In accordance with Chichester District Council’s public questions scheme and with reference to standing order 6 in Part 4 A and section 5.6 in Part 5 of the Chichester District Council Constitution, consideration will be given at this point in the meeting to questions which have been submitted by members of the public in writing by 12:00 on the previous working day. The time allocated for public question time is subject to the chairman’s discretion to extend the period for each member of the public (five minutes) or the total time for public questions (15 minutes).
Minutes:
Eight public questions had been submitted for this meeting, details of which appear below.
The text of all the questions had been circulated in a document to CDC members, the public and the press immediately prior to the start of this meeting. The Vice-Chairman invited each person in turn to come to the designated microphone in order to read out the question before an oral response was provided.
The questions (with the date of submission shown within [ ] at the end of the text), any supplementary questions and the answers given by Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place) or Mrs S Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services) were as follows.
Question (1): Mr Stephen Holcroft
‘I would like to ask a public question in the above meeting and have the attachment made available along with my question.
[Note The attachment was a map which appeared at the end of the text for this question in the aforementioned document setting out all the public questions]
The question relates to item 12 of the agenda “Chichester Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach – Consultation” and is as follows:
All the proposed strategic site allocations in the Chichester Plan have sensibly been allocated in flood zone 1 areas of low probability of flooding with the exception of SA6 Land South-West of Chichester.
As you can see from my attachment this allocation has been placed directly on a zone 2 medium risk and zone 3 high risk area.
I refer you to the Strategic Policies section 5.54 of the plan.
5.54 As a consequence of the rise in sea levels and storm surges, parts of the plan area will be at increased risk from coastal erosion, groundwater, fluvial and/or tidal flooding. Hard defences may not be possible to maintain in the long term, therefore development needs to be strongly restricted in areas at risk to flooding, whilst ensuring that existing towns and villages are protected by sustainable means that make space for water in suitable areas
Also the Government Planning Framework is quite clear when it states:
‘Only where there are no reasonably available sites in Flood Zones 1 or 2 should the suitability of sites in Flood Zone 3 be considered.’
Ask yourselves the question, if the flood risk looks like this now, what will it look like in 20/50/100 years’ time? This proposed site is not a long term vision. It is quite frankly reckless to even consider this as a sensible area for development given the problems already highlighted in 5.54 of the plan.
My question to the Council is:
Why is this allocation the only allocation to be placed on a Zone 3 high flood risk area and why are you considering such an unsuitable site for development given the high risks of flooding?’
[Friday 16 November 2018]
Response: Mrs S Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services)
‘Thank you for your question. Whilst a portion of the proposed site allocation is in Flood Zones 2 and 3, the allocation is larger than is required for the proposed development which can, in fact, be accommodated on land in Flood Zone 1 only (ie on land at least risk of flooding). This approach is in recognition that a part of the site is affected by flooding and will not be developable.
Para 6.47 of the supporting text to the proposed policy for this site explains that further testing will be required as the Local Plan moves forward. Nevertheless, initial assessment indicates that given the site size (of approximately 85 ha), there is potential to deliver significant development allowing for flood risk and other constraints.
The proposed allocation is for approximately 33 ha of employment land, a minimum of 100 dwellings and a new link road and ancillary facilities. The remainder of the site is expected to remain undeveloped with a significant proportion expected to be open space. As already mentioned, further detailed work will be undertaken in relation to this site as the plan progresses, and in consultation with the local community and key stakeholders. More detail about the identification of this site will be set out in the evidence supporting the Local Plan, which will be published on 13 December 2018, subject to the Council approving the plan for consultation.’
Supplementary Question: Mr Stephen Holcroft
As the plan incorporated at the end of his question (above) showed the current position and did not take into account climate change and rising sea levels, the flood risk situation in 50 to 100 years from now had to be questioned.
Response: Mrs S Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services)
Mr Holcroft’s supplementary point was noted.
Question (2): Mr Mike Dicker on behalf of Ms Fiona Horn
‘As a resident of Donnington, how can such a local plan be sanctioned by the Council when there is no suitable mitigation already in place for road infrastructure and environmental impacts to name but two. Chichester is already being choked by nationally damning air quality and insufficient schools/doctors etc. The A27 upgrade/Northern bypass is still far from being resolved and yet you are intending to put forward plans for even more mass housebuilding schemes in areas like Donnington and Apuldram that have no infrastructure to cope with this.
