Agenda and minutes

After an initial welcome by the Chairman, the Council will be asked to approve as a correct record the attached minutes of (a) its ordinary meeting on Tuesday 19 September 2017 and (b) its special meeting on Wednesday 27 September 2017.

The Chairman welcomed everyone present to this final Council meeting of 2017 and explained the emergency evacuation procedure.

There were two sets of minutes for approval: the ordinary meeting on 19 September 2017 and the special meeting on 27 September 2017.

The Council formally received those two sets of minutes, both of which had been circulated with the agenda papers.

There were no proposed changes to either set of minutes. 

It was noted, however, that Mr Brown was a member of Southbourne Parish Council and ought, therefore, to have been included in the list of members who were making a declaration of interest in para 240 of the minutes of 19 September 2017 ordinary meeting.

Decision

The Council voted unanimously on a show of hands to make the two resolutions below.

RESOLVED

(1)  That the minutes of the Council’s ordinary meeting on Tuesday 19 September 2017 be approved without amendment.

(2)  That the minutes of the Council’s special meeting on Wednesday 27 September 2017 be approved without amendment.

After each resolution was made Mrs Hamilton then duly signed and dated respectively as a correct record the final (eleventh) page of the official version of the minutes in (1) and the final (twelfth) page of the official version of the minutes in (2).

[Note This para and paras 265 to 276 below summarise the consideration of and conclusion to agenda items 1 to 13 inclusive. For full details of the matters summarised in paras 264 to 270 only please refer to the audio recording facility via the link below. However, for technical reasons the audio recording for this meeting shortly before the making of the resolution at the end of agenda item 7 (Determination of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme 2018-2019) and does not resume thereafter.]

http://chichester.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=132&MId=923&Ver=4 ]

The Chairman will announce any late items which are to be dealt with under agenda item 12 (Late Items).

There were no late items under agenda item 12 for consideration at this meeting.

Members and officers are requested to make any declarations of disclosable pecuniary, personal and/or prejudicial interests which they might have in respect of matters on the agenda for this meeting.

Declarations of personal interests were made in respect of agenda item 6

(Southern Gateway Masterplan - Adoption) by the undermentioned who were members of West Sussex County Council, which was a partner with Chichester District Council in the Southern Gateway project:

(1)  Mrs Duncton

(2)  Mr Oakley

(3)  Mrs Purnell

[Note Hereafter in these minutes Chichester District Council is denoted by CDC]

Apologies for absence will be notified at this point.

The Chairman will make any specific announcements.

Mrs Hamilton mentioned the following apologies for absence:

Mr Barrett, Mr Barrow, Mrs Keegan and Mr Ridd.

All other CDC members were present.

Mrs Hamilton made the following announcements:

(1) Local Government Association’s Our Day Twitter Campaign

The date of this meeting coincided with the Local Government Association’s Our Day Twitter campaign which was an opportunity for local authorities to promote during the day via Twitter their activities. Rehannah Oozeerally (Public Relations Officer) was present to take photographs of the Council in session for publication on Twitter.

  (2) New Exhibition at The Novium

Having recently viewed the Cutlasses and Contraband – A Smuggling Story exhibition at The Novium, Mrs Hamilton praised this excellent new event. She encouraged all members to make every effort to visit The Novium to learn about the fascinating history of the Chichester District coastline.   

In accordance with Chichester District Council’s public questions scheme and with reference to standing order 6 in Part 4 A and section 5.6 in Part 5 of the Chichester District Council Constitution, consideration will be given at this point in the meeting to questions which have been submitted by members of the public in writing by 12:00 on the previous working day. The time allocated for public question time is subject to the chairman’s discretion to extend the period for each member of the public (five minutes) or the total time for public questions (15 minutes).

Mrs Hamilton said that four public questions had been received (the text of each of which had been circulated immediately prior to the start of this meeting) and she invited each person in turn to  read out his question before a response was given by Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services).

The questions (with the date of submission in [ ]) and the answers are set out below. 

Question (1) by Mr Martin Winch

‘Vision. Perhaps an over-used word which raises expectations? Not when it comes to successful regeneration. There are countless examples of projects where, with vision, areas have been transformed. From mega-projects like London Docklands to the regeneration of declining market towns, vision is the ingredient which creates the difference.

Commitment, confidence and creativity are also needed, alongside the practical need to secure funding. And master-planning is where it should all start. Creating a viable and visionary masterplan which can inspire communities and deliver both social and economic value. Public and private sector investors should see a tangible return. Key stakeholders want to manage risk. Communities want to see action and deliverables.

