(maximum of 40 minutes duration)
Minutes:
Questions to members of the Cabinet and responses given were as follows:
(a) Question: Surplus land at The Grange, Midhurst
Mr Thomas asked Mrs Keegan for an update on marketing for disposal the surplus land at The Grange, Midhurst
Response:
Mrs Keegan (Cabinet Member for Commercial Services) replied that officers were making sure that there was an agreement in principle from the South Downs National Park Authority to grant planning permission for the site to be developed in the way it was being marketed. This was being sought in writing to give confidence to the marketing offers. That had resulted in a slight delay, before formal marketing commenced towards the end of this month. Some expressions of interest had already been received. The offers would then be analysed by officers and reported to the Cabinet meeting in November.
(b) Question: Gypsies and travellers
Mr Shaxson commented that there seemed to be an alarming number of incursions by gypsies and travellers, despite the existence of the transit site at Westhampnett. He asked whether the site was too small, and what was planned for the future.
Response:
Mrs Lintill (Cabinet Member for Community Services) replied that she did not have the number of incursions there had been in the 2016 season, but she would find out and give a written reply. The transit site did provide a facility for the police to direct travellers to. If the whole group was too big to be accommodated at the transit site, part of the group could be directed there, and frequently the whole group would move out of the county rather than split. Mrs Lintill advised that she would provide a written answer.
Mr Hall added that the transit site was working effectively and a local liaison group monitored its operation.
(c) Question: Southern Rail
Mr Lloyd-Williams referred to the recent decision by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to ask that a letter be sent to the District’s Members of Parliament about the chaos on Southern Rail services, and asked whether that letter had been sent and, if so, whether a reply had been received.
Response:
Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council) replied that he had not yet received the formal request to write the letter.
(d) Question: Visit Chichester
Mrs Apel made reference to the preparation of a Vision for Chichester, and asked whether it would address the issue of tourism. She referred to the decision some years ago to grant £50,000 to Visit Chichester, and asked whether that had been well spent.
Response:
Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council) replied that a Tourism Strategy would be drawn up after the Vision for Chichester was completed because part of the Vision would need a way of attracting tourism to the City. The Council might need to reconsider its decision to get out of tourism except for one Tourist Information Centre.
The Chief Executive added that the Council did not currently fund Visit Chichester, but the Strategy would be reviewed and a decision whether to contribute would be made early next year.
Mr Over declared an interest as a Director of Visit Chichester, but stated that the £50,000 grant had been mainly spent on website development and members could judge whether it had been well spent by visiting the website.
(e) Question: Racial hate crime
Mrs Dignum reported that a number of ward members had received letters expressing concern about the recently reported rise of racist and xenophobic incidents and hate crimes, following the EU referendum. She understood that the police kept a record of such crimes and asked whether there had been an increase in such incidents in Chicester District.
Response:
Mrs Lintill (Cabinet Member for Community Services) replied that she wished to reassure residents that there had not been any significant increase of this type of crime in the Chichester District to date. However, the most up to date data suggested there had been two cases which might be linked to the EU referendum and there had been some reports of anti English graffiti and behaviour.
She wanted to make it absolutely clear that discriminatory behaviour of any kind would not be tolerated. Everyone had the right to feel safe in their communities and any kind of hate crime was unacceptable in any circumstances.
The Council worked very closely with the police and other partners through the Chichester District Community Safety Partnership. The Partnership not only monitored crime in the District, but it also identified actions that needed to be tackled or responded to. This included running campaigns to tackle certain behaviours such as race hate crime. The Partnership was leafleting via Community Wardens, high risk areas (Natures Way, Pepper farms) and universal services eg GP surgeries, to encourage reporting.
The Council’s Community Wardens also provided a reassuring presence on many of the District’s streets. They were integrated into the communities in which they worked. They were always available to listen to any concerns that people might have. They also knew which agencies were best placed to respond to particular issues.
If any residents had been affected by, or had witnessed, this type of behaviour, they should be encouraged to report this to the police on 101 or email 101@sussex.pnn.police.uk Concerns could also be reported on both the District Council’s and County Council’s websites.
(f) Question: Community Infrastructure Levy
Mr Ransley referred to the members’ briefing by West Sussex County Council (WSCC) officers on the Community Infrastructure Levy, in which they had stated that WSCC was a co-ordinator and commissioner of infrastructure provision. He asked whether the District Council had any oversight to scrutinise and monitor their performance.
Response:
Mrs Taylor drew attention to the Section 106/CIL protocol on the Council’s website. This provided that, before release of identified CIL funds to external public bodies (infrastructure commissioners), the District Council would normally require a Legal Development Agreement/Service Level Agreement once sufficient CIL money had been collected to cover the total costs of the projects to be funded in any financial year. To ensure that the money is spent on the agreed project and to the indicated timetable agreed with the District Council as Charging Authority, CIL funds would be released in arrears either on completion of projects or in staged payments as agreed by the Head of Planning Services. The Corporate Governance and Audit Committee would monitor the effectiveness of this protocol and that any risks are being managed in ensuring that monies are spent in accordance with the legal agreement (in the case of S106), and Legal Development Agreement/Service Level Agreement (in the case of CIL) and within the required timescales.
(g) Question: Chichester City Floral Decorations
Mr John F Elliott congratulated Mr Budge (Mayor of Chichester) on the floral decorations of the City.