Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on Tuesday 22 December 2014.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the special meeting of the Council held on 22 December 2014 be signed as a correct record, subject to the amendment of the second sentence of the response to Question (b) (Solar Farms) in minute 279 to read:-

“Mr Oakley commented that solar farms did not remove the land entirely from agriculture, as it could still be used for grazing”.

Chairman to announce any urgent items which due to special circumstances are to be dealt with under agenda item 9(b)

There were no urgent items for consideration at this meeting.

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.

No interests were declared at this meeting.

(1)   The Chairman thanked members who had attended the service that morning at the Council’s Portfield Cemetery to commemorate National Holocaust Memorial Day.

(2)   The Chairman wished Councillors John Elliott and Tony French a speedy recovery following their recent hospitalisation.

(3)   Mrs Apel thanked the Chairman for organising the commemoration of National Holocaust Memorial Day and led the Council in wishing him a happy birthday.

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

No public questions had been submitted.

Recommendations

To consider the following recommendations requiring the approval of the Council:

(a)   Cabinet – 6 January 2015

The reports giving rise to these recommendations are in the papers for the meeting of the Cabinet on 6 January 2015. These are available in the committee papers section of the Council’s website and in the Members Room.

(i) Minute 701 – Corporate Plan Annual Review

(See report at Agenda Item 5 (pages 1 - 26) of the Cabinet papers)

Draft Corporate Plan attached

RECOMMENDED

That the revised Corporate Plan for 2015-2018 be approved,

(b)    Boundary Review Panel – 13 January 2015

(ii) Increase in Number of Parish Councillors on Chidham and Hambrook Parish

Council

(See report to Boundary Review Panel attached)

RECOMMENDED

That, following the community governance review consultation, an increase of one additional councillor to serve on Chidham and Hambrook Parish Council be approved, thereby bringing the total number of councillors from nine to ten members.

Recommendation of the Cabinet – 6 January 2015

(i)            Minute 701 – Corporate Plan Annual Review

Mrs Caird (Leader of the Council), seconded by Mrs Purnell, moved the recommendation of the Cabinet. She commended the Corporate Plan 2015-2018 (copy appended to the official minutes) as being well-presented and easy to read. She reminded the Council that the Corporate Plan set out the Council’s vision for the next four years, and was reviewed each year. This year a fundamental review had been carried out, amending and simplifying the Council’s priorities and setting clear objectives and performance measures. The Council’s priorities in the Plan were:-

·                     Improve the provision of and access to suitable housing

·                     Support our communities

·                     Manage our built and natural environments

·                     Improve and support the local economy

Mrs Caird added that a list of on-going projects would be made available to members shortly.

RESOLVED

That the revised Corporate Plan for 2015-2018 be approved.

Recommendation of the Boundary Review Panel – 13 January 2015

(ii)          Minute 65 – Increase in number of  parish councillors on Chidham and Hambrook Parish Council

The Council considered the report to the Boundary Review Panel (copy appended to the official minutes). Mr Ridd (Chairman of the Panel), seconded by Mrs Lintill, moved the recommendation of the Panel. He reminded the Council that 229 dwellings had been transferred from the parish of Southbourne to the parish of Chidham and Hambrook. The Chidham and Hambrook Parish Council had subsequently asked for an increase in the number of parish councillors from nine to ten. A community governance review had been carried out, as required, and no responses had been received to the consultation. The Panel recommended that the requested increase be authorised.

Mr Myers, as one of the ward councillors, expressed support for the recommendation.

RESOLVED

That, following the community governance review consultation, an increase of one additional councillor to serve on Chidham and Hambrook Parish Council be approved, thereby bringing the total number of councillors from nine to ten members.

(maximum of 40 minutes duration)

Questions to members of the Cabinet and responses given were as follows:

(a)  Question: Former Portfield Football Ground, Church Road, Chichester

Mr Smith asked the Cabinet Member for Support Services what recommendation he would be making to his Cabinet colleagues about the future use of the former Portfield Football Ground, following the decision by the Planning Committee to refuse permission for the extension of time of the existing outline planning permission for residential development and associated off site works.

Response:

The Chairman ruled that the Council should not discuss a particular planning application. Mr Ransley (Cabinet Member for Support Services) replied that he was hoping to conclude a detailed briefing paper for the Cabinet within the next few days.

