In accordance with Chichester District Council’s scheme for public question time and with reference with to standing order 6 in Part 4 A and section 5.6 in Part 5 of the Chichester District Council Constitution, the Cabinet will receive any questions which have been submitted by members of the public in writing by 12:00 on the previous working day. The total time allocated for public question time is 15 minutes subject to the chairman’s discretion to extend that period.
Decision:
[NO QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC BUT THREE QUESTIONS ASKED BY JONATHAN BROWN (SOUTHBOURNE) WITH TWO SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS TAKEN DURING THIS ITEM - DETAILS IN THE MINUTES]
Minutes:
No questions by members of the public had been submitted for this meeting.
Three questions from Mr J Brown, one of the CDC members for the Southbourne ward, had been received in advance by Mr Dignum. They related to agenda items 5, 8 and 11. Mr Dignum took them at this stage of the meeting rather than during the respective items. He said that Mr Brown would be entitled in each case to ask a supplementary question. The questions, the officer responses and any supplementary questions and replies are set out below.
Mr Brown read out each of his questions and received a response from the relevant Cabinet member.
Question (1) Agenda Item 5: Joint Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Supplementary Planning Document
‘Do you have any concerns that the Supplementary Planning Document could preclude possible A27 upgrade or alternative route options? ie Is it possible that, should the new public consultation support some form of northern bypass, or alternatively, a different version of a southern upgrade, any of these proposals might be blocked by anything within the planning document?’
Response
Mrs Taylor read out the following response:
‘I can confirm that I have no concerns that the Joint Chichester Harbour AONB SPD would preclude improvement to the A27 Chichester Bypass. The document provides guidance as to appropriate design approaches for development within the AONB. It does not set policy, but amplifies on how policy would be implemented. The impact of any new road on the AONB would have to be considered irrespective of the existence of this document.’
Mr Brown had no supplementary question in respect of this matter.
Question (2) Agenda Item 8: Recreational Disturbance at Pagham Harbour - Revision to the Joint Approach to Mitigation with Arun District Council
‘Arun's projected housing numbers within the zone of influence of the Harbour have increased from 855 to 4555. Although the mitigation scheme scales up the number of contributions which will be received, is there evidence that the kind of mitigation measures which were appropriate for a much smaller number of houses remain appropriate for the larger numbers? ie is the impact of five times the number of houses going to be mitigated by five times the contribution? Or is there a 'compounding' impact from increased development which will not be addressed by the additional contributions?’
Response
Mrs Purnell read out the following response:
‘Both for the original scheme and the updated scheme (with the increased housing figures), Natural England and RSPB have been fully involved in developing the scheme and Natural England have advised that such a scheme will be compliant with the Habitats Regulations 2010. The mixture of mitigation measures proposed for Pagham is based on those already in use for the Solent Recreation Mitigation Project which covers a greater area (PUSH authorities and CDC) and which is subject to significantly higher housing numbers. The Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Arun Local Plan (March 2013) concluded that the recreational disturbance associated with the increased local populace may be of significance but that the mitigation proposed was sufficient to mitigate these impacts.
Based on the increase in housing figures in Arun, it was agreed between the partners that the provision of wardening should be increased from 0.5 FTE to 1.5 FTE and that this would be sufficient to mitigate for the increased housing numbers in Arun. This was considered by Natural England to be sufficient to meet the requirements of the regulations and allows for the cumulative impact on Pagham Harbour.
Although the housing numbers within the zone of influence for Arun has increased from 855 to 4,555 due to several major developments now planned around Bognor Regis, the figure for Chichester remains the same at 425 dwellings. Should CDC’s Local Plan Review result in an increase in the number of dwellings within the zone of influence of Pagham Harbour, then the scheme may need to be revised again. This will be in consultation with all the project partners and will need agreement by Natural England.’
Supplementary Question
Mr Brown asked a supplementary question. He said that his concern arose from his experience in dealing with housing projects where some consultees would enter no objection to a scheme on the basis that there was no evidence to justify an objection notwithstanding that there might in fact be reasons to object.
Response
Mrs Purnell said that the local authorities had worked closely with the RSPB and Natural England and they were all in agreement and all the requirements had been met.
Question (3) Agenda Item 11: Investment Opportunity - Part II
Before Mr Brown asked this question Mr Dignum cautioned him and everyone not to mention any details of the property the subject of this confidential Part II report.
‘Although it is sensible for the Council to seek a good return on its investments, and the business case for investing in commercial property to let is well made, is there a long term danger that CDC will contribute to the wider problem of small and/or independent traders which provide much of the character of Chichester being driven out by return-maximising landlords? Has any thought been given to this potential conflict of interest ie between the desire to seek a good return on investment on behalf of the taxpayer and the desire to protect and promote the character of the city?’
Response
Mrs Keegan read out the following response:
‘The Council has a long and successful track record of managing such potential conflicts of interest, stretching back as far as the early 1980s when it first introduced a concessionary rent programme at St James’s Industrial Estate Chichester. With regard to this particular investment opportunity the conflict will only arise when there is the potential for a change of tenant ie at lease end or assignment mid-term. There is a very strong indication, for reasons that are set out in the report, that this occurrence will not occur for at least ten years. However, in the event that this issue were to arise the Council’s existing governance arrangements would manage the process. This requires any request for a concession to be considered by the Council’s Grants and Concession Panel (were such a concession requested by an independent operator) with the full market rent being stated in the lease. In that way there is a transparent arrangement that ensures the Council still obtains the appropriate return on its investment while still supporting the independent sector if deemed appropriate.’
Supplementary Question
Mr Brown asked a supplementary question. He said that would like to raise with Mrs Keegan later outside this meeting his concern relating not to the specific property in this case but how that over the years properties in the city centre had closed down.
Response
Mrs Keegan said that CDC wished to retain the range of individual shops for which the city was renowned and, compared with some other centres, to maintain the balance between those independent retail businesses and the major high street retail outlets. Mr Dignum said that Mrs Keegan had made an important point and he cited Crane Street as a prime example of CDC’s commitment to achieving this objective.
[Note Minute paras 358 to 365 below summarise the consideration of and conclusion to agenda items 5 to 12 inclusive but for full details (excluding exempt agenda items 11 and 12) please refer to the audio recording facility via this link:
http://chichester.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=135&MId=756&Ver=4 ]