Agenda and draft minutes

The Council is requested to approve as a correct record the minutes of its Budget meeting held on 27 February 2024.

In a vote the following resolution was agreed:

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Full Council meeting for the Budget held on 27 February 2024 be approved as a correct record.

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

There were no late items.

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.

6. Petition - Car Group Meeting at East Beach Car Park.

Donna Johnson, Other Registerable Interests (ORI), Cllr Donna Johnson declared an interest in agenda item 6 as Vice-Chair of Selsey Town Council.

6. Petition - Car Group Meeting at East Beach Car Park.

Timothy Johnson, Other Registerable Interests (ORI), Cllr Tim Johnson declared an interest in agenda item 6 as a member of Selsey Town Council.

13. Motion from Cllr Vivian.

John Cross, Other Registerable Interests (ORI), Cllr Cross declared a personal interest in agenda item 13.

Apologies for absence will be notified at this point.

The Chair will make any specific announcements.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Boulcott, Cllr Hastain, Cllr Hickson, Cllr Hobbs, Cllr Sharp and Cllr Weller.

Cllr Apel announced that she would be hosting a charity wine tasting event on 3 May 2024 for her Chairs charities.

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.

Cllr Apel explained that a third public question had been submitted but had not been excepted as it related to an ongoing planning matter.

The following public question and answers were received:

Question from Simon Lloyd- Williams:

Of the 19 shop fronts on West Street, between the Cross and Tower Street, 13 are empty. Most for the last 5 years. What proactive actions has the Council taken to revitalise these shops?

Cllr Moss provided the following response:

Thank you for your question Mr Lloyd-Williams.

It has been a challenging environment for businesses over the last few years, and for the retail sector in particular. The impact of the pandemic has been seen in high streets across the country and the growth of online retailing continues to shape significant changes in the use of the high street.

It is a common misconception that we are able to choose which businesses and shops go in which particular premises. This is not the case, it is up to individual businesses to choose whether to come to the city or not, and in the case of larger retail chains this will be based on the needs and aims of that business. Over the last few years some of the larger chains have changed and adapted their business models. If a retail business does choose to come to Chichester, then they liaise with private landlords who own the business premises.

We do not set the rents business premises. This is done by the individual landlord of each property, and we have no influence over this.

We also have no control over the levels of business rates payable. We collect them on behalf of central government which then considers how this money is redistributed across the country. The national Valuation Agency sets the rateable value, and a formula is then applied by central government to work out the rates that a business pays.

With regards to premises in West Street, there are 11 units between the Cross and Tower Street and 4 of these are empty – the former Post Office, the former House of Fraser building, the former Edinburgh Woollen Mill premises and the former Sofa Workshop premises.

We are aware that the owners of the House of Fraser intend to come forward with their proposals for the building, any plans to change the building would need to come forward in a planning application.

We have reached out to the agents of the other empty premises; the agents have not shared any proposals or information relating to these buildings.

While we are not in control of these premises, we do strongly support businesses where we are able to do so. Our Economic Development team is here for businesses across the district and provides advice and support and access to available grants and other schemes. For example we have offered an Enabling Grants Scheme for small and independent businesses across the district; a Shop Front Grant scheme for high street based businesses in the district and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

A Petition to ‘Allow Manhood Classics to return to using East Beach Car Park in Selsey’ has been received by the council and agreed for inclusion in the agenda by the Chair.  As per the council’s Petition Scheme the petition organiser will be given five minutes to present the petition at the meeting and the petition will then be discussed by councillors. The debate of a petition at a Council meeting should, subject to the discretion of the Chair, not last more than 30 minutes. The council will decide how to respond to the petition at this meeting. They may decide to take the action the petition requests, not to take the action requested for reasons put forward in the debate, or to commission further investigation into the matter, for example by a relevant committee. Where the issue is one on which the council executive are required to make the final decision, the council will decide whether to make recommendations to inform that decision. The petition organiser will receive written confirmation of this decision. This confirmation will also be published on our website.

Report to follow.

Cllr Apel explained that a Petition to ‘Allow Manhood Classics to return to using East Beach Car Park in Selsey’ had been received by the council and agreed for inclusion in the agenda. She outlined the procedure as set out on the agenda front sheet to the meeting.