My question is: Why is the Council even considering a plan for a huge housing development between Donnington and Apuldram when the road infrastructure funding and planning is so uncertain and the whole development as shown on the Governments own flood documents, is classed as a Flood Zone 3, the least suitable for development due to the high risk of flooding?’
[Sunday 18 November 2018]
Response: Mrs S Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services)
‘Thank you for your question. The first point to make is that the District Council working closely with West Sussex County Council, remains focused on achieving strategic improvements to the A27 Chichester Bypass that will provide long term benefits and also address concerns about matters such as poor air quality and journey reliability. As part of the BABA27 initiative, the concept schemes developed by consultants Systra were reported to a special meeting of the full Council in June 2018 where it was resolved that in promoting a scheme to Highways England for inclusion in the government’s second Road Investment Strategy (RIS2), our preference is for the Mitigated Northern route with the alternative Full Southern route put forward as a reasonable alternative. Highways England agreed to develop the concepts further to check they are technically viable and to establish a base cost for each option and we anticipate its response in the coming weeks. However, we have to recognise that there is, at this stage, no certainty that a scheme for Chichester will be included in RIS2.
Consequently, in preparing a review of the local plan, which we must do if our plan is to remain up to date so that we remain in control of the location and distribution of new development across the plan area, then the plan must identify a scheme of highway mitigation that can be relied upon for the A27 which is not dependant on RIS funding. That is why we have commissioned specialist consultants to prepare a transport study which identifies junction alterations to the A27 Chichester Bypass to mitigate the traffic impact of development in the Local Plan review and to ensure that the junctions continue to operate effectively.
The proposed development at Apuldram/Donnington is primarily identified for employment use with a relatively small housing element and a new link road as part of the transport mitigation strategy. The Council is committed to securing the infrastructure required to mitigate the impacts of development but recognises the challenges involved in securing funding. The Council is involved with ongoing discussions with Highways England and West Sussex County Council to agree an implementation strategy to deliver these improvements if and when they become necessary.
In relation to flood risk, the proposed allocation is for approximately 33ha of employment land, a minimum of 100 dwellings and a new link road and ancillary facilities on land with a site area of some 85ha. Whilst a portion of the proposed site allocation is in Flood Zones 2 and 3, the allocation is larger than is required for development which can, in fact, be accommodated on land in flood zone 1 only (ie on land at least risk of flooding). The remainder of the site is expected to remain undeveloped with a significant proportion expected to be open space. Further detailed work will nevertheless be undertaken in relation to this site as the plan progresses, and in consultation with the local community and key stakeholders.’
Supplementary Question
No supplementary question was asked.
Question (3): Mr Ray Briscoe – Westbourne Parish Council
‘Mrs Chairman, Members of the Council
There have been numerous developments approved for Gypsy/Traveller and Travelling Showpeople (GTTS) within the last five years, amounting to virtually all the allocated pitches and plots required in the relevant local plan up to 2027. A new report has been commissioned in order to assess the needs of this community for the revised Local Plan, this will include as part of the baseline all existing plots and pitches and those approved but not yet implemented.
Despite approved plots and pitches being restricted under the terms of the relevant planning permission to occupation by bona fide residents from the GTTS community, many of the developments are now occupied simply as “Park Home” developments whose residents are not nomadic in their lifestyle. If the original applications had been made on the basis of unrestricted occupation in normal circumstances they would be refused as being contrary to countryside policy. However, in order to circumvent the system, the applicants claim that the occupants are or will be from the GTTS community. Once approved it is very difficult for the Enforcement Team to prove the contrary. There would appear to be widespread knowledge within the GTTS community and in our conventional settled communities that this abuse of the system is rife.
We accept there are occasions where occupation of these GTTS plots and pitches is operating in compliance of the planning system but unfortunately this seems to be only in the minority of cases.
If the basis of future demand for new GTTS plots and pitches starts from an artificially inflated level, including the type of unauthorised occupation mentioned above it will result in the provision of unacceptably high levels of GTTS plots and pitches being provided with undesirable consequences for our settled communities.
