[Note In accordance with Standing Order 14.11 of Chichester District Council’s Constitution, this item is allocated a maximum duration of 40 minutes]
Minutes:
The questions asked by members and the responses given were as follows:
Question by Mr Ransley: Neighbourhood Development Plans and the Five-Year Housing Land Supply
Mr Ransley asked the following question, and he indicated that he would be content to receive a written response given the relevance of the matter he was raising for local communities, including Kirdford, which had brought or were bringing forward their neighbourhood development plans (NDP):
‘Given that it was confirmed at the last Council meeting that the ‘Secretary of State had routinely called in at the appeal stage all planning applications which affected a NDP’, is it equitable that CDC as a local planning authority undermines the housing policies of the Kirdford NDP, by way of consideration of a potential, and I stress potential, shortfall in its five-year housing supply provision?
Are you not concerned that such direction to committee members introduces great weight leading to a resolution to compromise on a non-policy compliant planning application thereby setting aside any opportunity of the matter going to appeal?
Does this approach not represent a lower level of support for NDPs by CDC than that routinely afforded by the Secretary of State?’
Response by Mrs Shepherd and Mrs Taylor
Mrs Shepherd (Chief Executive) said that it was not appropriate to seek to discuss in the Council meeting individual planning applications which had come or would be coming to the Planning Committee. Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services) undertook to provide a written response to Mr Ransley and requested a copy of his question.
Question by Mr Shaxson: Borrowing by Local Authorities to Build Council Houses
Mr Shaxson referred to the first objective in the first priority in the Corporate Plan 2018-2021, namely: increase the supply of suitable housing in the right location. In view of the inability of registered social housing landlords in Chichester District being able to provide the required quantity and quality of such housing and also the relaxation by the government of the restrictions on councils borrowing to build council houses, he asked whether CDC was giving consideration to taking advantage of that opportunity.
Response by Mrs Kilby
Mrs Kilby (Cabinet Member for Housing Services) said that a task and finish group (TFG) was looking into the standard of housing in Chichester District but it had not as yet considered whether CDC should borrow or use funds to build council houses. Senior officers at CDC had met with their opposite numbers at Hyde for an initial discussion about current accommodation standards and how in partnership more social housing might be built. She hoped to be able to report back on the outcome of those deliberations in due course. She would discuss with her Cabinet colleagues and senior officers whether CDC should contemplate borrowing to build council housing. Once the TFG had addressed current areas of concern, it could address this specific issue.
Question by Mr Plowman: The Newly Opened Enterprise Centre
Mr Plowman referred to the very recently opened £6m Enterprise Centre (EC) in Terminus Road Chichester and sought reassurance about its ability to deliver the objectives set for it. So far, four of the 82 units were being considered. He wondered for how long the units had been marketed and how the other tenants would be secured. His concern was that the 275 new jobs which the EC would provide would very largely be taken by existing businesses relocating to the EC and leaving their current units vacant, thereby in effect resulting in few new jobs.
Response by Mr Dignum
Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council) summarised the number and purpose of the units in the EC and the superb facilities provided in this very exciting development, which members would be able to visit for themselves on a special tour in due course. CDC had engaged specialist experts to advise on the marketing and operation of the EC, who typically achieved 90 to 95% occupancy rates for such centres. In the case of the EC, less than half of that trend figure was anticipated in the first year of operation but that ultimate occupancy rate was expected to be achieved by the third or fourth year. He cited examples of units in Havant and Shoreham to support his opinion that it was not unrealistic to attain such occupancy levels. An extremely good return on the £6m was expected, with a guaranteed base income of about a 5% return even if the 90 to 95% upper rate was not achieved. It was not necessarily the case that the EC would simply result in existing businesses relocating to the EC and leaving vacant their current premises: the economy was extremely buoyant and in fact two of the four units currently under consideration were being looked at by businesses outside Chichester District. He had no doubt about the prospects for the EC’s eventual success.
Question by Mr Ransley: The Newly Opened Enterprise Centre
Mr Ransley commented that he thought it unlikely that the Enterprise Centre (EC) would lead to significant numbers of existing businesses seeking to move to the EC with a consequent glut of vacant premises given that such businesses would be committed to long leases.
Response by Mr Dignum
Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council) agreed with Mr Ransley’s assessment and pointed out that the month-at-a-time tenancy commitment at the EC would be attractive for new (or new to the area) small businesses. He was confident that after their visit to the EC members would share his confidence.
