[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 to the executive asked by members and the responses given were as follows:
Question: Compliance with procedures and use of an alternative generator model for the temporary ice rink in Priory Park Chichester
Mr R Plowman (Chichester West) referred to the work now underway for the installation of the temporary ice rink in Priory Park Chichester following the grant of planning permission on Wednesday 14 November 2018 and sought confirmation that all the requirements and procedures were being satisfied and requested an explanation for the choice of a different generator to that identified in the noise study.
Response
Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place) said that this was an operational matter and so he deferred to the relevant directors for a response.
Mrs J Hotchkiss (Director of Growth and Place) said that the planning permission with conditions had been issued; building control conditions would be addressed once the ice rink structure was on site; the licence to occupy was in force; the management plan would be implemented gradually as the event progressed; and the application for a premises licence would be determined by the Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Sub-Committee on Thursday 22 November 2018. She was unaware of the change in specification for the generator and would instruct environmental health officers to investigate.
Mr A Frost (Director of Planning and Environment) said that he did not believe that there were any pre-commencement planning conditions but there were a couple of conditions for which compliance was required within the next two weeks.
Mr H Potter (Boxgrove) observed that in view of the amount of power required to run the refrigerators for the ice rink it was very likely that there would be two generators deployed to work on an alternate basis; this should be borne in mind when monitoring the noise.
Question: Unresolved breach of condition relating to the provision of sewer upgrades in Southbourne
Mr J Brown (Southbourne) referred to a question he had asked at the Cabinet’s special meeting on Wednesday 14 November 2018 about how a breach of condition which had occurred almost a year ago relating to the provision of sewer upgrades in Southbourne had not been properly addressed: no request to vary the original condition had been made, no evidence had been supplied that the work required by the original and extant condition was not necessary and Southern Water had recently completed a different set of works. Southern Water had been contacted and given oral (but no written) assurances that the original condition was not required. In the public’s eye, however, there was a planning condition which was not being enforced. He and one of his co-members for the Southbourne ward, Mr R Hayes, had pursued the matter during the past year with the CDC enforcement officers, who had advised him that they did not have the power to deal with changes made by Southern Water to the terms of a planning condition. He wondered if in order to expedite this matter and bring it to a successful conclusion a referral about Southern Water could be made to Ofwat, the economic regulator of the water sector in England and Wales, asking it to take action.
Mrs L C Purnell (Selsey North) remarked that Ofwat was the correct body to contact and in her experience it could act usefully if approached for assistance.
Mr R Hayes (Southbourne) confirmed Mr Brown’s comments but added that Southbourne Parish Council (of which he was a member) had tried to refer this matter to Ofwat but both in that case and in negotiations with CDC enforcement officers nothing had been achieved. This was an important issue not only in its own right but in view of the 1,250 houses allocated to Southbourne. If infrastructure could not be satisfactorily achieved on a smaller site such as this one in Southbourne, the prospects for larger sites were not encouraging.
Response
Mr A Frost (Director of Planning and Environment) noted all that had been said about what was a site-specific matter and said that it should be pursued outside of this meeting; members clearly needed an update about non-compliance with an undischarged condition. He was unsure if Ofwat was the correct body to approach. However, he undertook to write to Southern Water’s senior managers (whom he considered to be the first point of contact) and the regulator.
Question: Completion of housing stock audit by Hyde
Mr A Shaxson (Harting) referred to the large scale voluntary transfer of housing stock owned by CDC in the early part of the previous decade and the audit of that property portfolio which was being undertaken jointly by Hyde and CDC. He asked how long it would take for the audit to be completed.
Response
Mrs J Kilby (Cabinet Member for Housing Services) said that she would refer to officers for an indicative timescale. She presumed that the audit was part of the asset management review undertaken by CDC’s Housing Task and Finish Group.
Mrs L Rudziak (Director of Home and Communities) said that there was asset survey (not an audit) being undertaken by Hyde of all its housing stock in Chichester District in order to gain a full picture of where to redevelop or build new properties on the land within its portfolio. The asset survey was being undertaken by consultants engaged by Hyde and it was due to have been completed in October 2018 and shared with CDC in November 2018. The survey was not being carried out in partnership with CDC but the results would be divulged so that CDC could work with Hyde on taking forward its asset management programme.
Question: Readiness for a sudden general election
Mr S Lloyd-Williams (Chichester North) asked whether, in view of the current political situation, CDC would be ready in the event of a snap general election being called.
Response
Mrs D Shepherd (Chief Executive) said that CDC’s trained electoral services and other staff who assisted with elections would be ready for any early general election.
Question: Proposals for post office provision in villages east of Chichester
Mr S Oakley (Tangmere) mentioned the scheduled closure of the post office in Tangmere in February 2019. He asked what steps were being taken by CDC to ascertain the Post Office’s proposals for local post office provision in the villages east of Chichester.
Response
Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place) said that one of CDC’s economic development officers had supplied Mr Oakley with a very detailed answer about the situation but it was his understanding that CDC’s powers to influence or intervene were very limited. He suggested that Mr Oakley write to the local MP.
Mrs D Shepherd (Chief Executive) confirmed that CDC had no powers available to deal with post offices but it would endeavour to extract a response from the Post Office.
Question: Request that Midhurst residents be informed of the repeated concerns expressed by their CDC ward members about the disposal of land at the Grange
Mr S Morley (Midhurst) sought an assurance from the Leader of the Council that when he addressed a forthcoming meeting in the town for businesses to explain CDC’s reasons for accepting a bid for care home on part of the Grange site, he would convey how the CDC Midhurst ward members and others had repeatedly communicated the town’s objections to this type of development.
Response
Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place) said that this would be a public meeting and if present Mr Morley would have every opportunity if he so wished to make that point. His remit at this meeting was not to explain the Grange site bid and disposal but to give a clear picture to Midhurst residents what CDC was doing for the town and to learn of any issues and problems which CDC could seek to address on behalf of the community.
Mr S Morley (Midhurst) acknowledged the response and said it would be taken as a ‘no’.
[Note End of Questions to the Executive]