I would like to ask:
1. What tangible evidence has been presented to the Planning Department and so to this Council in the report to show those living on these developments are Gypsy/Travellers as per the National Planning Policy Guidance (Of nomadic Lifestyle)?
2. How do the Council intend to control such inappropriate developments and applications in future as the application of restrictive occupation conditions appear to be either ignored or ineffective and;
3. Will they ask the consultants writing the report, to quantify their findings before adopting the figures put forward and before asking the Full Council to approve?
There are many parishes across the Chichester Area which have serious concerns regarding this issue.’
[Sunday 18 November 2018]
Response: Mrs S Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services)
‘The first point to make is that a Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) has been carried out by Opinion Research Services (ORS) on behalf of the Coastal West Sussex Authorities according to a nationally recognised methodology, which has been tested at a number of local plan examinations. ORS are leading specialists in this field. In answer to your specific questions:
1. In carrying out the assessment for the Council, ORS sought to identify every potential gypsy and traveller household. They used a team of experienced field workers who conducted face to face interviews with each household to determine whether they meet the criteria set in national policy. The Council is consequently satisfied that the evidence of gypsy, traveller and travelling showpeoples’ need is robust and reliable.
2. Where we become aware of a potential breach of planning control, officers will investigate the complaint in accordance with the adopted Enforcement Strategy. This includes investigating allegations of a breach of occupancy conditions. I must emphasise however, that taking formal enforcement action is a serious matter which must be based on evidence of a breach of control. Nevertheless, the Council takes its enforcement role very seriously and will take appropriate action to enforce compliance with permissions granted where it is expedient to so.
3. The consultants’ full report and findings of need will be published alongside the Local Plan consultation in the event that the recommendations are agreed by Council. Final figures will not however be adopted until the local plan has been through further consultation and the formal examination process. All interested parties are encouraged to look at the evidence to the policies within in the draft plan and to submit representations should they wish to.’
Supplementary Question
No supplementary question was asked.
(4) Question: Ms Tracey Ellis
[Note Ms Ellis was not present at the meeting and so neither her question (the text of which had been circulated in the aforementioned document of all the public questions) nor the response was read out but for completeness and the record both appear below]
‘Chichester District’s transport proposal for traffic management for the 12,000 new homes for the area will cause gridlock and rat running through the city and is based on the same configuration which was roundly rejected by thousands of locals in the last HE consultation. The Brett solution involves the imposition of no right hand turns on or off the A27 at the Stockbridge and Whyke Roundabouts that would mean ALL the Manhood traffic (including Selsey traffic) will use the A286 Witterings road which is the most congested road in the entire district. It provides no alternative routes for residents trapped in beach traffic except to go through Chichester to get anywhere. It will be a disaster for the coastal roads AND Chichester. This cannot be approved.
My question for the meeting is why is there even a consideration (again) for no right hand turns on or off the Stockbridge or Whyke roundabouts when the routes are already congested and will also cause further severe congestion in Chichester too?’
[Sunday 18 November 2018]
Response: Mrs S Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services)
‘Thank you for your question. The transport study prepared by consultants, Peter Brett Associates on behalf of the Council identifies the likely highway impacts of development and suggests potential mitigation, including improvements to junctions on the A27 Chichester Bypass. The strategy identified by the consultants for the design of the A27 junction improvements needs to be viewed in its entirety rather than each junction individually. The introduction of new traffic lights at the Stockbridge and Whyke roundabouts also needs to be seen alongside the introduction of a new Stockbridge link road which will directly link Fishbourne roundabout and Birdham Road (A286).
The consultant’s study serves to demonstrate that the level of development proposed in the review of the Local Plan can be accommodated within the existing highway network with suitable mitigation (i.e. specified alterations to existing junctions). Indeed, the proposed mitigation to the A27 junctions could have the effect of ensuring that as much traffic as possible utilises the A27 for through trips, rather than rat-running through the city centre. I would however wish to reassure you that detailed schemes coming forward for the A27 will need to be discussed further with Highways England, West Sussex County Council and the local community.’
Supplementary Question
In the absence of Ms Ellis, there was no supplementary question.
