Chichester District Council
Agenda and minutes

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Committee Rooms, East Pallant House. View directions

Contact: Bambi Jones on 01243 534685  Email:  bjones@chichester.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

171.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 169 KB

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on Tuesday 22 November 2016.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chairman welcomed all to the meeting including Mr J Brown, newly elected member for Southbourne ward.

 

Apologies had been received from Mr Jarvis and Mrs Knightley.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 22 November 2016 be signed as a correct record.

 

172.

Urgent Items

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

Minutes:

There were no urgent items for consideration at this meeting.

 

173.

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:

The Chairman advised that the monitoring officer had granted a dispensation to all members in respect of agenda item 8 A27 Chichester Bypass Improvement Scheme Consultation, saying:

 

“This is a matter where a dispensation has been granted by the monitoring officer after a great deal of consideration and following consultation with myself. The dispensation means that there is no need for any member to make a declaration in this matter but then an obligation is placed on each member to vote considering this matter purely from the evidence before them today. I know we have debated this before and many of you have strong initial opinions, but this is really a case where we should remember we are District Councillors and should put the interests of the DISTRICT first, what is best for transparency, the economy, traffic growth, and best use of public money in the long term.“

 

The following members declared interests in respect of agenda item 13 Cultural Grants:

 

·         Mrs Tull declared a pecuniary interest in respect of her role as the Council’s representative on Chichester Festival Theatre

·         Mrs C Apel, Mrs P Hardwick, Mr M Dunn, Mrs N Graves, Mrs J Kilby, Mrs P Plant and Mr T Dignum declared a personal interest as they were ‘friends’ of the theatre.

·         Mrs Taylor declared a personal interest as a member of the commissioning circle of the theatre.

·         Mrs J Kilby declared a personal interest as a minor donor to the theatre.

 

174.

Chairman's announcements

Minutes:

The Chairman advised that neither she nor the Vice-Chairman had attended any events since the start of the New Year.

 

She invited Mr Ridd, Chairman of the Boundary Review Panel, to give a statement on the outcome of the electoral review of Chichester District published by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England on 6 December 2016 (copy attached to the official minutes).

 

175.

Public Question Time

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

Minutes:

The Leader advised the Council that a number of representations and questions had been received in respect of agenda item A27 Chichester Bypass Improvement Scheme.

 

He gave a brief description of the three representations received from Ms L Boize, Lavant Parish Council and Mr N Reynolds.

 

Five questions had been received from Mr A Tuffin, Mrs H McDougall, Ms Z Neal, Mr B Kirk and Mr W P Harding.  Responses had been provided to these questions and hard copies of the questions and responses had been made available for members and for members of the public. He therefore proposed to take the questions as read but read out his responses (copy attached to the official minutes).

 

176.

Financial Strategy and Plan 2017/18

(See report at agenda item 5 (pages 15 to 23) of the Cabinet agenda of 6 December 2016 and pages 1 to 10 of the supplement to the agenda)

RECOMMENDED BY THE CABINET

That the Council:

1)          Approves the key financial principles and actions of the five-year financial strategy set out in appendix 1 to the agenda report.

2)          Notes the current five-year Financial Model in appendix 2 to the agenda report.

3)          Approves the setting of a minimum level of general fund reserves, having considered the recommendations from the Corporate Governance and Audit Committee.

4)          Approves the continuing participation by Chichester District Council in a West Sussex NDR pool for 2017-2018.

5)          Notes the current resources as set out in appendix 3 to the agenda report.

Minutes:

Mrs Hardwick (Cabinet Member for Finance & Governance Services), seconded by Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council), moved these recommendations to the Council.

 

Mrs Hardwick introduced the report, saying that the strategy and plan had been updated for the next five years from 2017-18 and set the scene for the Council’s forthcoming budget in February and the setting of Council tax in March.  The backdrop to this strategy was the continuing challenging economic climate in which we continued to operate, the autumn statement and our own four year settlement with central Government.  The Council’s current model assumed an increase in Council Tax of £5 for 2017-18.

 

The five year financial model reflected the four year Government settlement and the most up to date estimates for the wider council activities including the Programme Boards and other planned savings totalling £3.9m as agreed by Cabinet and Council in the September 2016 Deficit Reduction report.

 

Mrs Hardwick highlighted an amendment to recommendation 3 which should read:

 

That having considered the recommendations from the Corporate Governance and Audit Committee that the minimum level of general fund reserves should be maintained at £5m.

 

She thanked Mr Ward and officers in the finance team for pulling together this strategy and for their continuing hard work and diligence in what were undoubtedly particularly challenging times for local authority finance.

