Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on Tuesday 14 July 2015.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on Tuesday, 14 July 2015, be signed as a correct record.

Chairman to announce any urgent items which due to special circumstances are to be dealt with under agenda item 14(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.

Mrs Duncton and Mr Oakley declared personal interests as members of West Sussex County Council in agenda item 7, Infrastructure Business Plan – approval for consultation.

Mr Budge declared a personal interest as a member of Chichester City Council in the same item.

The Chairman announced that he and the Vice-Chairman had between them represented the Council at a number of events since the last meeting. He particularly mentioned the following.

The “Get Active” Festival on Sunday 6 September. During the morning there had been an unsuccessful attempt to break the Guinness Book of Records entry for passing the ball. The effort had failed by about 20 passes. In the afternoon a wide range of sports and activities had been demonstrated, and between 3,000 and 4,000 people had attended. He congratulated the sport and leisure team, and their supporters, for arranging the Festival.

He had also attended a Hymnathon arranged by the Friends of Sussex Hospices at Lancing College Chapel on Sunday 20 September 2015, to raise money for hospices.

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.

RECOMMENDED

That the Annual Report 2014-15 be approved.

The Council received the draft Annual Report 2014-2015 (copy attached to the official minutes). Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council), seconded by Mrs Lintill, moved the recommendation of the Cabinet. He described the Annual Report as an excellent summary of a year of real progress. He explained that the Cabinet Members had each approved their section of the report and all members had had the opportunity to read it. He, therefore, commended it to the Council for approval.

Mr Shaxson and Mr Ransley referred to the report and local performance indicators relating to The Novium Museum (pages 9 and 13 of the report) how staff distinguished visitors to the museum from those who simply visited the tourist information centre and shop, and questioned whether the figures were accurate. Mrs Hotchkiss (Head of Commercial Services) explained that there was an infra-red counter on the door of the museum and those going beyond the front desk were counted as visitors to the museum. The figures (LPI 220) for users of tourism services included telephone, email, website and letter as well as personal visitors. Mrs Dignum added that, from her experience as a volunteer, the museum staff were vigilant and there were a surprising number of tourism enquiries. The museum’s finances would be enhanced by provision of a proper café.

Mr Oakley pointed out that the report on Planning Enforcement (page 17 of the report) gave no figures for the previous year and so comparisons were not possible. Mrs Apel reminded the Council that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had reviewed planning enforcement about a year ago and had noted a considerable improvement in performance at that time.

RESOLVED

That the Annual Report 2014-15 be approved.

Note: The full draft IBP is available in colour on the Council’s website; a black and white version, without appendices, is printed for members of the Council.

RECOMMENDED

That the Council’s first draft Infrastructure Business Plan 2016/2021 be approved for consultation with West Sussex County Council, neighbouring district councils, City, town and parish councils, and key infrastructure delivery commissioners for a period of six weeks from 1 October to 12 November 2015.

The Council received the draft Infrastructure Business Plan (IBP) (copy attached to the official minutes). Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning), seconded by Mr Dignum, moved the recommendations of the Cabinet.

She explained that the IBP was reliant on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) being in place by the end of 2015, and its assumptions had been made on the basis that the rates would remain as submitted for Examination. The CIL Charging Schedule was still at the Examination stage. It was unlikely that the Examiner would issue his report before the end of September 2015, and thus it was unlikely that the CIL would be adopted before October 2015.

This was the first time that the Council had prepared a Draft Infrastructure Business Plan. Its purposes were:-

·       to ensure that infrastructure was delivered in time to support the development identified in the Local Plan;

·       to ensure the CIL was spent to best effect

·       to select the priority for projects to be funded.

·       to identify infrastructure that will be funded from S106 and other sources besides the CIL.

The draft IBP concentrated on the projects that needed to be funded during the first five years from 2016 to 2021, particularly those that were to be funded from CIL.

The IBP would be a ‘living’ document and would be rolled forward and updated each year to reflect funding availability, development delivery rates and revised infrastructure requirements.

If approved by the Council, the draft document would be subject to six weeks consultation with stakeholders from 1 October to 12 November 2015. Their comments and any modifications would be reported back to the Joint Member Liaison Group on 2 December, then to the Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel (DPIP) for consideration on 14 January, before going to Cabinet for approval on 2 February 2016, and Council on 8 March 2016 for budget and CIL allocation approval.

Mrs Taylor explained that the table at paragraph 1.18 was the most important part of the IBP. This showed which projects had been shortlisted for CIL funding in each of the five years. The remaining balance was rolled forward into the following year.

The rest of the IBP set out the methodology for identifying the projects to be funded from CIL and the long list of projects put forward by others. There was a relatively small amount of money to begin with, but parish councils would also have a proportion of CIL that could be spent on smaller projects.

The DPIP had expressed concerns about funding the Smarter Choices infrastructure items that related to behaviour change in order to encourage modal switch away from reliance on the private car. Instead, the DPIP would prefer the money to be spent on hard engineering projects such as new cycling infrastructure, or a combination of Smarter Choices to follow on from the harder measures.

