Public Document Pack Arun District Council Civic Centre Maltravers Road Littlehampton West Sussex BN17 5LF

Tel: (01903 737500) This is a virtual meeting and will Fax: (01903) 730442 be webcast live – please use this DX: 57406 Littlehampton Minicom: 01903 732765 link webcast page e-mail: [email protected]

23 December 2020

COUNCIL MEETING

To all Members of the Council

You are summoned to attend a virtual meeting of the ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL to be held on Wednesday 13 January 2021 at 6.00 pm to transact the business set out below:

Nigel Lynn Chief Executive

PLEASE NOTE: This meeting will be a ‘virtual meeting’ and any member of the press and public may listen-in and view the proceedings via a weblink which will be publicised on the Council website at least 24 hours before the meeting.

Different meeting arrangements are in place for the period running from 4 April 2020 to 7 May 2021 from the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 and the meeting regulations 2020, to allow formal ‘virtual meetings’.

This Council’s revised Rules of Procedures for ‘virtual meetings’ can be found by clicking on this link: https://www.arun.gov.uk/constitution

Any members of the public wishing to address the Full Council meeting during Public Question Time, will need to email [email protected] by 5.15 pm on Thursday, 7 January 2021 on line with current Cabinet Procedure Rules. It will be at the Chief Executive’s/Chairman’s discretion if any questions received after this deadline are considered. . For further information on the items to be discussed, please contact: [email protected]

AGENDA

1. Apologies for absence

2. Declarations of interest Members and Officers are invited to make any declarations of pecuniary, personal and/or prejudicial interests that they may have in relation to items on this agenda, and are reminded that they should re-declare their interest before consideration of the item or as soon as the interest becomes apparent.

Members and Officers should make their declaration by stating:

a) the item they have the interest in b) whether it is a pecuniary, personal and/or prejudicial interest c) the nature of the interest d) if it is a pecuniary or prejudicial interest, whether they will be exercising their right to speak under Question Time

3. Public Question Time To receive questions from the public (for a period of up to 15 minutes)

4. Questions from Members with Pecuniary/Prejudicial Interests To receive questions from Members with pecuniary/prejudicial interests (for a period of up to 15 minutes)

5. Petitions To consider any petitions received from the public.

6. Minutes (Pages 1 - 40) To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Meetings of the Council held on 11, 18 and 26 November 2020, which are attached.

7. Chairman's Announcements To receive such announcements as the Chairman may desire to lay before the Council.

8. Urgent Matters To deal with business not otherwise specified in the Council summons which, in the opinion of the Chairman of the Council (in consultation with the Chief Executive), is business of such urgency as to require immediate attention by the Council.

9. Motions To confirm that no Motions have been received for this meetig in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 14.1 and 14.2.

OFFICER REPORTS

10. A27 Arundel Improvements (Pages 41 - 50) Following Highways England’s Preferred Route Announcement (Grey Route), the report seeks to provide a corporate response to that announcement.

REPORTS FROM CABINET, OVERVIEW SELECT, REGULATORY AND STANDARDS COMMITTEES, AND FROM WORKING PARTIES AND WORKING GROUPS REMAINING FROM THE ADJOURNED MEETING OF FULL COUNCIL OF 26 NOVEMBER 2020

11. Planning Policy Sub-Committee - 22 September 2020 (Pages 51 - 54) The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Yeates, will present the Minutes from the meeting of the Planning Policy Sub-Committee held on 22 September 2020. There are recommendations at:

o Minute 14 [Arun District Council Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) 2019/20 – to view the Officer’s report, please click on this link – Report

12. Standards Committee - 24 September 2020 (Pages 55 - 58) The Chairman, Councillor Edwards, will present the Minutes from the meeting of the Standards Committee held on 24 September 2020. There are no recommendations.

13. Development Control Committee - 30 September 2020 (Pages 59 - 66) The Chairman, Councillor Bennett, will present the Minutes from the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 30 September 2020. There are no recommendations.

14. Overview Select Committee - 6 October 2020 The Chairman, Councillor Northeast, will present the Minutes from the meeting of the Overview Select Committee held on 6 October 2020. There are no recommendations.

15. Littlehampton Regeneration Sub-Committee 7 October 2020 (Pages 67 - 72) The Chairman, Councillor Miss Seex, will present the Minutes from the meeting of the Littlehampton Regeneration Sub-Committee held on 7 October 2020. There are no recommendations.

16. Cabinet - 19 October 2020 (Pages 73 - 102) The Chairman, Councillor Dr Walsh, will present the Minutes from the meeting of Cabinet held on 19 October 2020. There is a recommendation at:

o Minute 257 – [Engineering Services Annual Review] – to view the Officer’s report and Appendices, please click on this link – Report and Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 o Minute 260 -Supplementary Estimate for the Procurement and Award of a New Housing Management IT System] – to view the Officer’s report, please click on this link - Report

17. Bognor Regis Regeneration Sub-Committee - 21 October 2020 (Pages 103 - 108) The Chairman, Councillor Stanley, will present the Minutes from the Bognor Regis Regeneration Sub-Committee held on 21 October 2020. There are no recommendations.

REPORTS FROM CABINET, OVERVIEW SELECT, REGULATORY AND STANDARDS COMMITTEES, AND FROM WORKING PARTIES AND WORKING GROUPS

18. Housing & Customer Services Working Group - 5 November 2020 (Pages 109 - 114) The Chairman, Councillor Bennett, will present the Minutes from the meeting of the Housing & Customer Services Working Group held on 5 November 2020. There are no recommendations.

19. Cabinet - 16 November 2020 (Pages 115 - 148) The Chairman, Councillor Dr Walsh, will present the Minutes from the meeting of Cabinet held on 16 November 2020. There are a range of recommendations at:

o Minute 285 [Place St Maur, Bognor Regis] – to view the Officer’s report, please click on this link – Report and Appendix o Minute 286 [Sunken Gardens, Bognor Regis] – to view the Officer’s report, please click on this link - Report and Appendix

20. Audit & Governance Committee - 19 November 2020 (Pages 149 - 156) The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Erskine, will present the Minutes from the Audit & Governance Committee held on 19 November 2020. There are a range of recommendations at:

o Minute 311 [Independent Members’ Remuneration Panel – Review of Special Responsibility Allowances] – to view the report of the Independent Remuneration Panel, please click on this link – Covering Report and Panel’s Report

o Minute 315 [Treasury Management Mid-Year Report] – to view the Officer’s report, please click on this link - Report o Minute 316 [Data Protection Breach Overview] – to view the Officer’s report, please click on this link - Report

21. Development Control Committee - 25 November 2020 (Pages 157 - 162) The Chairman, Councillor Bennett, will present the Minutes from the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 25 November 2020. There is one recommendation at:

o Minute 327 [Options for Introducing Further Controls on the Definition and Number and Quality of Houses in Multiple Occupation] – to view the Officer’s report, please click on this link – Report

22. Constitution Working Party - 30 November 2020 (Pages 163 - 210) The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Yeates, will present the Minutes from the meeting of the Constitution Working Party held on 30 November 2020. There are a range of recommendations at:

o Minute 30 [Committee Responsibility for Land Property and Asset Management] – the Officer’s report and Appendix is attached o Minute 31 [Consolidated Report on Outstanding Planning Issues] – the Officer’s report and Appendix is attached o Minute 32 [Referral of Motion 4 From Full Council on 18 November 2020 to this Working Party on Call-In] – the Officer’s report is attached.

