Members are invited to ask a question of a member of the Executive (maximum of 30 minutes duration).
Minutes:
Cllr Moss asked the Chair to allow equal weighting to questions from the floor to pre-submitted questions. The Chair explained that she would be taking the pre-submitted questions first and then questions from the floor. Cllr O’Kelly asked if members would be able to interrogate questions further. Mr Bennett explained that would be at the Chairs discretion and should be in order to add to a question already asked rather than present a new question.
The following questions were submitted in advance with responses prepared for the meeting:
Question from Cllr Sarah Sharp
In light of the fact that this Council has declared a Climate Emergency and is aiming to become carbon neutral, all the Council's decisions on major infrastructure projects should now give more weight to whether they will increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Does the Cabinet Member for the Environment and / or Planning agree?
Similarly do you agree that this Council should urgently have the opportunity to discuss the weight we give to oil and gas exploration in our Local Plan Review? Would the Cabinet Members agree that this is something we should be considering now urgently, in light of the recent Conservative decision to give the go-ahead to fracking?*
While we are not the Minerals Authority, both the NPPF and NPPG support moves to a low-carbon future.
Is the Cabinet Member for the Environment and for Planning able to insist that policies must clearly demonstrate that they have net zero impact on Climate Change?
Should the Council similarly put the well-being of future generations at the centre of our policies to avoid decisions based on short-term growth instead of sustainable and safe developments that do not jeopardize our children’s and grand-children’s futures?
Response from Cllr Eileen Lintill and Cllr Susan Taylor
In answer to the first question, the government has responsibility for handling major infrastructure projects and not this Council. However, where the Council is consulted on such projects, we do of course take into account environmental considerations, including the impact of proposed development on carbon emissions through sustainability appraisal and Environmental Impact Assessment processes.
In response to the second question, this Council is not the minerals and waste planning authority. Those areas of planning responsibility are with West Sussex County Council although again, where this Council is consulted on such proposals, they would of course be given full and careful assessment in light of relevant polices (including in relation to climate change) within our adopted local plan and relevant government guidance. In relation to your final comment, I can confirm I agree with the assertion made.
Question from Cllr Sharp:
Could I also ask that we also note the possible attacks on Habitats Regulations upon which both our nitrates and water neutrality policies rely*.
While there are moves to weaken the rules at national level which will no doubt be fully scrutinized by wildlife charities, what is the Council’s view on the risks to habitats should we not be able to resolve these issues satisfactorily?
As in the previous report on Flood risks, would it not be sensible to take a longer term view of future risks of drought and pressure on water supply and habitats due to the growing climate crisis? Should we not better work on policies for water neutrality for homes, both existing and new in the whole of the Plan area?
Response from Cllr Susan Taylor
Policies in the local plan review relating to both water neutrality and nitrates will need to be tested in due course by way of the Habitats Regulations Assessment. This will consider any mitigation strategies proposed where these are required to mitigate the impact of proposals for future development. Such protective measures for the environment will need to be set out and deliverable to ensure that habitats and the environment are protected where necessary. In addition, however, the Council will be required to provide clear evidence and justification to support the need for any mitigation strategy proposed where this is inconsistent with an aspect of national policy. Any future changes that are forthcoming from Government in relation to the Habitats Regulations will be subject to significant scrutiny and will take a substantive amount of time to work through parliament along with any related legal challenges before they can be taken into account.
Question from Cllr Gareth Evans
The resident in question is moving home (and sadly out of the district). They have opted out of paper bills and all council tax communication (e.g. Monthly bills etc.) is done via email. However for the final bill as a moving resident they have been told this has to be done by mail and not email.
They have said to me that "This upsets me as it’s a massive waste of public money (paper, ink, postage); it’s bad for the environment and also, it’s simply unnecessary. I don’t need more paper in my life- it will be scanned and thrown away! An email would suffice."
They have asked me why when there is an environmental emergency and money is tight the internal practices could not be updated. Perhaps residents could be given a choice as to how they would like to receive their final bill (i.e paper or email).
Response from Cllr Peter Wilding
I am sorry to hear this and do not believe this is correct. As the customer has signed up to E-billing, they have opted for on line Council Tax bills and emails, and this is what they should receive. If Cllr Evans could let me have the details of the customer I will ask officers to look into this.
Question from Cllr Graeme Barrett
I attended the Whitehouse Farm briefing last Thursday and am concerned that the style of housing proposed leans toward the family unit and does not address the needs of an ageing population. In assessing the mix of new housing on large scale developments do the Officers refer back to the official Government ONS data (statistics) that addresses the population demographics for the Plan Area in order that appropriate housing and infrastructure are provided for the ageing population. It should be noted that the data published in 2012 predicting the demographics by age has been ratified by the 2021 Census.
Response from Cllr Susan Taylor
Policy 33 of the adopted Local Plan concerns the mix of housing. The supporting text (at para 17.8) confirms that the SHMA or successor documents will be used to inform the mix of market housing to be provided on new development, in conjunction with any other local evidence relevant to the specific development proposal.
The successor documents referred to above would be the Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessments (HEDNA) that have been prepared to inform the Local Plan Review. There have been several updates to the HEDNA to take account of the latest available information including demographic profiles and trends. The latest HEDNA update was published in April 2022.
In terms of the West of Chichester Phase 2 planning application, the CDC Housing service consultation response requests a housing mix based on the most up-to-date information including the updated HEDNA and the Housing Register. With regard to housing aimed specifically at an ageing population, the Housing service has requested, amongst other things, that bungalows form part of the overall mix.