(b)  Question: Hyde Martlet

Mr Chaplin reminded the Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning that the proposed meeting between the senior management team of Hyde Martlet and councillors before the Council meeting in December 2014 had been postponed, and asked whether it would be re-arranged. He also asked that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee would review the matter as he felt that, before the present management team was in place, the performance of Hyde Martlet had fallen below what was acceptable. The intention was not to allocate blame but there was a need to restore the trust and confidence of tenants and councillors. Mrs Caird, Mr Cherry, Mr Clementson and Mrs Duncton associated themselves with Mr Chaplin’s comments, and Mr Clementson asked whether specific questions would be put to Hyde Martlet in advance so that the discussion would be effective.

Response:

Mrs Purnell (Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning) replied that the Hyde Martlet senior management team would attend a meeting with councillors immediately before the Council meeting on 10 March 2015. A set of questions would be given to them in advance for them to use as a basis for their presentation to councillors, but other questions could be asked without notice.

She would support a reference to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee following that meeting.

(c)  Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Unit at Westgate Leisure Centre

Mr Potter asked for an update on the defective Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Unit at Westgate Leisure Centre.

Response:

At the request of the Cabinet Member for Support Services, Mr Over replied that legal discussions with the suppliers of the CHP Unit were proceeding. In the meantime, the hot water boilers at the Leisure Centre had been replaced and were working effectively to provide heating and hot water.

(See report at Agenda Item 6 (pages 27 - 30) of the Cabinet papers)

To report that at its meeting on 6 January 2015, the Cabinet resolved that the expenditure of additional funding from the Environment Agency on coastal management, as follows, be approved for the period 2014– 2015:

(1)   to increase the volume of beach recharge at West Wittering as an extension of the Council’s existing contract for Beach Management Plan works in January 2015 at a cost of £100,000. 

(2)   to bring forward the replacement of a failing gabion (wire baskets filled with stone) wall with timber breastworks at Solent Way, Selsey at a cost of £150,000, to be undertaken by the Council’s current maintenance contractor.

The additional funding and proposed expenditure is not included in the approved budget and this decision is, therefore, not wholly in accordance with the budget approved by the Council, although all the additional funding is provided by the Environment Agency. The decision would normally be taken by the full Council, but as the need to spend is urgent and it was not practical to convene a quorate meeting of the Council, the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee agreed that the Cabinet could take the decision as a matter of urgency, in accordance with the Budget and Policy Framework Rules (part 4.3 of the Constitution)

The Council noted that, at its meeting on 6 January 2015, the Cabinet had resolved that expenditure of additional funding from the Environment Agency on coastal management be approved for the period 2014– 2015 as follows:

(1)    to increase the volume of beach recharge at West Wittering as an extension of the Council’s existing contract for Beach Management Plan works in January 2015 at a cost of £100,000.

(2)    to bring forward the replacement of a failing gabion (wire baskets filled with stone) wall with timber breastworks at Solent Way, Selsey at a cost of £150,000, to be undertaken by the Council’s current maintenance contractor.

The additional funding and proposed expenditure was not included in the approved budget and this decision was, therefore, not wholly in accordance with the budget approved by the Council, although all the additional funding was provided by the Environment Agency. The decision would normally be taken by the full Council, but as the need to spend was urgent and it had not been practical to convene a quorate meeting of the Council, the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had agreed that the Cabinet could take the decision as a matter of urgency, in accordance with the Budget and Policy Framework Rules (part 4.3 of the Constitution).

Mr Connor (Cabinet Member for the Environment) explained the circumstances.

Mr McAra asked whether the Council had the resources to deal with localised flood alleviation works, both inland and coastal.

Mr Connor replied that West Sussex County Council (WSCC) was the Lead Local Flood Authority and was responsible for providing resources.

Mr Lowsley (Senior Engineer) explained that, although WSCC was the Lead Local Flood Authority, it did not have the expertise that district and borough councils had in dealing with local land drainage issues, Accordingly, it commissioned the Council to carry out watercourse consent work on its behalf and at its expense. WSCC and the district and borough councils were considering together how to provide the service in the future and the development of a flood risk management strategy was in hand.

Members expressed the view that, if the Council was to act as agent for WSCC, it should be made clear to residents where the ultimate responsibility lay if resources were inadequate.