23. Overview Select Committee - 1 December 2020 (Pages 211 - 218) The Chairman, Councillor Northeast, will present the Minutes from the meeting of the Overview Select Committee held on 1 December 2020. There are no recommendations.

24. Development Control Committee - 2 December 2020 (Pages 219 - 228) The Chairman, Councillor Bennett, will present the Minutes from the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 2 December 2020. There are no recommendations.

25. Standards Committee - 3 December 2020 (Pages 229 - 236) The Vice-Chairman, Councillor Bennett, will present the Minutes from the Standards Committee held on 3 December 2020. There are no recommendations.

26. Chief Executive's (CEO) Remuneration Committee - 8 December 2020 (Pages 237 - 240) The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Gregory, will present the Minutes from the Chief Executive’s Remuneration Committee held on 8 December 2020. There is one recommendation at:

Minute 369 [Chief Executive’s Remuneration 2020/21] – to view the Officer’s report – please click on this link – Report and Appendix

27. Environment and Leisure Working Group - 10 December 2020 (Pages 241 - 250) The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Warr, will present the Minutes from the Environment and Leisure Working Group held on 10 December 2020. There are no recommendations.

28. Cabinet - 14 December 2020 (Pages 251 - 274) The Chairman, Councillor Dr Walsh, will present the Minutes from the meeting of Cabinet held on 14 December 2020. There are a range of recommendations at:

o Minute 377 [Financial Support to Leisure Operating Contract] – to view the Officer’s report, please click on this link – Report o Minute 383 [Housing & Customer Services Working Group – Minute 12 – Additional and Selective Licensing Scheme for Houses in Multiple Occupation] – See Minute 12 [Additional and Selective Licensing Scheme for Houses in Multiple Occupation] – to view the Officer’s report – please click on this link – Report and Appendix o Minute 383 [Overview Select Committee – 1 December 2020 – Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme 2021/22] – to view the Minutes – please click on this link which is an extract from the minutes of the Council Tax Support Task and Finish Working Party – please click on this link Council Tax Support Task and Finish Working Party Minutes

29. Planning Policy Sub-Committee - 15 December 2020 (Pages 275 - 286) The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Yeates, will present the Minutes from the Planning Policy Sub-Committee held on 15 December 2020. There are recommendations at: o Minute 21 [Community Infrastructure Levy Governance] – to view the Officer’s report and the Appendices, please click on this link – Report and Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 and Appendix 4 o Minute 24 [Arun Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document] – to view the Officer’s report, please click on this link - Report o Minute 27 [Brownfield Land Register 2020] – to view the Officer’s report, please click on this link – Report

30. Questions from Members To consider general questions from Members in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 13.3, including questions remaining from the Council Meeting on 11 November 2020.

31. Committee Memberships Any changes to Committee Memberships that need noting by the Council will be reported at the meeting.

32. Representation on Outside Bodies The Council is asked to approve any changes to its representation on Outside Bodies.

 Members are reminded that if they have detailed questions, would they please inform the relevant Cabinet Member/Chairman and/or Director in advance of the meeting in accordance with the Council Procedure Rules

 Copies of the reports on the recommendations from the other Committees are provided via an e-link, where appropriate

 Filming, Photography and Recording at Council Meetings - The District Council supports the principles of openness and transparency in its decision making and permits filming, recording and the taking of photographs at its meetings that are open to the public. This meeting may therefore be recorded, filmed or broadcast by video or audio, by third parties. Arrangements for these activities should operate in accordance with guidelines agreed by the Council and as available via the following link – Filming Policy This page is intentionally left blank Public Document Pack Agenda Item 6 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

237

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL HELD IN THE ARUN CIVIC CENTRE ON 11 NOVEMBER 2020 AT 6.00 PM

Present: Councillors Mrs Worne (Chairman), Brooks (Vice-Chairman), Mrs Baker, Batley, Bennett, Bicknell, Blanchard-Cooper, Bower, Buckland, Mrs Caffyn, Mrs Catterson, Chapman, Charles, Clayden, Mrs Cooper, Cooper, Coster, Mrs Daniells, Dendle, Dixon. Edwards, Elkins, English, Mrs Erskine, Goodheart, Mrs Gregory, Gunner, Mrs Hamilton, Mrs Haywood, Hughes, Huntley, Jones, Kelly, Lury, Mrs Madeley, Miss Needs, Northeast, Oliver-Redgate, Oppler, Mrs Pendleton, Purchese, Miss Rhodes, Roberts, Miss Seex, Smith, Mrs Stainton, Stanley, Tilbrook, Ms Thurston, Dr Walsh, Mrs Worne and Mrs Yeates.

Honorary Aldermen Mr Norman Dingemans and Mrs Patricia Stinchcombe were also in attendance for all or part of the meeting.

[Note: The following Councillors were absent from the meeting during consideration of the matters detailed in the Minutes indicated: - Councillor Oliver-Redgate – Minute 291 292; Councillor Purchese – Minute 291 to Minute 299 [Part].

291. WELCOME

The Chairman welcomed Councillors, representatives of the public, press and officers to the Council Meeting. A special welcome was extended to Honorary Aldermen Mrs Stinchcombe and Mr Norman Dingemans.

292. ARMISTICE DAY - MINUTE'S SILENCE

The Chairman confirmed that to mark the fact that it was Armistice Day she felt it appropriate for the Council to reflect and remember those who had fallen in all conflicts. She therefore asked the Council to join her in a minute silence to those who had given the ultimate sacrifice to their country.

The Council then stood in silence to their memory.

293. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Mrs Staniforth and from Honorary Aldermen Mrs Goad, MBE and Mrs Morrish.

Page 1 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

238

Full Council - 11.11.20

294. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Coster confirmed that he wished to declare a Personal Interest in Agenda Item 9 [Motions] in relation to Motion 1 and that he would make a statement at the commencement of that item.

Councillor Dixon also declared a Personal Interest in Item 9 and Motion 1. He confirmed that prior to his role as a District Councillor he had been very involved and engaged with the local community through the Bognor Regis Civic Society in terms of regeneration and that that engagement and understanding gained from the Civic Society had partly driven the decision to present this Motion. These had been his views held at the time and so he wished to make it clear that he had an open mind regarding these items and that he would listen and consider all the relevant issues and interests presented and would then reach his decision on merit.

Councillor Blanchard-Cooper declared a Personal Interest in Agenda Item 9 [Motions] in relation to Motion 6 in his capacity as a Member of the Littlehampton Musical and Comedy Society.

The Declaration of Interest Sheet set out below confirms those Members who had made a declaration of their personal interest as a Member of a Town or Parish Councillor or a West Sussex County Councillor, as confirmed in their Register of Interest as these declarations could apply to any of the issues to be discussed at the meeting.