 

Mr Oakley queried the Cabinet’s confidence in achieving the planned levels of savings and asked whether the financial strategy made provision for continuation of the cultural grants out of revenue and if so by what figure and by what means it was covered i.e. by council tax rises and/or by diversion from other spending areas.  He was concerned that the Council may be prejudging any debate on cultural grants by their inclusion in the strategy.

 

Mrs Shepherd (Chief Executive) responded saying that the cultural grants report was a confidential Part 2 item for later in the agenda.  It was not possible to divulge that information as the discussion had not yet been held.

 

 

Mrs Hardwick stated that some figures on cultural grants were covered in the models.  The Council was seeking to maximise its returns on reserves.  There was a plan to continue to seek savings from support services by implementing internal changes.  Her colleagues on the Cabinet had confidence that savings identified would be achieved but it would not be easy.  She reminded members that revenue income, such as car parking, was used to deliver council services.

 

Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council) assured the Council that the Cabinet was determined to achieve the identified savings. He commended the Financial Strategy as an extremely prudent one, looking five years ahead, which was the reason this Council was solvent.

 

Mrs Shepherd (Chief Executive) reminded members that they were being asked to agree the principles of the Financial Strategy. The Council’s budget would be coming to Cabinet for consideration in February and on to Council in March 2017.  The decisions the Council made today would feed into that budget.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 176.

177.

Southern Gateway

(See report at agenda item 5 (pages 15 to 19) of the Cabinet agenda of 10 January 2017)

RECOMMENDED BY THE CABINET

That the Council allocates £75,000 capital reserves to fund specialist consultancy support for the implementation of the Southern Gateway project.

Minutes:

Mrs Keegan (Cabinet Member for Commercial Services), seconded by Mrs Lintill, moved these recommendations to the Council.

 

Mrs Keegan introduced the report, saying that this report sought approval to fund specialist consultancy support in preparation for the Southern Gateway project, to enable expertise in the processes required for this project, to prepare a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) strategy if required and to prepare the project initiation document (PID).

 

The Southern Gateway masterplan would take into account the highways input and also form the basis for an application for funding to the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP).

 

Mrs Apel, Mr Brown and Mrs Westacott sought support from the Council in respect of retaining the County Court in Chichester.

 

Mrs Tull, having been the Chairman of the Southern Gateway Panel 20 years ago, was in support and keen to see the project progressed, however she thought the Council should have a discussion about the judicial processes in the town.  Mr Dunn also suggested keeping some form of court facility.

 

Mr Dignum advised that the Council had yet to receive the Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ) decision as to whether they wished to retain the courts or not.  If it was to retain the court, it would be included in the masterplan.  Mrs Shepherd, echoing Mr Dignum’s comments, advised that the Council had supported retaining the current provision in its response to the consultation, and if the MoJ wished to keep the court provision in Chichester then we would work with them to retain this in the masterplan.

 

Mr Hixson supported the scheme but requested the Cabinet to consider a delay of 12 months to the start of the project due to the cost of consultants and the difficulties experienced with highways and current building projects.  Mrs Shepherd did not recommend any delay to the project. She advised that the Council was working with partners including WSCC and the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) had funding in place. Having an approved masterplan and Vision would enable the Council to bid for future LEP funding, without these documents it is unlikely that LEP funding would be forthcoming. The scheme would deliver much needed housing to the district. The Traffic study being carried out at present should improve traffic flows for all modes of transport in the city. It was a real once in a lifetime opportunity to get it right.

 

Mr Plowman, agreeing with Mr Hixson, stated that if all the developments – A27 bypass, strategic sites, Southern Gateway, projects in the Vision – all materialised at the same time, the city would become a building site. He suggested looking carefully at timing and staging so as not to affect the economy and residents of Chichester. It was very important for Chichester to retain the magistrate’s court and should be a priority in the masterplan. Mrs Shepherd confirmed that it would be taken into account and WSCC would have a major say into the traffic management of the City to avoid it becoming gridlocked.

 

Mr Dignum  ...  view the full minutes text for item 177.

178.

A27 Chichester Bypass Improvement Scheme Consultation pdf icon PDF 47 KB

(See report at agenda item 13 (pages 2 to 6) of the supplement to the Cabinet agenda of 10 January 2016)

RECOMMENDED BY THE CABINET

That the Council requests the Secretary of State for Transport to instruct Highways England, first, to undertake a new consultation on improvements to the A27 around Chichester with an extended range of options including the two previously developed northern bypass options, and, second, to publish without delay the results of the consultation held between July and September 2016. 

 

 

Minutes:

Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council), seconded by Mrs Lintill, moved this recommendation to the Council.