Question by Mr Oakley: Tangmere Strategic Development Location Compulsory Purchase Order Update
Mr Oakley referred to the mention made by Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services) at the previous Council meeting on 21 November 2017 of the Tangmere strategic development location (SDL) site in the context of CDC’s five-year housing land supply (FYHLS). He asked when an update report to members on progress was anticipated in view of the crucial importance of the site to CDC’s FYHLS.
Response by Mrs Taylor and Mr Frost
Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services) and Mr Frost (Head of Planning Services) advised that such a report would be considered by the Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel on 22 February 2018 and then the Cabinet and the Council on 6 March 2018. It was currently intended to seek a compulsory purchase order resolution in, say, July 2018 if satisfactory progress had not previously been made.
Question by Mr Oakley: Treatment of Unspent Section 106 Interest Monies
Mr Oakley asked whether any so-called orphan section 106 interest, ie money which was left over after the principal contribution had been spent, should also be included in the New Homes Bonus Allocations scheme. Although this was likely to be a relatively small amount of money, a means needed to be found to spend it or else it would in all likelihood disappear into an accounting black hole, as at present its visibility in the section 106 ward reports was limited. He assumed that as it was interest earned while in CDC’s hands and since the principal sum had been spent, it could be safely retained by CDC and was not recoverable by the developer. He hoped that a mechanism could be devised for dealing with the unspent interest.
Response by Mr Ward and Mr Dignum
Mr Ward (Head of Finance and Governance Services) said that interest earned on section 106 monies should form part of the annual monitoring report which was presented to the Corporate Governance and Audit Committee. There was currently no mechanism for dealing with the unspent section 106 interest element eg by transfer to another account, and so it remained within the section 106 balance held by CDC. Mr Oakley had raised this point with officers prior to the Christmas 2017 holiday and at that time the total interest element on section 106 balances was £182,000, some of which related to ongoing section 106 deposits which had not been spent. He was unable to say at the moment how much of that sum related to orphan interest but that money would be available for CDC to use. There was no requirement to set aside section 106 interest but CDC had decided to do so in 2011 partly in order to help offset the impact of inflation on section 106 monies, which might not be spent for several years, by adding interest while those monies were being held. Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council) added that he would ask Mr Ward and Mr Wilding to look into how to produce a mechanism for treating such interest.
Question by Mrs Tull: Temporary Traffic Lights at the A27 Stockbridge Roundabout
Mrs Tull, who was supported in her remarks by Mr Plowman, expressed her great concern, shared by many people as revealed in the Chichester Observer, about the extremely dangerous risk posed to road users by the very confusing signage for the temporary traffic lights on the A27 at the Stockbridge roundabout, which was in place until March 2018.
Response by Mr Dignum and Mr Ridd
Mr Dignum (Leader of the Cabinet) said that CDC Public Relations would be responding to a request by the Chichester Observer for him to comment on the situation in support of the complaints and he invited Mrs Tull to pass her remarks to him for consideration as part of his media response. This was matter for Highways England although West Sussex County Council (WSCC) as the highway authority was also involved. Mr Ridd (Donnington) added that he was aware that the WSCC member for the Chichester South Division had been closely involved in addressing this issue given the potential for serious road traffic accidents created by these traffic lights.
Question by Mr Morley: Enterprise Centre for North of the Downs
Mr Morley said that in view of the apparent lack of appetite to address employment-related issues and the case for an enterprise centre in the South Downs National Park by the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA), he wondered if CDC might look into the case for having one.
Response by Mr Dignum
Mr Dignum (Leader of the Cabinet) said that one of the difficulties was identifying an appropriate site, which had not been allocated by the SDNPA. He felt that CDC should first of all prove the success of the newly-opened Enterprise Centre in Terminus Road before looking further afield. Midhurst, Petworth, Selsey and East Wittering would be the obvious candidates for consideration.
Question by Mr Dunn: Inspection of Industrial Estates in Westbourne and Southbourne
Mr Dunn invited Mr Dignum to make a visit to (a) a large industrial estate in Cemetery Lane Westbourne which did not have the benefit of planning permission and (b) a very successful industrial estate in Southbourne.
Response by Mr Dignum
Mr Dignum (Leader of the Cabinet) said that the Westbourne site should be referred in the first instance to CDC’s Development Management section and he would be happy for Mr Dunn to show him the Southbourne site.
[Note End of Questions to the Executive]