Name Town or Parish Council or West Sussex County Council [WSCC] Councillor Tracy Baker Littlehampton Councillor Kenton Batley Bognor Regis Councillor Jamie Bennett Rustington Councillor Paul Bicknell Angmering Councillor Billy Blanchard-Cooper Littlehampton Councillor Jim Brooks Bognor Regis Councillor Ian Buckland Littlehampton and WSCC Councillor Mike Clayden Rustington Councillor Andy Cooper Rustington Councillor Alison Cooper Rustington Councillor Sandra Daniells Bognor Regis Councillor David Edwards WSCC Councillor Roger Elkins Ferring and WSCC Councillor Paul English Felpham Councillor Inna Erskine Bognor Regis Councillor Steve Goodheart Bognor Regis Councillor Pauline Gregory Rustington Page 2 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

239

Full Council - 11.11.20

Councillor June Hamilton Pagham Councillor Shirley Haywood Middleton-on-Sea Councillor David Huntley Pagham Councillor Henry Jones Bognor Regis Councillor Martin Lury Bersted Councillor Claire Needs Bognor Regis Councillor Mike Northeast Littlehampton Councillor Francis Oppler WSCC Councillor Jacky Pendleton Middleton-on-Sea and WSCC Councillor Vicky Rhodes Littlehampton Councillor Emily Seex Littlehampton Councillor Martin Smith Aldwick Councillor Samantha Staniforth Bognor Regis Councillor Matt Stanley Bognor Regis Councillor Isabel Thurston Barnham & Eastergate Councillor James Walsh Littlehampton and WSCC Councillor Jeanette Warr Bognor Regis Councillor Amanda Worne Yapton Councillor Gillian Yeates Bersted

Councillor Mrs Erskine confirmed that she wished to declare a Personal Interest in Motion 3 as she had a family member who had made use of the Hidden Disabilities Sunflower scheme.

295. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

The Chairman invited questions from members of the public who had submitted their questions in advance of the meeting in accordance with the rules of the Council’s Constitution and the Virtual Meeting Procedure Rules amended by the Council on 15 July 2020.

The Chairman confirmed that two questions had been submitted, as detailed below. Both questions were for the Leader of the Council, Councillor Dr Walsh, to respond to and both questions related to the Arundel By-Pass and the recent route confirmation from Highways England.

The first questioner asked if the Council had considered the deleterious impact of building an elevated dual carriageway 50 m away from a 12th century church [the Grey route] would have and the destructive social effect on the community of Binsted who had nowhere else to gather or bury its dead.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Dr Walsh confirmed that the Council had supported the Magenta option and that Highways England (HE) had chosen the grey route as its preferred option. As Leader of the Council he would be invited to consider a Local Impact Report on the details of the road and its impacts that HE would be

Page 3 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

240

Full Council - 11.11.20

providing and at that time the Council would be able to consider what stance it wished to present at a formal examination of the road scheme. The Leader of the Council provided an assurance that effects this route would have to be considered as part of that process.

The questioner asked a supplementary question which was that West Sussex County Council has stated in its submission to the consultation in 2019 that the impacts associated with regard to the Grey route have been under estimated because the environmental assessment has not taken into account the impacts on the Avisford Grange area of Walberton or the impacts this would have on the historic environment the latter included Binsted St Mary’s Church and also severance of the view along the Binsted rock valley. Did the Leader agree with WSCC that the environmental impacts of Grey had been underestimated by Highways England?

Councillor Dr Wash responded confirming that he had not seen a statement nor had formed an opinion as the local impact survey had not been received. On receipt, the Council would be able to discuss and consider and come to an opinion on that survey which would be important in making sure that great as possible mitigation measures would be put in to place if the grey route was proceeded with.

The second questioner raised concerns of the welfare of his two sons who attended the Walberton and Binsted CofE Primary School. The Council was asked how it would ensure that the children in attendance would not be subjected to the damaging health and attainment effects of increased noise and air pollution caused by the new bypass and the 3 years of construction that would take place.

Councillor Dr Walsh responded stating that as Leader of the Council, he welcomed the announcement that HE was supporting an offline option. He stated that he also acknowledged that whilst this route would be beneficial to some communities, others would be impacted and so he would continue to urge HE to mitigate the impact of the proposals on local residents which include all of the matters raised this evening. The proposal would be subject to an examination by the Planning Inspectorate who would consider these points and this Council would be required to prepare a local impact report clearly setting out the concerns raised regarding the preferred route.

(A schedule of the full questions asked and the responses provided can be found on the Pubic Question Web page at: https://www.arun.gov.uk/public-question-time )

The Chairman then drew Public Question Time to a close.

296. QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS WITH PECUNIARY/PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS

There were no questions asked.

Page 4 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

241

Full Council - 11.11.20

297. PETITIONS

The Chairman confirmed that no Petitions had been received.

298. MINUTES

The minutes from the Full Council Meeting held on 16 September 2020 were approved as a correct record by the Council, subject to a very slight amendment to the end time of the meeting being amended to 12.37 am from 11.37 pm.

The Chairman confirmed that these would be signed at the earliest opportunity available to her.

299. CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS

The Chairman firstly confirmed that she was delighted to announce that the following residents in the Arun District had received the following recognition in the Queen’s Birthday Honours:

. Caroline Alexander – who received a CBE as Chief Nurse at Barts Health NHS Trust and for her services to nursing . Deborah Cropanese – who received and OBE as Delivery Director for National Business Centres, HM Courts and Tribunals Service for her public service . Adam Smith – an MBE for his services to the community during Covid-19 as a food delivery driver for Iceland Foods and for services to the community; and . Finally, to John Thompson a member of our Independent Remuneration Panel and Independent Person to the Standards Committee – who had received an MBE for his service to the community in Bognor Regis.

The Chairman passed on her congratulations for all of their outstanding service and she asked the Council to join with her in giving a virtual round of applause or a thumbs up to the screen in recognition of their services.

The Chairman referred to her activities undertaken since the last Full Council Meeting held on 16 September 2020, these had been emailed to all Councillors earlier.

Finally, the Chairman made a statement explaining her voting at Council meeting outlining that was in line with the Constitution.

Councillor Edwards raised a Point of Order and asked the Council if congratulations could also be passed onto Mrs Julie Budge, a resident of Bognor Regis who had recently won the Women of the Year Award in recognition of establishing “My Sister’s House” charity that supported women in need.

Page 5 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

242

Full Council - 11.11.20

300. URGENT MATTERS

The Chairman confirmed that there were no urgent items requiring the consideration of the Council.

301. MOTIONS

The Chairman confirmed that six Motions had been received and accepted as valid in accordance with Council Procedure Rules 14.1 and 14.2.

Councillor Miss Seex moved a Motion without Notice in line with Part 5 – Rules of Procedure (Meetings) – Section 1 – Council Procedure Rule 15 C to change the order of business in the agenda to move Motion 2 [the Motion of No Confidence] to be considered as the first Motion as it was her view that this would shape other discussions in the agenda.

Councillor Mrs Daniells seconded this Motion without Notice.

A point of Order was then raised by Councillor Coster as it was his view that this Motion without Notice was contrary to Part 5 [Rules of Procedure (Meetings) Section 1, Rule 14.2 [Motions Set out in the Agenda] and Part 2 [Articles of the Constitution] – Article 13.2 [Principles of Decision Making]. Councillor Coster then quoted Article 13.2 from the Constitution stating that to accept this Motion without Notice, would be breaching the Constitution.