(5) Question Part One: Mr Mike Dicker
[Note The three-fold question set out below (a) was with the Vice-Chairman’s consent asked and answered in three parts and (b) is in accordance with the original text submitted by Mr Dicker although when he asked his questions additional material was orally added at [*], details of which may be heard via the audio recording on CDC’s website]
‘At the Cabinet meeting last week I asked three questions. One of the answers I received from Councillor Dignum did not answer my FOI question and I have subsequently asked for a written response.
Q1 At the Cabinet last week we heard the following statement from Councillor Dignum in response to one of my questions:
‘CDC has full confidence in Peter Brett Associates in their work and the findings of the study the estimate of £25.2 million is based on construction costs only whilst HE costs included full costs of construction.’
We then heard from Mr Allgrove:
‘Emphasize the evidence base is work in progress. Some aspects of evidence base are still to be finalised such as the transport study, Sustainability appraisal and habitat regulations assessment…ongoing strategic flood risk assessment and landscape study.’
[*]
I therefore ask:
Q1a What confidence you as councillors have in your leaders statement at cabinet and the state of the transport report provided by peter Brett Associates which is at odds to the HE report to the tune of £25 million for Peter Brett and £46 Million for HE report on option 3?
Q1b I would further ask why are we going to public consultation without a complete set of evidence and options for members of the public to comment on?
We have been here before and the majority response was NO OPTION. We also are potentially letting Highways England off the hook as if we write this in our plan they may consider that we have consensus and are accepting Option 3 which is not the case and not what this council voted for.
Q1c Would we not be better providing a transport study that outlines multiple options that integrate with future Highways England solutions particularly the mitigated Northern route and provides local mitigation and stresses the council’s position strongly on this matter?
We have time to do this. This traffic proposal, effectively option 3, provides mitigation for through traffic but not for local traffic and was resoundingly rejected at the last debacle of a consultation and should be removed from the local plan.’
Response: Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place)
Q1a ‘We recognise that there are differences in the cost of schemes identified by Peter Brett Associates (PBA) and the Highways England consultation, albeit that they are not identical schemes. Officers are exploring with PBA and HE the need to either refine the costs or add commentary within the report to explain the difference in cost eg land acquisition and maintenance.’
Q1b ‘We need to commence consultation on the Local Plan Review now and are satisfied that the evidence base is sufficiently advanced to make the decision to consult at this time. The evidence base will continue to be refined up to the point of the submission of the plan for examination. If the Council does not agree to progress the Local Plan Review now, it is likely that we will face having to plan for much larger amounts of development firstly, because we will lose the 40% ‘cap’ that the government provides on our housing increase and secondly, through the planning application and appeals system, in all likelihood with less funding from developer contributions to infrastructure as a result of smaller sites coming forward in an unplanned fashion.’
Q1c ‘Whilst I appreciate the rationale for the question and have previously explained that the Council remains focused on achieving improvements to the A27 Chichester Bypass that will provide long term benefits and also address concerns about matters such as poor air quality and journey reliability, there is, at this stage, no certainty that a scheme for Chichester will be included in the government’s second Road Investment Strategy and the draft RIS will not in any case, be published by the DfT until late 2019; furthermore, we will no doubt all recall that the Secretary of State responded to the ‘No option’ consultation response by withdrawing the funding for the major scheme.
There are limited options to mitigate the impact of further development on the highway network. Our transport consultants have identified a relatively low cost option that can be funded through development with some potential additional public funding. It would not be realistic to progress a northern bypass as part of the Local Plan mitigation as this amounts to a strategic solution to the long term issues of the A27 trunk road around Chichester and goes beyond the need (in relation to the Local Plan review) to mitigate the impact of proposed development. Furthermore, a northern bypass would not be capable of being funded through developer contributions and any top up funding needed to facilitate development. It is of course open to Mr Dicker and other interested parties to suggest possible alternative mitigation solutions in response to the consultation.’
Supplementary Question
Mr Dicker requested that he be allowed to pursue Q1c with regard to a transport study with multiple options as he had not received an answer to it.
The Vice-Chairman declined his request in view of what would be the lengthy duration of this meeting.
Mr Dicker asked for it to be noted that he objected to not having received an answer.
