[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 Plowman: Implications for Chichester District of recent government statements on need for more housing development
Mr Plowman referred to two recent government statements, one by the Prime Minister on the need for a crackdown on developers who should be releasing land for housing to be built, and the other by Sajid Javid, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who said that in areas where the unaffordable housing ratio was much higher ie high house prices and low wages (which was surely the case in Chichester District), many more houses would need to be built. In view of these pronouncements, he wished to hear from Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services) about the implications for this area having to take even more development than it currently faced.
Response by Mrs Taylor
Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services) said that the formula used by CDC for assessing housing need took into account the ratio of affordability of houses in Chichester District and so this issue was already being addressed.
Question by Mr Moss: Adequacy of proposed cycle routes for the West of Chichester strategic development location site
Mr Moss asked Mrs Taylor whether, in her role as the Cabinet Member for Planning Services, she was satisfied with the proposed cycle paths for the West of Chichester (Whitehouse Farm) strategic development location site as presented at the exhibition heldat Chichester City Council on Wednesday 29 November 2017.
Response by Mrs Taylor
Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services) said that at the moment the details of the cycle routes were not available and so it would be premature to comment.
Question by Mr McAra: Assistance to parish councils in implementing and applying the new general data protection regulations
Mr McAra referred to the requirement for each local authority, including parish councils, to have a data protection officer in place for the inception in May 2018 of the new European Union General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR). He said that this was a cause for concern in view of the advice given by, for example, SALC that parish councils should engage consultants to perform this role, which would in the case particularly of a small parish council be unduly onerous and use up a significant amount of its precept. He invited Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council) to consider whether CDC would be able to create a group of data protection officers (which was permissible) to advise and assist all parishes in Chichester District with a sliding scale of fees to take into account the size and means to pay of each parish.
Response by Mr Dignum
Mr Dignum (Leader of the Cabinet) acknowledged that this was a very important matter. This would be addressed by Mr Wilding (Cabinet Member for Corporate Services) and Mr Ward (Head of Finance and Governance Services) in order to understand (a) how the GDPR would affect CDC and arrange a briefing seminar and (b) how parishes could be advised and assisted to comply with the GDPR regime, perhaps by following the example of Chichester City Council which was to appoint a consultant to be shared with several other parish councils.
Question by Mr Lloyd-Williams: Views of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee about the East Pallant House options appraisal
Mr Lloyd-Williams referred to para 478 of the minutes of the Cabinet’s meeting on Tuesday 6 February 2018 (page 7 of the Cabinet agenda for Tuesday 6 March 2018) and queried the statement in the fourth para that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC) had supported option 2. He said that this did not accurately reflect the debate since options 1 and 2 were vigorously opposed by some OSC members of and a minority favoured option 3. He wished to know from Mr Dignum (Leader of the Cabinet) if the Cabinet had been aware of the sharp division of opinion among OSC members and wondered why, given this issue affected members and officers, it had not been brought to the Council for a decision.
Response by Mr Dignum and Mrs Shepherd
Mr Dignum (Leader of the Cabinet) said that he had not attended the OSC meeting and not having seen the OSC minutes before or at last month’s Cabinet meeting he had been unaware of the differing views expressed by OSC members. In any event, ultimately it had been for the Cabinet to form its own judgment. Mrs Shepherd (Chief Executive) said that the minutes could be checked but she assumed that the OSC by a majority approved option 2 on a vote being taken and she added that the matter was an executive decision and so was to be determined finally by the Cabinet and not the Council.
Question by Mr Morley: Encouraging commercial development opportunities within the South Downs National Park
Mr Morley said that at the imminent meeting between the leaders and chief executives of CDC and the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) to discuss the SDNPA’s unmet housing need request he would like CDC to make the point that more commercial development as well as residential development was needed in the South Downs National Park (SDNP). The SDNPA currently seemed to have an almost 100% residential building and development policy. This needed to be countered by encouraging the SDNPA at this meeting to devise a policy to encourage economic vibrancy of towns such as Midhurst and Petworth to thrive eg by supporting the introduction of enterprise zones and business parks, perhaps even to the extent of developing them ourselves.
Response by Mr Dignum
Mr Dignum (Leader of the Cabinet) sympathised with Mr Morley’s view. Notwithstanding the end of the consultation, the point would be raised at the meeting. It would have been hoped that the SDNPA would take account in the formulation of its policies of the significant number of people who were employed within the SDNP.
Mr Ransley followed up the foregoing response by remarking that rather than CDC becoming involved in the SDNPA’s local plan, parish and town councils should be encouraged to promote commercial development through their neighbourhood development plans.
Question by Mr Oakley: Tackling dog fouling and commercial waste
Mr Oakley referred to the large amount of rubbish collected during a recent clean in Tangmere parish, notably dog fouling and horticultural and construction site waste. He wondered what could be done to reduce the contamination of the countryside and whether the review of the litter enforcement contract could be brought forward given the clear need to expand it.
Response by Mr Connor and Mr Dignum
Mr Connor (Cabinet Member for Environment Services) said that the points raised would be examined during the review once the trial period had ended. Mr Dignum (Leader of the Cabinet) obtained confirmation in this meeting from Mrs Dodsworth (Head of Business Improvement Services) that the one-year contract with East Hampshire District Council included dog fouling. He said that the review would address a whole range of issues including those raised by Mr Oakley.
Question by Mr Ridd: Development viability and the reduction of affordable housing
Mr Ridd raised the issue of developers reneging on their promises to build affordable houses in the countryside. He alluded to a very recent report in The Times about a study conducted by Shelter and CPRE which found that in more than 150 new housing developments confidential viability assessments had been used to cut the number of affordable houses by 48%. The report said that councils could challenge these assessments but the government had guaranteed big builders at least 20% profit. If builders could show they would make less the government would side with them. To make matters worse profits at Barratts, Wimpey and Persimmon were reported to have quadrupled to £2.2 billon since 2012. He wished to know if this had affected Chichester District either in its rural or urban areas.
Response by Mrs Taylor
Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services) said that she was aware of recent national news coverage regarding development viability but given its up-to-date Chichester Local Plan (CLP) and the implementation of CIL, CDC as a local planning authority was in a relatively strong position on this important issue. Development viability was a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and was acknowledged in the CLP, which set out what evidence and information CDC expected developers to submit for consideration. In recent years there had been a relatively small number of cases where developers had claimed they could not afford to provide the full affordable housing requirement, usually where there were abnormal costs such as contamination remediation and land re-profiling or where property values were expected to be particularly low. In such cases CDC took a robust approach and used specialist advice to scrutinise such claims. It was worth noting that the proposed amendments to the National Planning Policy Framework were published on 5 March 2018 and they included changes to the references to development viability. The intention appeared to be (a) to tighten up the circumstances in which viability could be put forward as a reason to reduce affordable housing within a scheme; (b) to standardise the information provided; and (c) to make it clear that where a local plan was up to date no viability assessment should be required.
Question by Mr Shaxson: Revised response by Chichester District Council to the South Downs National Park Authority’s local plan consultation
Mr Shaxson asked whether, in the light of the debate at this meeting on CDC’s response to the South Downs National Park’s (SDNPA) belated request with regard to its unmet housing need and in view of the imminent meeting between CDC’s and the SDNPA’s chief executives and leaders, CDC could now make formal representations to the SDNPA.
Response by Mrs Taylor
Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services) advised that it was too late to do so as the consultation deadline had expired.
[Note End of Questions to the Executive]