The Interim Monitoring Officer provided advice and Councillor Miss Seex was invited to provide an expanded explanation as to why she wished to change the order of the agenda. She explained that this was because the outcome of the Motion with No Confidence could result in the Council having a change in administration and a new Leader of the Council which could shape debate and so such an important item should be considered as the first priority.

Following comments made by Councillors, the Interim Monitoring Officer provided further advice and asked Councillors to not speak adversely in relation to the character of another Councillor. They were reminded that if they had grounds to consider a complaint, this should be dealt with using the process in place through the Member Code of Conduct mechanisms, not at this meeting.

The Chairman invited debate on the Motion without Notice. Councillors spoke against it stating that the public would consider the regeneration of the Districts Towns as a more pressing matter and so they could not accept the rationale to agree to the Motion without Notice. Others confirmed that they would be voting for it as the No Confidence Motion was of such significant importance that it should be moved forward as this did represent the whole of the District and the future of the Council.

Councillor Ms Thurston then moved “to proceed to the next business” and this was seconded by Councillor English.

Page 6 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

243

Full Council - 11.11.20

Having heard briefly from Councillor Mrs Daniells, as seconder to the Motion without Notice and then from Councillor Miss Seex as the proposer, the Chairman confirmed that she wished to proceed with the vote.

A request had been made that the voting on this Motion without Notice be recorded.

Those voting for the Motion without Notice were Councillors Mrs Baker, Bicknell, Bower, Mrs Caffyn, Chapman, Charles, Clayden, Mrs Cooper, Cooper, Mrs Daniells, Dendle, Edwards, Elkins, English, Goodheart, Gunner, Hughes, Kelly, Mrs Madeley, Northeast, Oliver-Redgate, Mr Pendleton, Miss Rhodes, Roberts, Miss Seex and Mrs Stainton [26]. Those voting against were Councillors Batley, Bennett, Blanchard- Cooper, Brooks, Buckland, Mrs Catterson, Coster, Dixon, Mrs Erskine, Mrs Gregory, Mrs Hamilton, Mrs Haywood, Huntley, Jones, Lury, Miss Needs, Oppler, Purchese, Smith, Stanley, Tilbrook, Ms Thurston, Dr Walsh, Mrs Warr, Mrs Worne and Mrs Yeates [26]. There were no abstentions.

As there were an equal number of votes, for and against, the Chairman used her casting vote and voted against.

The Motion was therefore declared LOST.

The Chairman then returned to the first Motion which was a cross-party Motion from the Independent Group and the Liberal Democrat Group and she invited the proposer, Councillor Dixon to present his Motion. It was confirmed that Councillor Stanley would be seconding this Motion.

Before presenting his Motion, Councillor Dixon reconfirmed his Personal and Open-Minded Interest made at the start of the meeting.

Councillor Dixon then started to present his Motion. The wording of the Motion is as set out below:

BOGNOR REGIS REGENERATION

This Council NOTES that:

Phase 1

a) Place St Maur refurbishment has been agreed and is awaiting only confirmation of external funding.

b)Sunken Gardens proposals are being brought to Cabinet on November 16th

It further RESOLVES THAT

Page 7 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

244

Full Council - 11.11.20

Phase 2 will aim to

2(a) Deliver a hotel 2(b) Deliver a permanent multi-purpose entertainment centre.

Site for 2(a): South east corner of the Regis Centre site (includes the old Fire Station) Opportunity: Hotel (preferably with bar and restaurant) Objective: Use the land in order to drive economic regeneration in the centre of Bognor Regis. Both the execution of the project and upon completion, will create employment in the area, create a destination for tourists and residents alike, and drive footfall both into the town centre and the seafront. Potential Funding: Capital borrowing and/or joint project Indicative Timescale: Proposals and operational models to be worked up and delivered to cabinet for approval by February 2021.

Site for 2(b): Sunken Gardens children’s play area – town centre site adjacent to Hothamton car park and Sunken Gardens Opportunity: Permanent multi-purpose entertainment centre Objective: Create a permanent multi-purpose indoor entertainment centre – complementary to, and not competing with, the Alexandra Theatre. Potential Funding: Capital borrowing, capital receipts, revenue receipts, possible additional match funding from government or grants, potential for sponsorship. Indicative Timescale: ➢ Commission design work and financial modelling immediately. ➢ Public Consultation – by close of 2021 ➢ Commence build – target March 2023

This Council also NOTES that:

Phase 3

Other sites: Longer term opportunity, to be informed by the recently agreed process for gathering ideas. Opportunity: Regeneration

Councillor Coster then confirmed that he needed to reconfirm his Interest made at the start of the meeting and that as part of that interest he needed to make a statement. Councillor Coster confirmed that prior to his role as a District Councillor he had been very involved and engaged with the local community through the Bognor Regis Civic Society in terms of regeneration and that that engagement and understanding gained from the Civic Society had partly driven the decision to present this Motion. These were Councillor Coster’s views that he held at the time and so he wished to make it clear that he had an open mind regarding these items and that he would listen and consider all the relevant issues and interests presented and would

Page 8 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

245

Full Council - 11.11.20 then reach his decision on merit. Councillor Coster asked that this Personal Interest and Declaration be recorded in the minutes of this meeting.

Councillor Gunner made a Point of Order in terms of Part 6 – Rules of Procedure (Meetings) – Section 1 – Council Procedure Rule 14.5 [How Motions are Dealt With] Part B [Motions to be Referred to Cabinet of a Committee] as it was felt that the detail of this Motion did fall under the province of another Committee and so should stand deferred without discussion to be considered by the Bognor Regis Regeneration Sub- Committee.

The Interim Monitoring Officer provided advice. He confirmed that the Councillor who had submitted this Motion had the right to set out the content of that Motion first. Looking at the section of the Constitution referred to, at Rule 14.5 - Part A, it did confirm that if the subject of the Motion was a matter that was in the province of the Council, was an urgent matter, or it related to a District wide issue or multi-ward matter, then it should be dealt with by Council at that Council meeting. However, if it was felt that if the Motion did not include any one of those points, then it should stand deferred without discussion or in the case of doubt, Cabinet should consider it. However, it was confirmed that there was an analysis that needed to be conducted first which was whether the Council considered the matter to be urgent; whether it related to a District wide issue; or whether it was a multi-ward matter. If any of these questions could be responded to with a yes, then the Motion needed to be considered at this meeting. The Interim Monitoring Officer recommended that Councillor Dixon be invited to speak to these points allowing a decision to be made in terms of whether the Motion be considered now or deferred to another relevant meeting of the Council.

Councillor Dixon confirmed that the matters covered by the Motion had now become urgent and needed to be debated tonight. He also confirmed that the Motion covered more than one ward and was a multi-District wide matter that needed to be discussed and moved forward.

The Interim Monitoring Officer recommended that Councillors be asked to debate this issue first so that the queries raised by Councillor Gunner’s Point of Order could be addressed.

Debate on this point commenced. There were Councillors who felt strongly that this Motion negated the decision that the Council had made at its last meeting in terms of a Motion submitted on Bognor Regis Regeneration. Points were made that the Bognor Regis Sub-Committee had also debated regeneration widely at its meeting before last and that debate had resulted in the matter of regeneration being deferred to a future meeting as Councillors now wished to consider different proposals. Those proposals had not been progressed; there was the outcome of the Motion from the last Council meeting to still progress; and it was felt that the Bogor Regis Sub-Committee was the correct forum to take such discussions to. It was strongly felt that this new Motion overturned what had been agreed at the last Full Council meeting.

