In accordance with Chichester District Council’s scheme for public question time as amended by Full Council on 24 September 2019 the Council will receive any questions which have been submitted by members of the public in writing by noon two working days before the meeting. Each questioner will be given up to three minutes to ask their question. The total time allocated for public question time is 15 minutes subject to the Chairman’s discretion to extend that period.
Minutes:
The following public questions were received from Mr Dicker. The responses are indicated in italics below.
Reading the minutes from the last council meeting I have a number of concerns about the preferred approach item 69. This prompts the following questions:
Question 1 - Mr Dicker
Reading the minutes from the last council meeting I have a number of concerns about the preferred approach item 69. This prompts the following questions:
Why did Councillor Lintill advise councillors that they are in Purdah especially as the Local Government Association advises that councils should
“Continue to discharge normal council business - including determining planning applications, even if they are controversial.”
The following answer was read by The Chairman:
I took advice from the Monitoring Officer (the senior solicitor to the Council) as to whether purdah was in operation and how it should operate in respect of significant projects. Whilst your question states that you believe purdah was not in operation, the heightened restrictions on publicity known as purdah did apply from 6 November 2019 through to the date of the election itself on 12 December 2019.
A second element of your question is then how Purdah should have impacted this particular matter.
The relevant government guidance is contained in many sources including case law, Statute and the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity (which itself is issued under section 4 of the Local Government Act 1986). The relevant paragraph in the Code of Recommended Publicity is:
‘41. The period between the notice of an election and the election itself should preclude proactive publicity in all its forms of candidates and other politicians involved directly in the election. Publicity should not deal with controversial issues or report views, proposals or recommendations in such a way that identifies them with individual members or groups of members. However, it is acceptable for the authority to respond in appropriate circumstances to events and legitimate service enquiries provided that their answers are factual and not party political. Members holding key political or civic positions should be able to comment in an emergency or where there is a genuine need for a member level response to an important event outside the authority’s control. Proactive events arranged in this period should not involve members likely to be standing for election.’
In this matter Mr Bennett advised members that whilst the Council could and would respond to “business as usual” enquiries in respect of projects at this time, that the Council should not generate pro-active correspondence where it could be avoided until after the purdah period.
Question 2 – Mr Dicker
Councillor Barrett asked for clarification on why the Peter Brett Study had not been included the northern bypass option. According to the minutes he received no answer so I now ask the same question?
The following answer was read by Mrs Taylor:
The northern bypass option is not included in the Peter Brett study as in the absence of inclusion of a scheme for the A27 Chichester Bypass in the national Road Investment Strategy, there is a need for the Council to demonstrate how the development envisaged in the Local Plan can be delivered without unacceptable traffic impacts. Since the draft Local Plan scheme is required only to mitigate against the impact of new development and not to provide significant additional capacity as a government funded scheme might do, the focus of the Peter Brett Study is primarily to assess cost effective and deliverable on-line options to mitigate the effects of development traffic and the minutes of the meeting on 3 December record this important distinction.
Question 3 - Mr Dicker
Councillor Moss commented that the training of new members should not be an excuse for the level of progress and raised concerns that members would not have enough time to fully scrutinise the final decisions as the right level of public consultation would also be required. I concur with Councillor Moss’s comment but would ask whether the public will have adequate time to comment particularly on new plans which, of course would be challenged at examination if there are not 2 consultations as part of the plan. Further the election of councillors was known and to date despite my FOI which is overdue for disclosure. I do not know if this was an identified project issue or risk.
The following answer was read by Mrs Taylor:
The requirements for public consultation in bringing forward a new Local Plan are set out in the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. The Council will ensure that the public has adequate time to comment on the next iteration of the plan in accordance with the regulations and the Council’s commitment to community engagement as set out in the published Statement of Community Involvement. Member agreement to the contents of the Local Plan review is identified as a key matter in the Council’s corporate risk register and there are a range of ways in place to ensure appropriate member engagement on the emerging strategy and policies.
Question 4 - Mr Dicker
The council is advertising for a climate champion or similar role and yet proposing the concreting up of one of the main wildlife corridors in the local plan with an industrial estate, link road and at least 100 houses as part of AL6 - how can this double standard approach be endorsed by this council.
The following answer was read by Mrs Taylor:
The Local Plan must balance the needs for development against environmental and other planning considerations. The preferred approach plan proposed five strategic wildlife corridors, all of which were outside proposed allocation site AL6 (land south-west off Chichester).The contents of the next version of the plan, including potential site allocations is currently under detailed consideration by the Council and will be the subject of public consultation in due course.
Question 5 – Mr Dicker
Will respondents receive a response to their comments or not as requested by Councillor Moss at the last meeting but not answered
The following answer was read by Mrs Taylor:
The Council meeting in December considered the responses to part one of the Local Plan consultation. A second report containing the responses to part two will be brought to Council in due course, and all respondents will be contacted at that point.
The Chairman allowed Mr Dicker to ask a supplementary question.
Mr Dicker then asked whether the written responses he had received to his questions from 3 December 2019 Council meeting were circulated to members and made available to the public.
Mr Frost responded by explaining that members are sent a copy of the response which could be resent if required. Mrs Shepherd then agreed that the written responses from 3 December 2019 Council meeting and future meetings would be made available with the minutes online. Post meeting note: a supplement to the minutes was published online.
Mr Dicker then asked why the council was concreting over a wildlife corridor. Mrs Taylor responded and clarified that the reference was to AL6. She explained that there are no proposed wildlife corridors in AL6 and no decisions have been made to remove any current corridors.