The Joint Member Liaison Group had met on 4 September to discuss the spending plans and had agreed that West Sussex County Council (WSCC)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

RECOMMENDED

That £186,300 be released from capital reserves, to fund the upgrade of the heating and ventilation plant including associated costs and fees.

Mr Finch (Cabinet Member for Support Services), seconded by Mrs Keegan, moved the recommendations of the Cabinet. He drew attention to the Project Initiation Document (PID) that had been approved by the Cabinet on 8 September 2015, and explained why the Cabinet had recommended the Council to approve funding of £186,300 from reserves.

The south wing of East Pallant House accommodated the Revenues and Benefits team on the ground floor and the Planning team on the first floor. The staff had very uncomfortable working conditions due to draughts. The heating and ventilation plant serving the south wing had been installed in 1983. The installation had been substantially modified in the mid 90’s and again in 2007 and it had been hoped that it would continue until the 2020’s. However, because of problems with the original design this was unsustainable, and action was needed to provide comfortable working conditions and improved flexibility in use of space.

The options, described in the PID, were to do nothing, but this would not address the serious problems; option 1 which would be a cheaper alternative but would deal only with part of the problem and not provide additional flexibility; and the preferred option 2, which would address the limitations of the original design and provide a small energy saving. If approved it was intended to make the improvements over the next six months.

RESOLVED

That £186,300 be released from capital reserves, to fund the upgrade of the heating and ventilation plant including associated costs and fees.

RECOMMENDED

(1)  That the revised Safeguarding Policy be approved.

(2)  That the Head of Community Services be authorised to approve minor amendments to the Policy in line with local working arrangements.

The Council received the draft revised Safeguarding Policy (copy attached to the official minutes). Mrs Lintill (Cabinet Member for Community Services), seconded by Mr Dignum, moved the recommendations of the Cabinet. She explained that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had assessed the Council’s Safeguarding Policy in 2013, as a result of which a new combined policy covering children and vulnerable adults had been introduced, relevant to the roles and responsibilities of this Council. The introduction of the Care Act 2014, with obligations for local authorities with effect from April 2015, and national guidance including “Working Together” had now prompted a review of the existing policy. The new policy had to be compliant with the county-wide policies.

The principal changes were described in paragraph 5.2 of the Cabinet report, and the revised Policy was more succinct. She asked all members and staff to ensure that they understood their responsibilities.

Mr Shaxson asked for guidance on circumstances where members should seek Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. Mrs Lintill replied that this would be unusual but depended on a member’s activity, and promised written advice. Mr Lloyd-Williams drew attention to the section on radicalisation and asked about training for staff and members, given the need for safeguarding against extreme violence. The Chief Executive explained that the Council would be working with WSCC to train all staff, and could offer child protection training to members, if required.

RESOLVED

(1)  That the revised Safeguarding Policy be approved.

(2)  That the Head of Community Services be authorised to approve minor amendments to the Policy in line with local working arrangements.

After debate at its meeting on 8 September 2015, the Cabinet expressed a preference for webcasting, but agreed to ask the Council which of the options for audio recording or web-casting of key committee meetings should be implemented for a one year pilot. The views of the Council will be reported to the Cabinet for decision at its meeting on 8 October 2015.

The Council received the report circulated with the agenda (copy attached to the official minutes). Mr Finch (Cabinet Member for Support Services) introduced the debate, and explained that having debated the matter at its meeting on 8 September 2015, the Cabinet had expressed a preference for webcasting, but had agreed to ask the Council which of the options for audio recording or web-casting of key committee meetings should be implemented for a one year pilot. The views of the Council would be reported to the Cabinet for decision at its meeting on 8 October 2015. He re-iterated that the Council needed to consider the issues of the transparency of local democracy and the costs to the public purse and drew attention to the costs of a one year trial, being £3,900 for audio recording only and £22,238 for full web-casting.

Mrs Dignum expressed a preference to proceed with publication of audio recording only. She believed that costs of web-casting had been under-stated and the longer term cost of £70,000-£80,000 if continued after the trial period needed to be taken into account. She felt that the viewing figures of West Sussex County Council’s (WSCC) webcasts were derisory. Whilst understanding the need for transparency she had never had a request for this in her time as a councillor and believed local residents had higher priorities for public spending, such as community wardens.

Mr Shaxson believed that, whether published or not, the Council should make and keep an audio record of meetings, in case of subsequent challenge or complaint. He accepted that there could be a case for web-casting highly controversial debates on a one-off basis, but was suspicious of the viewing figures in view of the impact on them of viewing by officers and members.

Mr Oakley commented that the questions were whether the Council needed to record meetings and whether there was a demand from residents. He agreed with Mr Shaxson that an audio record should be made and kept. He believed that publication of an audio-recording would instil improved discipline in proceedings, whereas video-recording might encourage performance. Although he appreciated the costs per resident were relatively low, he felt there was no public demand and that public money should not be spent on lofty, idealistic nice-to-haves.