Page 9 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

246

Full Council - 11.11.20

Having heard from a Councillor who spoke on the merits of the actual Motion, the Interim Monitoring Officer reminded Councillors that at this point, debate should only focus upon establishing whether the Motion could proceed based on it meeting the specific criteria as set out in Council Procedure Rule 14.5 (a), these being was this an urgent matter; was it a District wide issue or multi-ward matter. Any debate on the merits of the Motion would come later once the decision had been made whether the Motion be considered now or deferred to another meeting. The Interim Monitoring Officer confirmed that he did not know the details of the history surrounding this matter but now had concern over the fact that mention had been made of the six month rule and so consideration would also need to be given as to whether this issue was a rerun of a previous debate or a fresh matter, he believed the latter at this time.

Based on the advice given, statements were made on the fact that at the last Full Council meeting, the regeneration motion had been passed unanimously so as to allow an open process to bring forward new ideas and developments that could be presented to Councillors in an objective manner. This process was moving forward, and the confirmation of Seminar dates were awaited. Based on this, it was strongly felt that the six-month rule did apply because this latest Motion completely undercut that process and it prejudiced the last motion agreed. The Interim Monitoring Officer was therefore asked to make a judgement on the six- month rule. It was felt that this matter should be referred to the Bognor Regis Regeneration Sub-Committee which was the best place for it to be discussed and then recommendations could be brought back to Full Council and once seminars had taken place allowing all Councillors to make a valuable judgement in terms of what should happen next.

The Interim Monitoring Officer agreed that this was an important point and he confirmed that before he could provide any authoritative response, he would need one of the Officers to confirm if this Motion was bringing in new matters or whether it was a rerun of matters settled in the last six months.

Having received many Points of Clarification, the Chief Executive and the Director of Place confirmed that they did not believe that this Motion conflicted with the last Motion agreed by the Council. It was accepted that this was a difficult issue as the key part in this Motion potentially conflicted as part of it talked about having a hotel in a specific location on the Regis Centre site. Because ultimately Members were inviting presentations across a range of sites including the Regis Centre, it could potentially be argued that this Motion was seeking to put in a level of detail that could cause an issue.

Further debate from Councillors saw statements being made that the six-month rule was being breached and that this was a matter that should be referred to the Bognor Regis Sub-Committee.

The Interim Monitoring Officer again asked Councillors to keep to the point of discussion at this time which was to determine if the Motion was urgent; whether it was a District wide issue; a multi-ward matter; or whether they had views on the six month rule. It could then be decided if the matter would be debated at this meeting or at another Committee.

Page 10 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

247

Full Council - 11.11.20

Further comments made were that the Motion had been agreed by the Chief Executive, prior to it being published, and that part of that process was to check that the Motion was not illegal, irregular or improper. The Motion did cover multiple wards, these being the Marine, Orchard and Hotham wards. The land being discussed did belong to the Council and so it was within the province of the Council to determine this matter now.

Concerns were expressed over the six-month rule as regeneration had been discussed at the Bognor Regis Sub-Committee and the last meeting of Full Council. The Interim Monitoring Officer was asked if he could make the decision as it clearly violated the last Motion approved by Full Council. If this Motion was discussed there was potential for legal challenge and so it was felt necessary to ask the Monitoring Officer to make a ruling in terms of process.

The Interim Monitoring Officer outlined that he firstly needed to understand the views of Councillors in terms of if they felt that this Motion presented new business or a repeat of old business. This would provide an essential steer as to whether he felt that the six-month rule had been breached or not, only then could he provide a determination.

Following further debate, numerous Points of Order, Points of Explanation and Points of Clarification, many Councillors confirmed that they very strongly believed that this Motion did breach the six-month rule.

The Chairman then called a short adjournment.

The Interim Monitoring Officer provided further advice. He confirmed that he had looked at the decision made to this point in that the Motion in its first instance at that time did not appear to be contradictory to the six-month rule. Having referred to various case laws the Council needed to be cautious when making such decisions and should not breach the six-month rule. If there was any doubt at all that this could be the case, it was recommended that the second Motion should not be taken forward as certainty should be paramount at this time. The ruling of the Monitoring Officer having heard the views of Councillors, studied again the last Motion approved by Full Council and this Motion was that it was in breach of the six month rule and so now became a matter for the Chairman to decide if she accepted his guidance which was to put aside the Motion due to a breach of the six month rule.

The Chairman confirmed that having had the legal guidelines confirmed she would defer this Motion to the Bognor Regis Regeneration Sub-Committee to consider.

Councillors then requested a further explanation as to reasons behind this decision which were provided by the Interim Monitoring Officer.

The Chairman then moved to Motion 2 and invited Councillor Gunner to present his Motion.

Page 11 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

248

Full Council - 11.11.20

Councillor Coster raised several Points of Order as set out below:

 Part 5 – Rules of Procedure (Meetings) – Section 1 – Council Procedure Rules, Rule 23.2 [A Member shall comply with the adopted Members’ Code of Conduct]  Part 8 – Section 2 – Members Code of Conduct, Paragraph 4 [Disclosable Pecuniary Interests]  Part 8 – Appendix A to Part 8  Part 8 – Section 2 – Exempt categories  Part 8 – Section 2 - 9  Article 2 - 3.0 – Rules and Functions of all Councillors

Councillor Coster stated that these sections of the Constitution all related to Councillor Gunner’s potential pecuniary interest in terms of this Motion as, if passed, he stood to gain a Special Responsibility Allowance and so should declare the appropriate interest and should leave the meeting and not take part in the vote. Councillor Coster sought the views of the Interim Monitoring Officer.

The Interim Monitoring Officer provided advice and confirmed that he was not able to see that he agreed with Councillor Coster, though understood the point made. He outlined that the easiest way to address this matter would be for Councillor Gunner to be asked amend the Motion at Part C which would then mean that there would not be a direct pecuniary advantage, to leave this in would also mean that Councillors Dr Walsh, Oppler, Gunner and Dendle should all not be entitled to speak on the same grounds.

Councillor Coster responded by raising further Points of Order:

 Part 5, Section 1, Paragraph 15 (m)  Part 5, Section 1 Paragraph 18 [Voting]  Voting Under Virtual Rules  Part 2, Article 1 – Paragraph 3.0 [Purpose of the Constitution] [vii]  Part 2, Article 16 – Paragraph 1.0 (a) Suspension of the Constitution  Part 2, Article 15 - 2.0 – Changes to the Constitution

Councillor Coster confirmed that he sought the views of the Interim Monitoring Officer in terms of voting procedures and the request of this Motion to conduct a secret ballot, which was contrary to the Articles of the Constitution which could not be suspended. The secret ballot was in breach of the Council’s Constitution.

The Interim Monitoring Officer explained the ethos of the Constitution but acknowledging that use of amendment mechanisms needed to be minimised, even though amendments could be made with the agreement of Members. In view of the concerns raised, he outlined that this Motion was capable of being achieved, but with caution and Councillors should be cautious about undertaking a vote in the way suggested. Councillors needed to consider the limitations put in place and needed to

Page 12 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

249

Full Council - 11.11.20 consider whether they thought that they needed to know how every Councillor had voted.