Mr Payne was then invited to speak for five minutes. He outlined the reason for the use of East Beach car park which related to its location. He discussed the benefits of the Car Club for those involved. He also explained that the Club has supported many local events. He wished to note that the community nature of the event and the impact on the local economy due to the additional local footfall. He explained that following communication from the council in December and January the Club had been disappointed. He explained that the Club had sent in a Freedom of Information request to ask the nature of the complaint made against the Club. He then outlined the support that had been received for the Club including that of the local MP Gillian Keegan and Selsey Town Council including Cllr Donna Johnson. He explained that since corresponding with the council the Club had increased its public liability to £10 million and a risk assessment had also been undertaken. He asked the council for their support.

As Cabinet member for events Cllr Brown-Fuller was then invited to comment first. She thanked Mr Payne for the Petition and also those who had taken the time to sign the petition. Cllr Brown-Fuller then explained that although the Club had been meeting for many years officers were not aware of the meets until the complaint was received. She noted the update of insurance. She then drew attention to the Forward Plan and explained that a new Policy is due to be discussed at the April meeting of the Cabinet. She noted that not all car parks are the same and the Policy will need to reflect that.

Mr Bennett wished to add a point of clarification. With regard to the Freedom of Information request refusal he explained that there are strict rules around information sharing and a decision had to be made as to whether the nature of the complaint would (even if providing a redacted version) be able to identify the complainant. Strict rules had been followed in making the determination by officers trained in information and data sharing. Following the tests it was determined that it would not be possible to share the complaint even in redacted form.  He added that The Federation of British Historical Vehicles Club had been in contact to not they are satisfied that concerns have been heard and will be taken into account at the forthcoming discussions.

Cllr Brown-Fuller then proposed the following resolution which was seconded by Cllr Desai:

Council thanks the petition organisers for presenting the petition and proposes to Cabinet that following the debate held at Council full consideration is taken by Cabinet to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

Members are requested to consider the report and its appendix found on pages 175-178 of the Cabinet agenda pack for 6 February 2024 and make the following resolution:

To release £531,500 from the fleet asset replacement programme to procure the vehicles and charging points detailed in section 5 of this report.

Please note an additional appendix containing a photo of a Street Cleaning Box Tipper can be found at page 13 of the agenda pack to this meeting.

Cllr Moss moved the recommendation which was seconded by Cllr Brown. In Cllr Chilton’s absence Cllr Moss then introduced the item.

Cllr Brown wished to note that the proposal is the maximum carbon reduction level that can be achieved at his time. He also noted that it is the best value for money at this time. He clarified that the diesel vehicle is required to allow for towing requirements which are not currently available in the electric vehicles that the council could purchase.

Cllr Burkhart requested further information relating to the differences in cost of electric and diesel vehicles and differences in their performance. Mr Howard was invited to the table and he explained that electric vehicles are generally more expensive to purchase. He confirmed that the proposal seeks the opportunity to test two different vehicle types to see how they perform. He explained that one vehicle will be used by the street cleaning team with the other vehicle used by the grounds maintenance team.

Cllr Briscoe then drew attention to section 5.5 of the report. He asked whether it shows that the diesel vehicle is more expensive. He also asked whether hydrogen had been considered. Mr Howard explained that hydrogen has not come to market yet. He confirmed that vehicle replacements in the future will look consider all options available at the time. Mr Ward explained that section 7.1 of the report shows two new diesel vehicles as row 3 and row 7. Row 4 and 6 are the two new electric vehicles. Mr Howard added that the difference is due to the electric tipper having a lower specification requirement and also being on offer from the manufacturer. Therefore the comparison for the two sets of vehicles is not direct as they have different specification requirements.

Cllr Tim Johnson noted that electric vehicles generally have a lower running cost. Mr Howard confirmed that is the theory.

In a vote the following resolution was agreed:

RESOLVED

To release £531,500 from the fleet asset replacement programme to procure the vehicles and charging points detailed in section 5 of this report.

Members are requested to consider the report and its appendix found on pages 179-203 of the Cabinet agenda pack for 6 February 2024 and make the following resolutions:

1.    Approval of the Project Initiation Document for the implementation of weekly food waste collections for households.

2.    The project governance arrangements, including the establishment of a Project Board and associated Terms of Reference as outlined in the PID, to provide strategic direction and project oversight.

3.    That £1,355,683 be released from council General Fund reserves to fund the estimated shortfall in funding of Capital and transition costs.

4.    The procurement process to acquire the necessary vehicles, ancillary equipment, and containers in order to deliver the new service is commenced.

5.    That delegated authority be given to the Director of Corporate Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance, Corporate Services and Chichester Contract Services, to conclude the procurement process, award contracts, and approve capital and transition cost expenditure of up to £2,598,700 in order to expedite the service design and procurement project stages.