Mr Connor agreed with Mr Shaxson that an audio-record of proceedings should be kept. However, he felt that the Council should take a cautious approach in view of the current financial outlook. He doubted whether the costs over the long term could be justified by the demand. Having consulted members of the Selsey Town Council he was broadly in favour of web-casting, but felt that the Council should not proceed with it until the financial situation improved.

Mrs Purnell agreed that the full cost, not just the cost of a trial, should be considered.

Mr Plowman agreed that it was a question of timing. Local business people would not support this at present.

Mr Hobbs felt that the speed of technological change meant that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

As recommended by the Standards Committee at its meeting on 10 September 2015,

RECOMMENDED

That the Council’s Arrangements for Dealing with Standards Allegations under the Localism Act 2011 be amended as shown in the appendix to this report and that the Monitoring Officer is given all delegated powers specified therein.

The Council received the draft revised Arrangements for Dealing with Standards Allegations under the Localism Act 2011 (copy attached to the official minutes). Mrs Hardwick (Chairman of the Standards Committee), seconded by Mrs Apel, moved the recommendation of the Standards Committee. She reminded the Council that, as required by the Localism Act 2011, the Council had approved its Code of Conduct for members and also had published arrangements for dealing with allegations that district and parish councillors had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct. Since 2012, there had been 23 complaints; eight of these had proceeded to the Assessment Sub-Committee and one to a formal investigation and a hearing. However, fifteen cases were discontinued by the Monitoring Officer without reference to the Assessment Sub-Committee. In eight of these cases, she had determined that they did not relate to a code of conduct matter at all, but were rather a challenge to an expression of fact or opinion during a debate. In the remaining seven she had consulted one of the Council’s two independent persons before informing the complainants that referral to the Assessment Sub-Committee was not justified.

The Standards Committee now proposed amendments to the published arrangements to formalise this process of validation, and some other minor amendments.

RESOLVED

That the Council’s Arrangements for Dealing with Standards Allegations under the Localism Act 2011 be amended as shown in the report circulated with the agenda and that the Monitoring Officer is given all delegated powers specified therein.

(maximum of 40 minutes duration)

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

(a)  Question: Chichester Court House

Mrs Apel asked the Cabinet whether they had any thoughts about the proposed closure of Chichester Court House.

Response:

Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council) replied that the Court House was owned by the Ministry of Justice. An objection to its closure would be submitted on the Council’s behalf. If the Court House was closed the future of the property would be considered by the Chichester Vision group, along with other buildings in the Southern Gateway area.

Mrs Hardwick (Cabinet Member for Finance and Governance) read the gist of the soon-to-be submitted response, as follows:-

"The Council is aware of and grateful for the consultation response prepared by Chichester Pallant Barristers’ chambers on behalf of the local legal service providers.  The Council notes the content of that consultation and supports those representations.  The following issues are submitted further to and in addition to those commendable representations by the local lawyers.

“The County Council estimates show that growth of population within this District will be 10% over the next decade.  In addition the Council notes that Chichester is the only University town in West Sussex and also has a significant element of the population who are temporary workers in the agricultural industry who tend to be drawn from younger age groups.  As such it is anticipated that much of the growth of population in this part of West Sussex will be in the younger age bracket unlike other areas.  The Council notes the Office for National Statistics information on crime would suggest that younger people are disproportionately likely to be the victims of crime. 

“The Council also notes that Chichester is a “hub” for legal services with a large number of large, medium and small sized legal firms accumulated here.  This local network provides significant benefits to the area and mutual efficiencies to the population and businesses operating in the area.  Any closure of the Courts in the District is likely to have a significant impact on the legal companies and their operations.  Closures may also have a significant impact in that those businesses (and other firms who provide support services to them) may close or transfer to other locations.  The advantages of this service element of the economy, and many other businesses which rely upon them, is significant to the economic social and cultural capacity of this area and has been a focus for local business development by Local Authorities in the area.

“Further the Council notes the issue of travel to other Courts and the impact it has upon enforcing bodies, witnesses and defendants.  Current indications are that civil claims will be heard in Hastings and Brighton (a distance of over 2 hours each way by train), and criminal matters at Worthing (a distance of over 1 hour each way by train).  Taking into account that many people living outside Chichester but in the district need to travel by bus or car  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

At its meeting on 8 September, the Cabinet resolved that, as a matter of urgency, the following persons are appointed to form the Council’s Independent Remuneration Panel and Parish Remuneration Panel:

Mr Michael Bevis

Mr John Pressdee

Mr John Thompson

A full report on the circumstances is attached.

The Council noted the report circulated with the agenda (copy attached to the official minutes) to the effect that, at its meeting on 8 September, the Cabinet had resolved that, as a matter of urgency, the following persons are appointed to form the Council’s Independent Remuneration Panel and Parish Remuneration Panel:

Mr Michael Bevis

Mr John Pressdee

Mr John Thompson

There are no restricted items for consideration at this meeting.

The press and public were not excluded for any part of the meeting.