Based on this advice, it was recommended that the Motion, Parts A, B and C be considered in sections for simplicity and transparency reasons.

Councillor Coster then raised a further Point of Order in relation to the voting on Part B of the Motion and how this could be applied to the Constitution at Part 2 – Article 7, Paragraphs 3.0, 4.0, 5.0 and 7.0.

Councillor Gunner then presented his Motion which is set out below:

Motion of no confidence

A. That under Part 5, Section 1, Paragraph 15 (m) of the Constitution the procedure for voting in respect of the vote of no confidence set out in Part B of this motion shall be by Secret Ballot, and not subject to the right to seek a recorded vote, that is, each Member present shall record their vote confidentially for, against or abstaining. B. That this Council has no confidence in the current administration and calls for their immediate resignation. C. That this Council henceforth appoints Cllr Shaun Gunner as Leader of the Council to form a new unity administration.

He confirmed its relevance to today being Armistice Day. This was about the value of democracy and the right for everyone to decide, debate and disagree on matters of importance. There had been a change in the balance of power within the Council and also a change in mood both locally and nationally. The Motion reflected this and was split into three parts on purpose to assess the current feeling about the current administration and a future administration and future Leader of the Council.

Following more Points of Orders raised, and having sought advice from the Interim Monitoring Officer, the Chairman confirmed that she was now proceeding with Part A of Motion 2.

Councillor Gunner confirmed that he had received lots of comments about the secret ballot and that these were common. Worthing and Adur and Chichester Councils had all conducted secret ballots as had Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole. The secret ballot only applied to Part B of this Motion but the debate on it would be public. Councillor Gunner then explained why he felt a secret ballot was a good move which was because this allowed Councillors to vote without a conscience, alleviating them from being put under pressure to vote against their current Group. The secret ballot protected Members from finger pointing and retribution.

The Interim Monitoring Officer then provided advice in terms of how the Motion could be debated considering that it had been sectioned out into three parts. Following much discussion, the format for debate was agreed.

Page 13 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

250

Full Council - 11.11.20

Councillor Dendle then seconded the Motion.

The Chairman then invited debate on Part A. Many Councillors expressed their concern over the secret ballot and were inordinately cautious over suspending Constitutional rules to allow a secret vote to proceed. They saw it as an attempt to force an unwanted secret vote which was seen as cynical and undemocratic. It was stated that all Council votes should be totally open and above board. The suggestion that Members needed a secret vote due to bullying or intimidation from other Members was seen as ludicrous and beneath contempt. It was felt that to apply a secret ballot went against various sections of the Code of Conduct.

Many Councillors confirmed that they did not support the secret ballot as it was their wish for the electorate to be able to see how they voted. In view of this, some asked for their vote to be recorded in respect of Parts A and B of the Motion.

Other Councillors spoke in support of the secret ballot siting that it would prevent intimidation and fear and so was not morally wrong

Councillor Roberts then proposed that “the question be now put” and this was seconded by Councillor Cooper. The Chairman confirmed that she wished to hear from one last speaker and would then move to the vote.

Councillor Dendle, as seconder, spoke in support of the Motion outlining that many other Councils used the secret vote mechanism and had this procedure enshrined in their Constitutions. He outlined that a change in administration was needed and that if the current administration had confidence, then it should not be afraid of the secret ballot and he urged Members to show their true intent.

Councillor Gunner, as proposer to the Motion, confirmed that he had nothing further to add.

A request had been made that the voting on Part A of the Motion be recorded.

Those voting for Part A of the Motion were Councillors Mrs Baker, Bicknell, Bower, Buckland, Mrs Caffyn, Chapman, Charles, Clayden, Mrs Cooper, Cooper, Mrs Daniells, Dendle, Edwards, Elkins, English, Goodheart, Gunner, Hughes, Kelly, Mrs Madeley, Oliver-Redgate, Mr Pendleton, Miss Rhodes, Roberts, Miss Seex and Mrs Stainton [26] and those voting against were Councillors Batley, Bennett, Blanchard- Cooper, Brooks, Mrs Catterson, Coster, Dixon, Mrs Erskine, Mrs Gregory, Mrs Hamilton, Mrs Haywood, Huntley, Jones, Lury, Miss Needs, Oppler, Purchese, Smith, Stanley, Tilbrook, Ms Thurston, Dr Walsh, Mrs Warr, Mrs Worne and Mrs Yeates [25]. Councillor Northeast abstained from voting.

The voting on Part A of Motion 2 was therefore declared CARRIED.

Page 14 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

251

Full Council - 11.11.20

The Council therefore

RESOLVED

That under Part 5, Section 1, Paragraph 15 (m) of the Constitution the procedure for voting in respect of the vote of no confidence set out in Part B of this Motion shall be by secret ballot, and not subject to the right to seek a recorded vote, that is, each Member present shall record their vote confidentially for, against or abstain.

The Chairman then invited Councillor Gunner to introduce Part B of his Motion.

Councillor Coster raised a further Point of Order in relation to Part 5, Section 1, Rule 18.7 of the Constitution stating that in line with the Constitution he had the right to request that his vote on Part B, his individual vote be recorded.

The Interim Monitoring Officer provided advice confirming that as the Council had resolved that a secret vote be undertaken on Part B, Councillors could not then insist on their vote being recorded.

The right for a Councillor to request a recorded vote under the Procedure Rule was insisted. It was outlined that if this was insisted by a Councillor(s), then they could confirm their intention to vote as part of their debate on Part B.

Following numerous Points of Order and having received further advice from the Interim Monitoring Officer and Locum Lawyer, the Chairman confirmed that it was her wish to apply Council Procedure Rule 8, to adjourn the meeting to 18 November 2020 at 6.00 pm. Having consulted with the Chief Executive, this adjournment was confirmed.

(The meeting concluded at 10.22 pm)

Page 15 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 16 Public Document Pack Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

253

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL HELD IN THE ARUN CIVIC CENTRE ON 18 NOVEMBER 2020 AT 6.00 PM

Present: Councillors Mrs Worne (Chairman), Brooks (Vice-Chairman), Mrs Baker, Batley, Bennett, Blanchard-Cooper, Bower, Buckland, Mrs Caffyn, Mrs Catterson, Chapman, Charles, Clayden, Mrs Cooper, Cooper, Coster, Mrs Daniells, Dendle, Dixon, Edwards, Elkins, English, Mrs Erskine, Goodheart, Gunner, Mrs Hamilton, Mrs Haywood, Hughes, Huntley, Jones, Kelly, Lury, Mrs Madeley, Miss Needs, Northeast, Oliver-Redgate, Oppler, Mrs Pendleton, Purchese, Miss Rhodes, Roberts, Miss Seex, Smith, Mrs Stainton, Mrs Staniforth, Stanley, Tilbrook, Ms Thurston, Dr Walsh, Mrs Warr and Mrs Yeates

Honorary Alderman Mr Norman Dingemans was also in attendance for all or part of the meeting.