(5) Question Part Two: Mr Mike Dicker
Q2 ‘Why are CDC agreeing to accept 50 to 81 homes per year from the SDNP allocation when as we understand it communities in the Park want more housing in their villages to provide affordable housing for their children and hence sustain their communities? When was this agreed between CDC, SDNP and where do these allocations fit into this local plan?’
Response: Mrs S Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services)
‘Thank you for your question. Following a request from the South Downs National Park Authority, it was resolved at a meeting of the Council on 6 March 2018, that subject to the completion of the ongoing evidence-based work and the assessment of sites to meet the identified housing needs associated with the Local Plan Review, the District Council will assess its ability to meet some or all of the unmet housing needs arising from the part of the South Downs National Park within Chichester District via the Chichester Local Plan Review. At that time this was estimated to be 41-44 dwellings per annum. National policy does not require national parks to meet all objectively assessed housing needs within their areas. All interested parties were able to respond to the consultation process on the National Park’s Local Plan to suggest alternative approaches to development, whether they are communities within or outside the national park.’
Question Part Three: Mr Mike Dicker
Q3 ‘Under S16 there is broadly a proposal not to build “noise sensitive” residential property within 400m of Goodwood race circuit. Why is this not part of the local plan for a strategic employment site around the south of the circuit as the noise issue is not the same as for residential properties and there are or could be of course excellent road links and appropriate space?’
[Monday 19 November 2018]
Response: Mrs S Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services)
‘Officers have not proposed to allocate land in this location for employment development. Whilst the noise constraint would not be as great a consideration as for residential development, the land to the south of the motor circuit has significant flooding and landscape constraints. It is open to Mr Dicker and other interested parties to propose that this land be allocated in response to the consultation.’
(6) Question: Mrs Joan Foster – Hunston Parish Council
‘Hunston Parish Council would like to question the new proposals for development of 200 houses in Hunston contained in the Chichester Local Plan Review 2035 – Preferred Approach December 2018.
The Parish Council expects that the Council will be aware of the question it raised with the Cabinet at last week’s meeting.
In addition to those representations made the Parish Council would add the following;
Under Transport Infrastructure, there is no reference to the B2145 through Hunston being the fourth busiest B Road in the United Kingdom, according to Road Traffic Statistics (Road Traffic Statistics 2014). Page 86 states that there will be small scale junction improvements on Manhood Peninsula. Setting aside the proposed developments in West Wittering, Birdham, 450 houses between Hunston and Selsey in reality means additional road traffic, potentially 900 cars. Alongside this the Free School has resulted in daily traffic hold-ups on this road.
Currently there are approximately 571 residences in Hunston – 200 more houses increases that by 35%, that is not development that is social change.
Page 232 defines Hunston as an Urban area. The definition of Urban in the English Oxford dictionary is ‘in, relating to, or characteristic of a Town or City’. This Hunston is not, it is a rural village.
At the Cabinet meeting last week the member for Loxwood made reference to the housing allocation for Loxwood and asked why neighbouring villages had not received an allocation. In answering this Mr Andrew Frost replied that no land had been made available in those parishes and made reference to Loxwood being a Service Village.
Whilst the Parish Council notes that Hunston is a service village, so too is North Mundham and it also has deliverable land for housing.
Hunston Parish Council’s question is as follows:
Will the Council please agree to amend the officers’ recommendations and substantially reduce the housing allocation to Hunston?’
[Monday 19 November 2018]
Response: Mrs S Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services)
‘Thank you for your question. It is recognised that both Hunston and North Mundham are Service Villages as defined by the Local Plan and the concerns of the parish council regarding the relative allocation of housing numbers between the two parishes are noted. The main purpose of the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment is to demonstrate that there is sufficient land available to meet the development needs of the plan area and in the case of the allocations referred to; the officers’ initial views are that the suitability of land within the parish of Hunston justifies the split now shown. I would emphasise however, that the. Council will consider the content of the Plan today and will determine whether the split of housing between the two parishes, as proposed, is appropriate. I would also suggest that Hunston Parish Council makes formal representations on the plan if the recommendations are agreed so that this matter can be given further detailed consideration.’
Supplementary Question
No supplementary question was asked.