Cllr Moss moved the recommendations which were seconded by Cllr Brown. In Cllr Chilton’s absence Cllr Moss then introduced the item.

Cllr Bangert asked if consideration could be given to a food waste depot in the north of the district in order to reduce the carbon emissions associated with transporting food waste. Mr Carter explained that Midhurst had been considered but West Sussex County Council (WSCC) had ruled it not possible at this stage.

Cllr Briscoe asked whether the use of hydrogen could be considered. Cllr Moss assured Cllr Briscoe that the question had been asked. Mr Carter explained that the prototype of the hydrogen model is not likely to be available for a further 10 years.

Cllr Hamilton explained that she would be voting against the recommendations as she did not want to encourage food waste. She asked what is being done to encourage the use of the composting. Cllr Moss explained that government had legislated that the council has to provide food waste collection. Mr Carter explained that 50% of local authorities in England are already carrying out food waste collection. He explained that the pattern has been that when people throw food waste into a food waste bin over time the levels reduce as people choose to throw away less.

Cllr Chant asked given that other council’s are carrying out the service successfully what can be applied in Chichester to save officer time and money. Cllr Moss explained that Mr Carter has been working with colleagues across WSCC. Mr Carter added that he is part of the WRAP group that brings learning points together across the locality.

Cllr Brown clarified that the deadline to comply with providing food waste does not allow for any further work to take place or to wait for any developments in the use of hydrogen. He confirmed that a fleet of electric vehicles would not allow the council to meet its statutory requirements. Cllr Brown also clarified that there are not enough electric charging vehicles at the Depot at this stage.

Cllr Brown-Fuller noted the local council’s are required to cover the costs.

Cllr Brisbane commented on the practicalities of composting for some residents.

Cllr Burkhart requested the planned timeline. She also asked if there is any way to direct waste into a large scale compost heap. Cllr Moss explained that the timeline is set out in the Cabinet papers. Mr Carter explained that procurement of vehicles would be a challenge due to every local authority requiring them. In terms of location an anaerobic digester will be used in the Horsham plant to take all the food waste in the county. It will provide agricultural fertiliser.

In a vote the following resolutions were agreed:

RESOLVED

1.    Approval of the Project Initiation Document for the implementation of weekly food waste collections for households.

2.    Agreement of the project governance arrangements, including the establishment of a Project Board and associated Terms of Reference as outlined in the PID, to provide strategic direction and project  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102.

Members are requested to consider the report found on pages 171-174 of the Cabinet agenda pack for 6 February 2024 and make the following resolutions:

1.    For 2025-2026 a premium of 100% be charged on all eligible residential properties that are not occupied as a main residence and are substantially furnished.

2.    Subject to the outcome of the Government’s consultation concerning the exceptions to the premium, the criteria for the second home premium policy, be delegated to the Director of Housing and Communities in consultation with the Cabinet member for Housing, Revenues and Benefits.

Cllr Betts moved the recommendations which were seconded by Cllr Moss. Cllr Betts then introduced the item.

Mr Ward asked Mr Bennett, the Monitoring Officer to clarify if members should declare an interest if they have a second home in the district. Mr Bennett confirmed that an interest should be declared and it would preclude that member from participation in the debate and the vote.

No declarations were made.

Cllr Brown-Fuller asked if funds could be ringfenced for the areas most effected. Mr Ward explained that the money generated would be allocated to the general income fund. He added that the council could decide to ringfence the money.

Cllr Ballantyne asked if the policy goes far enough to tax second homes. Cllr Betts explained that some second homes will have to be excluded due to the exemptions set. These may include those properties actively marketed, annexes and holiday park homes where residents cannot occupy the property for the whole calendar year.

Cllr Chant requested a legal definition of substantially furnished. Mr Jobson was invited to the table. He explained that there is no definition as it is proportionate to the size of the property – each assessment would be made on its own facts by his inspecting officers.

Cllr Burton asked how Air BnB would be affected. Mr Jobson explained that the Government is looking to tighten the business rate rules. If a property does not fall in the business rates category it will be subject to council tax. Mr Jobson explained that members may receive more queries from the public as the Council Tax team would be contacting more property owners to ensure they are in the correct category. 