[Note: The following Councillors were absent from the meeting during consideration of the matters detailed in the Minutes indicated: - Councillors Mrs Gregory, Purchese, Miss Rhodes, Mrs Staniforth and Stanley - Minute – 305 [Motion 3]; Councillors Mrs Baker, Batley, Mrs Caffyn, Chapman, Edwards, Mrs Gregory, Hughes, Mrs Madeley; Mrs Pendleton, Purchese; Miss Rhodes, Mrs Staniforth and Mrs Stainton - Minute 306 [Part – the vote] and Councillors Mrs Baker, Batley, Mrs Caffyn; Chapman, Edwards, English, Mrs Gregory, Hughes, Mrs Madeley, Mrs Pendleton, Purchese, Miss Rhodes, Mrs Staniforth and Mrs Stainton – Minute 307 [the vote] – then Councillors Mrs Baker, Batley, Mrs Caffyn, Chapman, Jones, Purchese, Mrs Staniforth, Mrs Stainton and Ms Thurston were absent for the remainder of the meeting].

302. WELCOME

The Chairman welcomed Councillors, representatives of the public, press and officers to the Council Meeting. A special welcome was extended to Honorary Alderman Mr Norman Dingemans.

The Chairman confirmed that as the meeting on 11 November 2020 had been adjourned at Item 9 – Motion 2 – Part A, this meeting, once the standing items covering Apologies and Interests had been covered, would commence at Item 9 [Motions] at Part B.

Page 17 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

254

Full Council - 18.11.20

303. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no Declarations of Interest made.

The Declaration of Interest Sheet set out below confirms those Members who had made a declaration of their personal interest as a Member of a Town or Parish Councillor or a West Sussex County Councillor, as confirmed in their Register of Interest as these declarations could apply to any of the issues to be discussed at the meeting.

Name Town or Parish Council or West Sussex County Council [WSCC] Councillor Tracy Baker Littlehampton Councillor Kenton Batley Bognor Regis Councillor Jamie Bennett Rustington Councillor Paul Bicknell Angmering Councillor Billy Blanchard-Cooper Littlehampton Councillor Jim Brooks Bognor Regis Councillor Ian Buckland Littlehampton and WSCC Councillor Mike Clayden Rustington Councillor Andy Cooper Rustington Councillor Alison Cooper Rustington Councillor Sandra Daniells Bognor Regis Councillor David Edwards WSCC Councillor Roger Elkins Ferring and WSCC Councillor Paul English Felpham Councillor Inna Erskine Bognor Regis Councillor Steve Goodheart Bognor Regis Councillor Pauline Gregory Rustington Councillor June Hamilton Pagham Councillor Shirley Haywood Middleton-on-Sea Councillor David Huntley Pagham Councillor Henry Jones Bognor Regis Councillor Martin Lury Bersted Councillor Claire Needs Bognor Regis Councillor Mike Northeast Littlehampton Councillor Francis Oppler WSCC Councillor Jacky Pendleton Middleton-on-Sea and WSCC Councillor Vicky Rhodes Littlehampton Councillor Emily Seex Littlehampton Councillor Martin Smith Aldwick Councillor Samantha Staniforth Bognor Regis Councillor Matt Stanley Bognor Regis Page 18 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

255

Full Council - 18.11.20

Councillor Isabel Thurston Barnham & Eastergate Councillor James Walsh Littlehampton and WSCC Councillor Jeanette Warr Bognor Regis Councillor Amanda Worne Yapton Councillor Gillian Yeates Bersted

304. QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS WITH PECUNIARY/PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS

There were no questions asked.

305. MOTIONS

Prior to re-introducing this item, the Chairman confirmed that she had taken advice from the Interim Monitoring Officer and would not be chairing it. The Vice- Chairman, Councillor Brooks, would assume the role of Chairman for the remaining debate on Parts B and C, if needed, for Motion 2.

Councillor Brooks then invited Councillor Gunner to present his motion. The wording of Part B is as set out below:

Part B

“That this Council has no confidence in the current administration and calls for their immediate resignation”.

It was confirmed that Councillor Dendle would second this part of the Motion.

The Interim Monitoring confirmed that before the meeting could proceed further, he had to confirm that he had had a Point Of order made known to him prior to this meeting, which he needed to explain to Councillors and then would require the Chairman to make a determination on. He explained that Councillor Oppler had brought to his attention that another authority, Lewis District Council, had gone through an identical situation to what this Council was facing through this Motion. This had occurred in June 2019 and the Interim Monitoring Officer confirmed that he had spoken with the lawyer who had supported that meeting and that decision process, earlier in the day, to obtain the background to this situation.

The Interim Monitoring Officer confirmed that he had now revisited the decision made by Full Council on 11 November 2020 which was to vote on Part B via a secret ballot and that he had circulated to all Councillors detailed legal advice regarding the decision made and based on facts as had been presented to him by the Monitoring Officer at Lewis District Council. It was explained that there was no specific caselaw that he could locate and that he had had several issues raised by Councillor Coster and other Councillors on this in terms of the right for a Councillor to request a recorded vote. The facts were explained. Firstly, there was the decision made on 11 November 2020

Page 19 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

256

Full Council - 18.11.20

agreed by a majority of Councillors to conduct a secret ballot. The Interim Monitoring Officer had advised at that time his uncertainty around the legal position on the decision made. Secondly, requests had been made by some Councillors for their individual vote to be recorded. Having taken legal advice, Lewis District Council had come to a decision which was that the individual right established in the Constitution should supersede the group decision of the whole Council. The core legal issue here was that there were two positions which were competing, termed as a ‘persuasive’ matters not a ‘binding’ matter. Based on the facts before him, the Interim Monitoring Officer confirmed that he had come to a view in that case in that the Member’s individual right in the Constitution should supersede the right of the majority to choose a process, in essence the Point of Order raised by Councillor Oppler. The question asked was whether the decision reached on 11 November 2020 was ‘Ultra-Varese’, outside of the law. The Interim Monitoring Officer confirmed that this situation was highly relevant to the decision that had been made last week because the matter sat on the same facts; same arrangements and scenarios; and so it was necessary for Councillor Brooks, as Chairman on this item, to make a determination about this matter going forward. Three options were presented to Councillor Brooks, for him to consider. Firstly, that he could invite Councillors Oppler, Gunner and Coster to speak as well as Councillor Dendle, as seconder, to gain further facts and understanding. If this was to occur, then as Chairman on this item, Councillor Brooks would then need to decide whether or not he was content that the last vote was correct and did not run contrary to a local persuasive decision; the outcome could be to then rerun that decision – which would be the vote on Part A. Secondly, the Chairman had the option to confirm that he was content with the vote passed based on the risks and explanations already provided and then could immediately proceed to Part B; or thirdly, he could ask to seek external legal advice and adjourn this vote and proceed to other business on the agenda.

Councillor Brooks considered the issues and then confirmed that he wished to proceed in continuing with Part B and to continue with the voting on this matter being by a secret ballot.

The Chairman invited Councillor Gunner to present Part B of his Motion.

