllr Brown suggested the level of lights being left on in the city centre at night should be considered as should play equipment in parks.

Cllr Hobbs gave support to Motion. He asked that the City Council take a significant role in taking it forward.

Cllr O’Kelly commented that collaboration is needed between key partners.

Cllr Tim Johnson requested that the outcome be shared with town and parish councils as a form of best practice.

Cllr Graves explained that a similar piece of work had been undertaken by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee a number of years ago which had been successful.

Cllr Potter gave his support to the Motion. He asked that the pavements be prioritised. Cllr Sharp suggested she help increase the priority level of the pavements in her role as a WSCC member. She added that pollution from idling vehicles could be addressed via the council’s Environmental Health function.

Cllr Oakley asked that heavy vehicles be considered as part of any pavement improvements work.

Cllr Plowman thanked members for their support. He added that he saw the taskforce as short term until approximately Easter 2023.

In a vote the Motion from Cllr Plowman inclusive of the amendment Motion from Cllr Sharp was approved as follows:

That this Council instructs the Executive to investigate the setting up of a specific multiagency (CDC, CCC, WSCC , BID) Chichester City Centre Task Force to ensure the City Centre  defined as the Chichester Conservation area has an attractive  and well maintained Public Realm through enforcing Planning Conditions on premises; Regulation 7 removal of unsightly “to let” boards; graffiti; litter; unnecessary and redundant signs;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 161.

Members are invited to ask a question of a member of the Executive (maximum of 30 minutes duration).

Cllr Moss asked the Chair to allow equal weighting to questions from the floor to pre-submitted questions. The Chair explained that she would be taking the pre-submitted questions first and then questions from the floor. Cllr O’Kelly asked if members would be able to interrogate questions further. Mr Bennett explained that would be at the Chairs discretion and should be in order to add to a question already asked rather than present a new question.

The following questions were submitted in advance with responses prepared for the meeting:

Question from Cllr Sarah Sharp

In light of the fact that this Council has declared a Climate Emergency and is aiming to become carbon neutral, all the Council's decisions on major infrastructure projects should now give more weight to whether they will increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Does the Cabinet Member for the Environment and / or Planning agree?

Similarly do you agree that this Council should urgently have the opportunity to discuss the weight we give to oil and gas exploration in our Local Plan Review? Would the Cabinet Members agree that this is something we should be considering now urgently, in light of the recent Conservative decision to give the go-ahead to fracking?*

While we are not the Minerals Authority, both the NPPF and NPPG support moves to a low-carbon future.

Is the Cabinet Member for the Environment and for Planning able to insist that policies must clearly demonstrate that they have net zero impact on Climate Change?

Should the Council similarly put the well-being of future generations at the centre of our policies to avoid decisions based on short-term growth instead of sustainable and safe developments that do not jeopardize our children’s and grand-children’s futures?

Response from Cllr Eileen Lintill and Cllr Susan Taylor

In answer to the first question, the government has responsibility for handling major infrastructure projects and not this Council. However, where the Council is consulted on such projects, we do of course take into account environmental considerations, including the impact of proposed development on carbon emissions through sustainability appraisal and Environmental Impact Assessment processes.

In response to the second question, this Council is not the minerals and waste planning authority. Those areas of planning responsibility are with West Sussex County Council although again, where this Council is consulted on such proposals, they would of course be given full and careful assessment in light of relevant polices (including in relation to climate change) within our adopted local plan and relevant government guidance. In relation to your final comment, I can confirm I agree with the assertion made.

Question from Cllr Sharp:

Could I also ask that we also note the possible attacks on Habitats Regulations upon which both our nitrates and water neutrality policies rely*.

While there are moves to weaken the rules at national level which will no doubt be fully scrutinized by wildlife charities, what is the Council’s view on the risks to habitats should we not be able to resolve these issues  ...  view the full minutes text for item 162.

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.

If required the Council is asked to consider 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 are no restricted items for consideration at this meeting.

There was no requirement to exclude the press or public.