So how does this all relate to the Southern Gateway Regeneration in Chichester? For anyone who has managed to plough through over 300 pages of the master planning report prepared by the District Council’s appointed consultants, it can be summarised in one word. Frustration. Not just in the lack of commitment shown to effective public consultation, where the report should have invited comment and debate. Not even in the fact that the masterplan has cost over £200,000 to produce. No, the real frustration is in its conclusions.

For anyone living in the Manhood Peninsular and attempting to reach the centre of Chichester, those dreaded flashing lights at the level crossings, cause a similar frustration. And, with over 20,000 working days lost each year, local people expected a report which, at the very least, explored the option of closing the crossings. Whether a tunnel or a bridge, this surely deserved further evaluation within the costly master planning study?

Apparently not. All of which led us, two local people living in Birdham, to respond. Encouraged by a presentation to Councillors in the summer, the Freeflow concept entered the public realm. And that is where we still are. It is only a concept, but one which is at least being debated. Whether through the media or at a public meeting, people are being engaged to discuss the merits or otherwise of Freeflow.

Freeflow may or may not be viable but one thing it is not lacking is vision. When Chichester Vision was adopted by the Council on 25 July, we were told by the Council Leader no less that it “looks at what untapped opportunities there are in the City”. Well the Southern Gateway is an untapped opportunity and deserves a lot more vision than shown to date. Do the Council really believe that the recommended masterplan shows the vision required to unlock the potential without removing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The report is at item 7 of the agenda for the Cabinet’s meeting on Tuesday 7 November 2017 and its five appendices are in the first agenda supplement.

The Cabinet made the following recommendations to the Council at this meeting:

That the Council:

(a)   Approves the recommended responses to the representations made as part of the public consultation on the draft masterplan (set out in appendix 1 to the agenda report).

(b)   Adopts the Southern Gateway Masterplan (set out in appendix 2 to the agenda report) as a Supplementary Planning Document, thereby replacing the existing Southern Gateway Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Guidance 2001.

(c)   Delegates authority to the Head of Planning Services, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning Services, to make minor amendments to the document prior to publication.

The Council considered the recommendation made to it by the Cabinet at its meeting on Tuesday 7 November 2017 as set out on the face of the agenda, the details in respect of which were contained in the report on pages 21 to 28 of the Cabinet agenda and in its five appendices on pages 53 to 242 of the first agenda supplement for that meeting.  

Mr Dignum (Leader of the Cabinet) formally moved the recommendation of the Cabinet and this was seconded by Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services). 

Mr Dignum provided a detailed introduction. He explained the aim of the Southern Gateway Masterplan (SGM) project, which would be the largest regeneration scheme in the city in living memory and was jointly backed by the three main partners: West Sussex County Council (WSCC), CDC and the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA). He summarised what the SGM area was expected to provide once fully developed. In order to commence the project a masterplan for the whole area was required and its detailedproposals would help to achieve the aims of the already approvedChichester Vision.Part of the SGM brief was to explore options for reducing traffic congestion and improving safety at the Southgate Gyratory. Once adopted the SGM would have the status of a supplementary planning document, which meant that it would possess significant weight inthe planning process as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and would provide a degree of certainty for potential developers. He addressed the case put by the Freeflow group for a bridge in place of the city’s two level crossings and listed the five main reasons given by the consultants for rejecting the feasibility of any kind of bridge, which equally applied he said to the Freeflow 2 proposal. There would also be additional viability issues as more land would be given over to highway, third party land would have to be acquired and the land available for development further reduced, and the amenities of nearby residents would be adversely affected. A planning application for a bridge would be most unlikely to succeed. The Freeflow proposals, if investigated, were very likely to demonstrate that by making access over the railway easier it would encourage an increase in traffic using and travelling through the city centre, which would have significant adverse traffic and environmental consequences for the city centre and the quality of life for those lived, worked and visited the city. This would conflict with the principles of the approved Chichester Vision which aimed to reduce city centre traffic. The proposed Freeflow bridge was not supported as a highways scheme by WSCC as highways authority. From all points of view a bridge was neither appropriate nor achievable nor affordable. If the SGM was not adopted at this meeting the prospect of securing the government funding needed to prepare some of the key sites for development would be prejudiced. This in turn would result in development in the area  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The report is at item 5 of the agenda for the Cabinet’s meeting on Tuesday 7 November 2017 and its three appendices are in the first agenda supplement.

The Cabinet made the following recommendation to the Council at this meeting:

That the proposed Council Tax Reduction Scheme for 2018-2019 be approved.

The Council considered the recommendation made to it by the Cabinet at its meeting on Tuesday 7 November 2017 as set out on the face of the Council agenda, the details in respect of which were contained in the Cabinet report on pages 8 to 12 and its three appendices on pages 1 to 52 of the agenda supplement for that meeting.  

Mrs Hardwick (Cabinet Member for Finance and Governance Services) formally moved the recommendation of the Cabinet and this was seconded by Mr Dignum (Leader of the Cabinet).