Cllr Briscoe supported the proposals. He asked whether the additional monitoring would require more staff. He also asked if the numbers can be used in the Local Plan. Mr Jobson responded and explained that additional staffing resources are being discussed. He added that every customer being charged an empty home premium is entitled to appeal. This will have a significant time impact. Mr Jobson confirmed that the council would be asked to determine which house is the main residence. Depending on location will depend on the premium. In relation to the Local Plan Mr Frost explained that it was unlikely that the numbers could be used.

Cllr Potter asked what process will be used to investigative second homes. Mr Jobson explained that officers would in the first instance make an appointment. They may ask questions such as electrical use of the property, ID, children’s schooling locations.  Mr Jobson explained that the council knows which properties are second homes and will continue to gather information to ensure any changes are investigated.

Cllr Donna Johnson thanked Mr Jobson for explaining the monitoring. She explained that on the Manhood Peninsula second home ownership has resulted in an increase in property prices. She asked if funds could be allocated to the communities who are most affected. 

Cllr Brown requested clarification of the £580,000 income  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.

Members are requested to consider the report and its appendix found on pages 13-31 of the Cabinet agenda pack for 5 March 2024 and make the following resolution:

That Council approves the revised Local Development Scheme.

Cllr Brisbane moved the recommendation which was seconded by Cllr Moss. Cllr Brisbane then introduced the item.

Cllr Briscoe asked if chalk streams are a protected habitat. Cllr Brown explained that chalk streams are not protected habitat but agreed to follow up with further detail after the meeting.

Cllr Burkhart returned to the meeting.

In a vote the following resolution was agreed:

RESOLVED

That Council approves the revised Local Development Scheme.

Members took a 10 minute break.

Members are requested to consider the report and its appendices found on pages 33-50 of the Cabinet agenda pack for 5 March 2024 and make the following resolution:

That the Council agrees the Senior Staff Pay Policy Statement 2024-2025 for publication.

Please note an updated appendix 7 containing revised mileage information can be found at page 15 of the agenda pack to this meeting.

Cllr Moss was absent for the introduction of the item.

Cllr Brown moved the recommendation which was seconded by Cllr Brown-Fuller. Cllr Brown then introduced the item. He drew members attention to page 15 of the agenda pack for the meeting, an updated appendix 7 containing revised mileage information.

In a vote the following resolution was agreed:

RESOLVED

That the Council agrees the Senior Staff Pay Policy Statement 2024-2025 for publication.

Members are requested to consider the report at pages 17-20 of the agenda pack and make the following resolution:

That the Council appoint Mr Graham Thrussell to the role of Data Protection Officer to the Chichester District Council.

Cllr Moss moved the recommendation which was seconded by Cllr Brown. Cllr Moss then introduced the item.

Cllr Potter noted that no finer person could be appointed to the position. Cllr Moss was in agreement.

In a vote the following resolution was agreed:

RESOLVED

That the Council appoint Mr Graham Thrussell to the role of Data Protection Officer to the Chichester District Council.

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

Cllr Vivian moved his Motion which was seconded by Cllr O’Kelly.

Cllr Vivian outlined his Motion as set out on page 21 of the agenda pack for the meeting. He shared his personal story with members. He raised concerns that the NHS Trust could not confirm the temporary suspension of the service and whether it would return.

Cllr Bangert as Cabinet member for Communities gave her support to the Motion. She urged all members to encourage Dementia Friendly communities. She supported the request that Cllr Moss write to the local MP’s and the NHS. She urged all councillors to support the Motion.

Cllr Bates discussed his own personal story. He outlined the value of Sage House, a charity which requires funding to continue its work. He asked members to consider how people will be looked after.

Cllr O’Kelly wished to note that the council member for WSCC had also raised the issue with no result so far.

Cllr Donna Johnson spoke in favour of the Sussex Dementia service remaining.

Cllr Briscoe saw no reason for anyone to vote against the Motion and gave his support to the Motion. He added that there is a limited amount that the district council can do including lobbying as the Motion states.

Cllr Evans wished to give his support to the Motion. He shared his personal story. He explained the importance of supporting the families who are in turn supporting family members with dementia. He thanked Cllr Vivian for bringing the Motion forward.

Cllr Moss supported the Motion and also agreed to write the letters requested. He also shared his personal story.

Cllr Brown-Fuller wished to thank those who had shared their personal stories. She explained that she had visited Sage House the previous week and spoke in support of the work that they do.

Cllr Betts wished to echo the words of members. He explained that Sage House would be fundraising and encouraged everyone to get involved.

Cllr Burkhart wished to echo the sentiments of members. She gave her support to the Motion.