 

Mr Dignum introduced this report (copy attached to the official minutes), stating that the Council at its meeting in September 2016, had previously given support to Option 2 on the basis that Highways England (HE) gave serious consideration to important mitigation measures. The Council had written to the Secretary of State (SoS) requesting him to provide a thorough and comprehensive justification for discounting the previously considered offline routes.  A response had been received from HE four months later, on 17 January 2017, and only one paragraph of the response referred to the dropping of the northern options.

 

The inadequate response from HE on the reasons for dropping the northern options left only one practical way of securing transparency and achieving a full and open comparison of all the options which was to request the SoS to rerun the consultation on a wider range of options.

 

He therefore asked the Council to agree to request the SoS for Transport to request HE, firstly, to undertake a new consultation on improvements to the A27 around Chichester with an extended range of options, including the two previously developed by-pass options and, secondly, to publish without delay the results of the consultation between July and September 2016.

 

Mr Dunn did not support the recommendation.  He was concerned that the recommendations from Cabinet were the wrong way round, and that HE should be requested to publish the consultation first to establish the result before asking for a re-run of the consultation.  He proposed an amendment to the recommendation:

 

To request HE to publish, without delay, the results of the consultation held between July and September 2016’.

 

He was seconded by Mr J F Elliott.  Discussion then took place on this amendment.

 

There was concern that if the consultation was published it could be subject to a judicial review and clarification was requested before going to the vote.  Mr Dignum advised that he had understood that once the proposed route was published it could not be retracted.

 

Mr Carvell drew attention to the statement in the penultimate paragraph of the HE letter which stated that they were on course to publish the results of the consultation.

 

Mr Ransley supported the amendment adding that the end of the sentence referred to by Mr Carvell stated ‘which will inform our preferred route announcement’.

 

Mrs Purnell did not support this amendment, saying that the publication went hand in hand with asking for a further consultation in the belief that there was no transparency in the first one.

 

Mr Hobbs stated that we had not yet had the level of transparency we were seeking from the SoS to satisfy our local communities.  In the interests of local democracy he had supported re-running the consultation as the only mechanism we had.  However, if greater transparency was able to be achieved with the publication of the results of the consultation, then he supported Mr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 178.

179.

Woolbeding with Redford Parish Council Boundary Review pdf icon PDF 64 KB

(See report considered by the Boundary Review Panel on 9 January 2016 attached)

RECOMMENDED BY THE BOUNDARY REVIEW PANEL

That a community governance review be undertaken with a view to reduce Woolbeding with Redford Parish Council from seven councillors to five.

Minutes:

Mr J Ridd, Chairman of the Boundary Review Panel, seconded by Mr M Cullen, moved this recommendation to the Council.

 

Mr Ridd introduced the report. Mrs Neville, as the ward councillor for Stedham which covers this ward, supported this recommendation.

 

On the recommendation being put to the vote, it was declared carried.

 

RESOLVED

 

That acommunity governancereview beundertaken witha viewto reduceWoolbeding with Redford ParishCouncil fromseven councillorsto five.

 

180.

Questions to the Executive

(maximum of 40 minutes duration)

Minutes:

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

 

a)      Question: air quality in Chichester

 

Mr Galloway had submitted a question in advance which was circulated at the meeting  as follows:

 

In view of growing concerns over air quality in parts of Chichester is the Cabinet member aware that in London there is an organisation supported by the Mayor called the London Low Emission Construction Partnership?  It promotes a reduction in emissions by pressing for diesel particulate filter equipment saying this can be fitted to almost any piece of machinery for on and off road use that uses a diesel engine.

 

When site preparation and building work starts on the Whitehouse Farm development due to the lack of a southern access, there will be a large number of construction vehicles using residential roads in the city and these will also pass a number of schools.  Among the roads involved will be Orchard Street where there have been concerns for some time over air pollution.

 

Will she ask the developers to follow the lead of the London Partnership and insist that construction vehicles involved in the Whitehouse Farm scheme are fitted with diesel particulate filters?

 

Response:

 

Officers considered the content of the Whitehouse Farm, Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) prior to the determination of the planning application and the draft is still subject to approval.  The draft conditions relevant to Councillor Galloway’s question are:

 

(d)  during school term time (as defined annually by the Local Education Authority for West Sussex) no HGV movements shall be made to or leave the site between the hours of 07.45-09.00 and 14.45-15.45.

 

(p)  measures to reduce air pollution during construction including  turning off vehicle engines when not in use, plant servicing, best endeavours to use EURO VI emission standard HGVs and transport reduction

 

The draft CEMP is intended to manage the air quality impact of the development phase both on and off-site. This includes not allowing HGV’s to travel to or from the site at school start and finish times so as to assist in road safety, traffic flow and avoiding exposure to related vehicle emissions (condition (d)). The CEMP also encourages the applicant to use best endeavours to procure Euro VI engine technology for construction haulage services (condition (p)).  Unlike similar emission tests for cars the Euro VI HGV engines are performing very well in real-world testing.  HGVs fitted with Euro VI engines have been available since 31 December 2013.  The final CEMP will be subject to discussion with CDC and we will push for the best CEMP possible using the draft as a start point.