Mrs Hardwick said that CDC had maintained the same level of support for its communities under the Council Tax Reduction Scheme (CTRS) since the localisation of the CTRS for working age people in 2013. The full implementation of the roll out of Universal Credit (UC) would start in Chichester District in April 2018 and as a result CDC had undertaken a review of its CTRS in order to ensure it was up-to-date, well-targeted, minimised disincentives to work and provided the best value for money for the benefit of all tax payers. The revised CTRS would continue to provide the all-important safety net for those on low incomes and retain important protections for war widows’ and widowers’ pensions and war disablement pensions and offer earned-income disregards and a taper for removing support. The main change was a proposed new Class F category for claimants in receipt of the new UC. By introducing banding, the administration would be simpler, more economic and as straightforward for the claimants as possible. The consultation on the review had received broad support. The major financial impact of the CTRS was the resulting deduction from the tax base. In the 2017-2018 financial year the scheme was costing in the order of £6.9m overall in terms of tax base deductions having remained fairly constant since the local scheme’s introduction in 2013.  It was recognised that wider economic downturns and welfare reform might raise CTR demand. The cost of the local CTR was shared by all the precepting authorities. CDC’s share was approximately 9% with the rest being funded by West Sussex County Council, Sussex Police and parish councils. The revised scheme had to be approves by the Council by 31 January 2018. She acknowledged the work done by Mrs M Rogers (Benefits Manager) on the CTRS.

Mrs Hardwick, Mr Dignum, Mrs Rogers and Mr Ward (Head of Finance and Governance Services) responded to members’ questions and comments on points of detail such as (a) what impact, if any, the proposed changes to the scheme and the consequent effect on the council tax base of customers joining or leaving the CTR scheme might have on parish councils; (b) whether housing associations had been involved in the consultation, since their tenants were likely to be recipients of the CTRS (a question raised at the Cabinet earlier in the month and subsequently answered by Mrs Rogers); (c) clarification of paras 9.2 and 9.3 in the community impact and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The report is at item 6 of the agenda for the Cabinet’s meeting on Tuesday 7 November 2017 with its appendix.

The Cabinet made the following recommendation to the Council at this meeting:

That the Non-Domestic Rate Discretionary Scheme for 2017-2021 as set out in the appendix to the agenda report be approved.

The Council considered the recommendation made to it by the Cabinet at its meeting on Tuesday 7 November 2017 as set out on the face of the Council agenda, the details in respect of which were contained in the Cabinet report and its appendix on pages 13 to 20 of the Cabinet papers for that meeting.  

Mrs Lintill (Cabinet Member for Community Services) formally moved the recommendation of the Cabinet and this was seconded by Mr Dignum (Leader of the Cabinet).

Mrs Lintill summarised section 3 of the report, which set out the background details of the national discretionary fund of £300m over four years which had been established by the government in March 2017 to provide assistance to businesses facing non domestic rates (NDR) increases as a result of the 2017 revaluation. CDC’s total allocation for the four years 2017-2018 to 2020-2021 was £786,000. The details of how the scheme would operate to benefit eligible businesses over the four-year period and the conditions for remaining entitled were set out in section 3 of the report. Any surplus from 2017-2018 would have to be returned to the government. This local scheme would complement the national scheme by reducing further the increased limits set by the government. The consultation details were set out in section 8 of the report. Immense gratitude was due to Mr Jobson for his hard work in devising this scheme.

The following decision was made by the Council.

Decision

The Council voted with respect to the recommendation made to it by the Cabinet and on a show of hands it was in favour of making the resolution set out below, with no votes against and one abstention.

RESOLVED

That the Non-Domestic Rates Discretionary Scheme for 2017-2021 as set out in the appendix to the Cabinet agenda report be approved.

In accordance with a recommendation made by the Corporate Governance and Audit Committee at its meeting on Thursday 28 September 2017, the Council is requested to resolve to note the annual report of the Corporate Governance and Audit Committee on Chichester District Council’s governance arrangements and the Annual Governance Statement 2016-2017 appended thereto.

The Council received the recommendation made to it by the Corporate Governance and Audit Committee (CGAC) at its meeting on Tuesday 28 September 2017 as set out on the face of the Council agenda, the details in respect of which were contained in the CGAC annual report and the Annual Governance Statement 2016-2017 appended to it which were circulated with the Council agenda.

Mrs Hamilton pointed out that this item was purely for noting by the Council.  

Mrs Tull (Chairman of the CGAC) formally moved the CGAC’s recommendation of the Cabinet and this was seconded by Mrs Kilby (Cabinet Member for Housing Services).