Cllr Briscoe asked if the Leader could write to Sage House to thank them for their work. Cllr Moss agreed.

Cllr Vivian wished to thank members for their input and support. He was then invited to sum up his Motion. He explained how the Motion supports patients and families and the services they depend on.

Cllr Bangert explained that the member reference in section 4 of the resolution should be Cllr Hastain. This was amended.

In a vote the Motion as follows was agreed:

Council resolves that:

1.    The closure of NHS dementia assessment services in West Sussex, although temporary, is unacceptable, and that the Council opposes any future suspension or closure of the service.

2.    The Council thanks the Sage House team in Tangmere for their work in plugging the service gap left by Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust.

3.    The Leader of the Council, Cllr Moss, shall write to the MPs for Chichester and Arundel and South  ...  view the full minutes text for item 107.

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

The following questions to the Executive were received:

Cllr Cross requested an update on the loans given to help with the recovery from the Midhurst fire. Cllr Brisbane responded. He explained that there are two owners of the buildings damaged by the fire  and the management of the site is a matter for the South Downs National Park Authority. He added that the owners are awaiting a settlement from insurers. The South Downs National Park Authority has offered pre planning application advice. Cllr Brisbane added that most of the direct costs had been recovered from one owner so far. Mr Frost added that arrangements have been agreed through the South Downs National Park Authority to recover approximately  90% of the costs attributable to one of the building owners.

Cllr Quail asked what Chichester would be doing to celebrate the 80^th Anniversary of D Day. Cllr Bangert responded as Military Champion for the council. She explained that she is encouraging people to commemorate on 6 June 2024. The City Council will be hosting events and there will also be a talk on 8 June 2024 with families from Thorney Island.

Cllr Evans asked in relation to Hyde residents cases in Northchapel and Kirdford what can be done to help the most vulnerable. He asked if the council could establish a vulnerable residents register to help. Cllr Betts explained that he had been working on the Hyde issues since becoming Cabinet member for Housing. He explained that officers and members would be meeting to collate information. A summit with Hyde, members and officers will be arranged.

Cllr Ballantyne asked whose responsibility it is to bring flood zones to the attention of property buyers.  Cllr Brisbane responded. He explained that a conveyancing solicitor would ask the council about potential flood risk. He explained that the council can liaise with the lead local flood authority in reaching any decision re planning permission.

Cllr Young left the meeting.

Cllr Chant requested an update on the unauthorised incursion at Northgate car park. Cllr Moss thanked Cllr Chant for the question. Mrs Rudziak was invited to provide an update. She confirmed that there are now only two caravans in the car park which are intending to move onto the transit site. Cllr Bangert and Mrs Rudziak would also be meeting with WSCC, the Police and other parties to discuss further. 

Cllr Burton asked what the council has done to support the economic regeneration of Midhurst since the fire. Cllr Desai explained that the council has encouraged people to support local. Significant resources were given to the town including £300k and marketing activities. Grants are being given to those eligible. A recovery group is developing a new website and a town team are developing a new Midhurst business partnership and events programme. The council also works with Midhurst Vision Partnership. Midhurst also benefited from UK Shared Prosperity Fund. Cllr Desai wished to thank Cllr Brown-Fuller and Cllr Burton for their help.

Cllr Briscoe in relation to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108.

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.

The Council is asked to consider in respect of agenda items 17 and 18 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).

Cllr Moss proposed the Council went into Part II in relation to items 17 and 18. This was seconded by Cllr Brown.

In a vote the following resolution was agreed:

RESOLVED

That with regard to agenda items 17 and 18 the public including the press should be excluded from the meeting on the grounds of exemption in Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 namely Paragraph 3 (Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)) 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.

Members took a short break.

Members are requested to consider the Part II exempt report found on pages 131-134 of the Cabinet agenda pack for 5 March 2024 and make the resolutions as set out in sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the report.

Cllr Betts moved the recommendation which was seconded by Cllr Moss. Cllr Betts then introduced the item.

Questions were received from Cllr Bangert and Cllr Chant which were responded to by Cllr Betts.

In a vote the following resolution was agreed:

RESOLVED

That the resolutions as set out in sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the report be agreed.

Members are requested to consider the Part II exempt report found on pages 135-138 of the Cabinet agenda pack for 5 March 2024 and make the resolutions as set out in sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the report.

Cllr Betts moved the recommendation which was seconded by Cllr Moss. Cllr Betts then introduced the item.

In a vote the following resolution was agreed:

RESOLVED

That the resolutions as set out in sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the report be agreed.