Question from Cllr Jonathan Brown
Will the Government's support for fracking also allow for further drilling and the use of acidisation (not technically hydraulic fracturing but environmentally destructive all the same) at Markwells Wood and potentially other sites in the SDNP?
Has the leadership of this Council issued a robust response to this yet, making clear this Council’s opposition to the running away from the Government’s (apparently former) interest in combating climate change and protecting biodiversity?
Response from Cllr Susan Taylor
Chichester District Council is not the relevant Planning Authority for Minerals Planning, which in reference to the area in question, would be the South Downs National Park Authority (and West Sussex County Council in the areas of Chichester District outside the South Downs National Park). It will therefore be for those authorities to implement any change in government policy on mineral extraction matters. Whilst I acknowledge that the government’s recently published ‘Growth Plan’ refers to an intended change in policy direction in relation to shale gas production, we have yet to see the detail of any change in policy on this issue. Until we reach that point, I would suggest that any expression of opinion by this Council on fracking, if it is considered to be appropriate, would be premature.
Question from Cllr Clare Apel
The question I want to ask is about homelessness. At the Stonepillow trustees meeting last week, we were told there are 25 homeless people living on the Chichester streets at the moment. The waiting list for accommodation is 70. This does include some clients in Bognor. Nevertheless the situation is not looking good and is likely to get worse. During covid we only had 3 clients living on Chichester streets. I know we now have Freeland Close but I am asking the cabinet member for housing and Mrs. Rudziak is there anything CDC can do? I know CDC does a great deal to help but I do worry about the future and the crisis in rents, heating and living costs and the likelihood that this will get worse.
Response from Cllr Alan Sutton
Thank you for your question. Like you I am alarmed to hear the numbers you quote, however, you do say they also relate to the Bognor area so it is difficult to comment on the exact figures that StonePillow are quoting for the Chichester District. What I can confirm is that the last figure we have for rough sleeping in the district, and which was reported in the last members bulletin, was four. As you say during Covid we had three and we do have the occasional additional person sleeping rough as they transit the district. Clearly there is a disconnect between this figure and the figures you are quoting from StonePillow so I will ask the Housing Team to make contact with StonePillow to clarify the situation. It may be that StonePillow are counting people who are insecurely housed, for example, sofa surfing or insecurely accommodated who may self report as homeless or sleeping rough, whereas we use the government definition of rough sleepers.
In addition to this I would remind members that we do an official annual count of rough sleepers which is verified independently and co-ordinated with other West Sussex authorities. This year the count will take place on 17 November 2022 and I will ensure that is reported to all members in the members bulletin.
As you know we work closely with StonePillow and have a dedicated team of outreach and support workers who work hard to minimise rough sleepers and have successfully kept the figures down since helping over 30 rough sleepers off our streets and into permanent accommodation during the pandemic.
Question from Cllr Bangert
Although WSCC have been leading the provision of care for Ukrainian refugees, CDC have been very effectively supporting their efforts, under the leadership of Pam Bushby. I think it would useful to recognise this support by producing a report summarising the activities of CDC. This could then be shared with the Parish Councils in the District.
Response from Cllr Roy Briscoe
West Sussex County Council have the lead for supporting the Homes for Ukraine scheme and as such have a dedicated team and government allocated funding to support it’s delivery. The County Council have passported some of the funding to District and Borough Councils to support community integration which was capped at £150,000 per Council. Chichester District Council received the full £150,000 and have allocated £100,000 to Voluntary Action Chichester to disseminate to other voluntary organisations to deliver specific support. The remaining £50,000 is available for community groups to bid for and sits within Communities to allocate. Some additional support has been offered by CDC around attending events for hosts and guests and offering support and guidance where appropriate. A brief summary report setting out the activity CDC has undertaken to date could be produced for sharing with other partners and organisations and I will ask officers to provide that.
Cllr O’Kelly asked if the answers are written by the Cabinet members or officers. Mrs Shepherd explained that responses are from Cabinet members in conjunction with officers.
Questions were then taken from the floor:
Cllr O’Kelly asked:
The Governments new Growth Plan lists 82 new road projects but the A27 is not mentioned. Has contact been made with the Secretary of State and/or the local MP to clarify the situation.
Cllr Lintill responded:
This will be taken up with the local MP.
Cllr Tim Johnson asked:
A question more for Mr Ward. What impact will inflation/the current rate of the pound have on the impact of the March budget setting.
Mr Ward responded:
The budget at present appears broadly balanced for next year but is likely to be £500,000 in deficit by 2025.
Cllr Oakley asked:
Following the September Cabinet has contact been made with the Sea Cadets.
Mr Bennett explained that the report had been heard in part II and as such Cllr Dignum referred to Mrs Hotchkiss to provide response.
Mrs Hotchkiss responded:
A written statement will be sent to members.
Cllr Bell asked:
Could a replacement replica plaque be installed in the Jubilee Gardens to commemorate Her Majesty the Queen.
Cllr Lintill responded:
This will be looked into.
Cllr Moss asked:
Did the Leader think that the evening meeting trial had been as successful as he thought it had?
Cllr Lintill responded:
No, they have been difficult and unsure what advantage has been gained.
Cllr Oakley asked who had missed parish meetings. Cllr Brown commented on not having had to take annual leave.