[Note The final two questions, 7 and 8 below, were about the same subject and very similar in content and so at the Vice-Chairman’s invitation the two members of the public who had submitted them came together to the designated microphone to read each in turn her and his question before a single response to both questions was supplied]
(7) Question: Ms Maggie Campbell-Culver
[Note Unlike question (8) below, this question was asked in full by Ms Campbell-Culver]
‘My question relates to the temporary ice rink being installed in Priory Park, Chichester.
At the CDC Cabinet meeting on 6 November we were twice told that the financial risks associated with the ice rink lie with the Council’s commercial partner and not with the Council.
It has come to my attention that at an earlier CDC Cabinet meeting on 2 October, members were asked to consider as a matter of urgency expenditure exceeding £100,000 on the installation of this temporary ice rink within Priory Park.
The Council notice dated 13 September states that the press and public were to be excluded from that part of the Cabinet meeting since there was a disclosure of information relating to the financial or business affairs of a particular person or persons.
Please would you advise me of the decision taken that day by the Cabinet, and if deferred, the nature of the deferral and of any subsequent decision.
If expenditure in excess of £100,000 was agreed, or is likely to be agreed in the near future, will this take the form of a loan, and if so, please advise me:
– what is the real amount?
– who is/will be the recipient of this loan?
– what is the specific purpose of the loan?
– on what terms has or will this loan be made?
– what guarantees for repayment have been made and by whom?
If not a loan, what is the amount, what form does or will the payment take, to whom, and for what specific purpose?’
[Monday 19 November 2018]
Response: Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place)
[Note The response appears underneath question (8) below]
Supplementary Question
No supplementary question was asked.
(8) Question: Mr Tom Bottrill
[Note In view of question (7), only a précis of this question (in full below) was asked]
‘My questions relate to the proposed ice rink to be installed in Priory Park, Chichester. At the CDC Cabinet meeting on 6 November we were told that the risks associated with costs for staging the temporary ice skating rink lie with the contractor and not with the Council.
It has come to my attention that at an earlier CDC Cabinet meeting on 2 October, Committee Members were asked to consider as a matter of urgency where the press and public were not permitted to attend. It involved expenditure exceeding £100,000 for the installation of a temporary ice skating rink with ancillary facilities in Priory Park. It is also understood that the notice was not published 28 clear days before the meeting as local authorities are required to.
I understand the press and public were excluded from that part of the Cabinet meeting since there was a disclosure of information relating to the financial or business affairs of a particular person.
Please would you advise me of the decision taken by the Cabinet, and if deferred, the nature of the deferral and any subsequent decision.
If the expenditure was agreed, or is likely to be agreed in the near future could you please advise me:
– who is/will be the recipient of this expenditure?
– what is the specific purpose of the expenditure?
– on what terms has or will this expenditure be made?
– are there any guarantees for repayment have been made and by whom?’
[Monday 19 November 2018]
Combined Response to Questions 7 and 8: Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place)
‘The notice that you refer to is the notice of forthcoming key decision and/or actions decisions to be taken in private.
Local authorities are required to publish a notice of key decisions and/or of their intention to hold a meeting of the executive (the Cabinet) in private at least 28 days clear before the meeting. This notice sets out key decisions to be taken in private at the meeting of the Cabinet on the date below, which have not been included in previously published statutory notices (the forward plan). In accordance with Part 2, Regulation 5, of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, the chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had been consulted and agreed that the item was urgent and cannot reasonably be delayed.
The notice sets out the key decision reason if appropriate - ie if the decision is likely to incur expenditure, generate income, or produce savings greater than £100,000 or if a decision is required in a timely manner.
Expressions of interested had been received by this date, however options for the delivery of the project and therefore costs were unknown at this stage. It was later confirmed that the proposed contractor would take all financial risk for the project and therefore a Cabinet decision was not required.
Therefore I can confirm that the Cabinet on 2 October 2018 did not receive a report regarding the ice skating proposal as there was no formal decision of the Cabinet required.
I can confirm that the Cabinet did not receive a report to the 2 October 2018 meeting as there was no formal decision of the Cabinet required.
I can also confirm that no expenditure was agreed or is likely to be agreed in the near future.’
Supplementary Question
Mr Bottrill requested the opportunity to ask a supplementary question.
The Vice-Chairman declined his request in view of what would be the lengthy duration of this meeting.
The response to the eighth question above concluded public question time and the Vice-Chairman thanked everyone for their questions.