Mrs Tull summarised the CGAC’s annual report with particular reference to (a) the three highest risks identified in CDC’s Corporate Risk Register, namely (i) business continuity, (ii) cyber attack across the entire estate and (iii) non-achievement of the 50% recycling target by 2020 and (b) the seven principles of good governance, which were summarised in the report and set out in greater detail in the annual governance statement.  

On behalf of the Council Mrs Hamilton confirmed that the annual report of the CGAC on CDC’s governance arrangement and the Annual Governance Statement 2016-2017 appended to it were formally noted.

The Council is requested to consider the agenda report and its two appendices and to resolve to note the intention of the Chief Executive to use the power conferred by Article 10.2 (a) in Part 2 of the Constitution of Chichester District Council to discharge certain litter enforcement functions to East Hampshire District Council under powers granted to local authorities under section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972.

[Note Article 10.2 (a) of Chichester District Council’s Constitution provides as follows:

‘10.2  Functions of the head of paid service (the Chief Executive)

(a) Discharge of functions by the Council. The head of paid service will report to full Council on the manner in which the discharge of the Council’s functions is co-ordinated, the number and grade of officers required for the discharge of functions and the organisation of officers.’ ]

The purpose of the report and its two appendices for this item was for the Council to note that the Chief Executive had used the power conferred on her by Article 10.2 (a) in Part 2 of CDC’s Constitution to discharge certain litter enforcement functions to East Hampshire District Council under powers granted to local authorities by section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972.

Mrs Shepherd summarised the report for members’ information.

On behalf of the Council Mrs Hamilton confirmed it was duly noted by the Council that the Chief Executive had used the power conferred on her by Article 10.2 (a) in Part 2 of CDC’s Constitution to discharge certain litter enforcement functions to East Hampshire District Council under powers granted to local authorities by section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972. 

[Note In accordance with Standing Order 14.11 of Chichester District Council’s Constitution, this item is allocated a maximum duration of 40 minutes]

The questions asked by members and the responses given were as follows:

Question by Mr Lloyd-Williams: Decision by the Chief Executive to Transfer Certain Litter Enforcement Functions to East Hampshire District Council

Mr Lloyd-Williams asked why this decision had been taken and what cost, if any, there would be to CDC. 

Response by Mrs Lintill  

Mrs Lintill (Cabinet Member for Community Services) explained that East Hampshire District Council had been operating a very successful scheme in its own area and for Arun District Council and that it had invited CDC to engage its services. This had been approved by the Cabinet on a one-year trial basis without cost to CDC.     

Question by Mrs Plant: Recent Planning Appeal Decisions and Chichester District Council’s Five-Year Housing Supply Position

Mrs Plant asked about two recently allowed planning appeal decisions which would have far-reaching implications for the whole of Chichester District's plan area. She mentioned in particular the more recent of the appeal decision letters which referred specifically to para 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework, namely '...that when the five-year housing supply cannot be demonstrated, the decision reverts to para 14 on the presumption of sustainable development, unless the adverse impacts effects outweigh the benefits....'. She asked what positive action was being taken by CDC to speed up the five-year housing land supply (FYHLS) and thereby to minimise the potential impact of those local appeal decisions on the wider community.   

Response by Mrs Taylor

Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services) said that there were sufficient sites which had been identified in the Chichester Local Plan and which were being granted planning permission to maintain CDC’s FYHLS. CDC faced two problems at planning appeals: (a) some sites were taking longer to come forward due to various constraints eg land ownership (such as in the case of the Tangmere strategic development location site) or complex infrastructure requirements and (b) slow build-rates which could be affected by a variety of factors including the economy. Officers were currently reviewing the expected build-rates.  

Question by Mr Ransley: Chichester District Council’s Five-Year Housing Supply Position

Mr Ransley asked whether CDC’s five-year housing land supply (FYHLS) was viable and also if the policies in the Chichester Local Plan were capable of implementation.   

Response by Mrs Taylor

Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services) said that as far as CDC was concerned, it had at the time of the planning appeals and continued to have a FYHLS.

Question by Mr Brown: Southbourne Neighbourhood Development Plan  

Mr Brown said that many Southbourne residents were asking where the village’s neighbourhood development plan (NDP) now stood following the appeal decision with respect to SB/16/03569/OUT - Land East of Breach Avenue Southbourne. He wished to know (a) what response was being considered regarding that decision, (b) whether the decision had implications for other NDPs in Chichester District and (c) what might be done to strengthen NDPs and residents’ faith in them. He expressed his gratitude to Mrs R Jones and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

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

Items which the chairman has agreed should be taken as matters of urgency by reason of special circumstances to be reported at the meeting and recorded in the minutes.

There were no late items for consideration at this meeting.

There are no restricted items for consideration at this meeting.

There were no restricted Part II items for consideration at this meeting.