 

Councillor Galloway’s question refers to the London Low Emission Construction Partnership. The retro-fitting of Diesel Particulate Filters (DPFs) to which the partnership refers is for on-site plant and not HGVs travelling to and from sites. Under the Euro engine standards new HGVs have mandatorily been fitted with DPFs since 2007. Given the location of the site it is not considered that the Council would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 180.

181.

Consideration of any late items

(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.

 

182.

Exclusion of the press and public

The Council is asked to consider in respect of the following item(s) 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. The reports dealt with under this part of the agenda are attached for members of the Council and senior officers only (salmon paper).

Minutes:

RESOLVED

 

That the public, including the press, be excluded from the meeting for the following items on the grounds that it is likely that there would be a disclosure to the public of ‘exempt information’ of the description specified in Paragraph 3 (information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)) of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 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.

 

183.

Cultural Grants - review of arrangements

(See report at agenda item 16 (pages 65 to 69) of the private Cabinet agenda of 6 December 2016 and pages 126 to 147 in the private supplement to the agenda)

 

RECOMMENDED BY THE CABINET

 

That the Council:

 

1)      Approves a grant as stated in para 6.1 (a) of the agenda report be offered to the Chichester Festival Theatre for four years commencing April 2018, subject to a funding agreement and confirmation of continued Arts Council England funding over that period.

2)      Approves a grant as stated in para 6.1 (b) of the agenda report be offered to the Pallant House Gallery for four years commencing April 2018, subject to a funding agreement and confirmation of continued Arts Council England funding over that period.

3)      Approves the Head of Community Services, following consultation with the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Community Services, being given delegated authority to agree the terms of the funding agreements including relevant break clauses.

4)      Notes that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee continues to monitor performance of these two organisations.

Minutes:

Mrs Lintill (Cabinet Member for Community Services), seconded by Mr Dignum, moved these recommendations to the Council.

 

Mrs Lintill introduced the report, saying that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had considered this issue fully at its meeting on 17 January 2017.  The Arts Council were seeing reductions in arts funding across the country averaging 25%.  The cultural grants were currently funded from reserves however, if agreed, it was proposed that these grants would form part of the base budget in future.  It was likely that if the Council did not give grant funding to these organisations that the Arts Council would not grant fund them either.

 

Recommendations one and two were to grant fund the theatre and gallery subject to Arts Council funding.  If the two organisations did not achieve Arts Council funding then the Council would be able to rescind its decision.  Performance against funding agreements at both organisations would continue to be monitored by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

 

Mrs P Dignum declared a prejudicial interest in this matter as a Trustee of Pallant House Gallery.  She was advised that she could remain in the room for the debate but may not vote.

 

Mr Oakley was not supportive as cultural grants were not part of central services.  Other contributors to the local economy like Bunn Leisure and Goodwood had not been supported in this same manner. He questioned the need to maintain an art collection and whether the Council had had legal advice about disposing of the art collection.  He wanted to see a reduction in cultural grant funding and questioned the increased incomes of the Festival Theatre’s chief officers.

 

Mr Hansford (Head of Community Services) had considered both sets of accounts. The Council’s representatives appointed to the boards of the theatre and gallery would be able to monitor the organisations’ decisions regarding their management structure and remuneration.  The return on investment had been established as £1:£80 for the theatre (every £1 of grant achieved £80 economic benefit to the district) and £1:£30 for the gallery (every £1 of grant achieved £30 of economic benefit to the district).

 

Mrs Kilby, Mr Plowman, Mrs Purnell, Mrs Dignum, Mrs Graves and Mrs Apel all supported the recommendation.

 

Mrs Dignum highlighted the national and international attraction of both the theatre and the gallery.  The huge successes of the “Outside-In” programme had resulted in the initiative becoming so famous that it was branching out as a separate charity.  The huge benefits to people on this programme meant less attendance at mental health clinics, which fitted with the Council’s priorities and support of wellbeing.

 

On being put to the vote, the Council

 

RESOLVED

 

1)          That a grant of £187,500 per annum be offeredto the ChichesterFestival Theatrefor fouryears commencingApril 2018,subject to afunding agreementand confirmationof continuedArts Council England fundingover thatperiod.

2)          That a grant of £130,000 be offeredto the PallantHouse Galleryfor fouryears commencingApril 2018, subjectto a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 183.

 

Top of page