Councillor Gunner provided some historical facts about Councillor Dr Wash and his journey to becoming Leader of the Council. Once becoming Leader, Councillor Dr Walsh had confirmed a list of promises which were to deal with the Local Plan and to make democracy and decision making within Arun more open and inclusive. This had not been achieved and it was pointed out that many other promises had not been achieved, such as the regeneration of Bognor Regis; the future of the Bognor Regis Town Hall; proposals to increase police visibility in the District; and to increase the amount of money available for adult day centre activities. Councillor Gunner stated that the public had public voted for one thing and they were now receiving something very different. The Council’s tax-payers instead were paying for 3D stickers on pavements in Littlehampton at a cost of £14k; for an augmented reality app of 30k for web cameras; and requests to spend £600k on a new IT system; £200k on changing over to a Committee system; and much more on agency staff. The solution to this was to accept that the Council’s strategic targets were not being met. What the public had voted for

Page 20 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

257

Full Council - 18.11.20 was a balanced Council where the two main parties worked together. Councillor Gunner confirmed that he was in favour of creating a new unity administration where main parties come together to achieve the priorities of the electorate. He confirmed that he would be withdrawing Part C of his Motion as he did not wish to pre-determine what administration would come next. He believed that the Council could do better and could work together to deliver what residents wanted and his Group could achieve this.

Councillor Dendle then seconded Part B of the motion.

The Chairman then invited debate on Part B of the Motion.

The first to speak was Councillor Dr Walsh correcting some misstatements made by Councillor Gunner in delivering his Motion. In responding to the comments made about the Council’s Budget, he confirmed that at Cabinet on 16 November 2020, it had been confirmed that the Budget was on track and not overspending. On housing, the current administration would deliver over the next couple of years over 90 new additional units to the housing stock compared to the previous administration only delivering 30 units in 10 years. The residents of Arun had delivered a majority vote in May 2019 and he had created a cross-party administration with an Independent Member chairing the Overview Select Committee, which was now chaired by a Labour Councillor; an Independent sitting on the Cabinet with a new and vital portfolio; a Conservative Member chairing the Standards Committee and the IT Working Party and so the Council already had a unity cross party administration. The previous administration had refused to webcast all Council meetings leaving the equipment left idle; this had been rectified by his administration immediately and this had been welcomed by the public especially during the pandemic months. During this time, his administration had naturally directed its energies towards coping with the demands of the pandemic; helping to secure vulnerable residents by keeping them safe and secure whilst at the same time supporting the business community with grants; and dealing with the pandemic and its social and economic issues.

Many Councillors then spoke in support of the current administration stating that it had put residents above party politics. It had had to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic which had been unprecedented and so the focus over the last 10 months had been to ensure that the residents of Arun had received the help they needed to continue living their lives and running their businesses. It was disappointing that other Councillors saw internal politics as the priority at this time. Disappointment and major concern was also expressed over some of the comments made during this debate and the debate on Part A in terms of statements made about bullying and intimidation with one Councillor requesting that a full and thorough investigation be undertaken in terms of the allegations made.

Councillors in support of Part B stated that the time had come for change to address the current failing administration. The election results of 2019 had delivered a new political landscape which was now being challenged. The culture of the Council needed to change and cross-party working was needed to address a long list of issues that were failing as the current administration was not performing and residents wished

Page 21 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

258

Full Council - 18.11.20

the Council to move forward by making changes so that the Council would become more inclusive.

In support of the current administration, updates were provided on the achievements in housing and how effectively the current administration had steered the Council through the pandemic. The work programme in place in moving to a change in governance from a Cabinet to a Committee system was on track and it was recognised that this change would provide all Councillors with a greater decision-making role in Arun. It was strongly felt that the timing of this Motion was not appropriate in the middle of a global pandemic and crisis.

Councillor Dendle, as seconder to Part B, urged Councillors to support it and as Councillors had loyalty to their residents. The purpose of the Motion was to get the Council back on track for the good of the District and to form a unity administration for the benefit of the District.

Councillor Gunner, as proposer, responded to some of the points raised during the debate. He paid tribute to his Councillors and others for their passionate speeches. In terms of how the Council would move forward from here, scrutiny was being dismissed as disruption when what the public wanted was for all Councillors to work together. Should this Motion be successful, Councillor Gunner confirmed that he would form a genuine and full cross-party administration with several Cabinet posts being held by non-conservative Members. The debate on this Motion had been good natured and so showed how Councillors could disagree together in a grown-up manner. This was a model for how the Council could work together to deliver regeneration; more social housing and tackling the climate crisis.

The Interim Monitoring Officer and the Committee Services Manager provided advice in terms of how the secret ballot would be conducted. It was confirmed that the livestream of the meeting would be paused during this exercise.

The secret ballot was then launched and the result of the secret ballot on Part B was announced. This showed equal numbers voting for and against and so the Chairman was invited to use his casting vote.

The Chairman confirmed that he would be voting against Part B of the motion and so this was NOT CARRIED.

As Part B of the Motion of No Confidence had not been carried, and in view of Councillor Gunner confirming that he would be withdrawing Part C, this was immediately withdrawn.

The Chairman then called a short adjournment.

Councillor Mrs Worne then resumed as Chairman.

Page 22 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

259

Full Council - 18.11.20

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Dr Walsh thanked Councillors for their support in what had been a very tight vote. He confirmed that he would continue with cross-party working and that a Budget briefing would be organised for all Councillors to inform them of all budget priorities in advance of the Budget working through the Council’s decision making process which was in the spirit of continuing with cross party working.

Councillor Mrs Worne then chaired the remaining items on the agenda and asked Councillor Edwards, as the proposer to Motion 3, to present his Motion.

(Prior to the commencement of the debate on this item, Councillor Mrs Erskine declared a Personal Interest as she had a family member that made use of the Sunflower lanyard scheme. Councillor Batley also declared a Personal Interest in this item as he too had a family member that used this scheme.)

Councillor Edwards then presented his Motion. The wording of the Motion is as set out below:

“Many businesses, emergency services and local authorities have recognised the Hidden Disabilities Sunflower and I would like Arun District Council to embrace this too. Anyone with a hidden disability which does not have physical signs, including learning disabilities, lung conditions and chronic illnesses can opt to wear a Hidden Disability Sunflower to show they may require additional help, understanding or extra time to carry out an action. This symbol allows us to give them the help and understanding they may need in their day-to-day lives. I am asking the Council to support the following commitments:

 To officially recognise the Hidden Disabilities Sunflower  To officially promote what it stands for and its importance in breaking stigma  To help promote Hidden Disabilities Sunflower to local businesses and encourage them to formally look at recognising it  To promote that the Council offices are Hidden Disability friendly and promote the Sunflower on its buildings so people can identify the Council as Hidden Disability friendly  To actively promote and encourage local Town and Parish Councils and West Sussex County Council to recognise the scheme

I bring this Motion to the Council as someone who has been aware of the Sunflower Lanyard since its inception. I worked at Gatwick Airport when it was developed and had some input into the scheme as a manager within Passenger Security. Dealing with people who presented as difficult, nervous, and aggressive was a common occurrence. It was only when we dealt with the situation and discovered that the person had a hidden disability that the reason for their behaviour became apparent. So, in 2016, the Hidden Disabilities Sunflower was designed and launched when London Gatwick Airport asked, "How can we identify that one of our passengers may have a non- obvious disability?". Led by Sara Marchant, a team created a simple sunflower design

Page 23 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

260

Full Council - 18.11.20

on a green background for a lanyard - a subtle but visible sign to enable airport staff to identify that the wearer (or someone with them) may require some extra help, time, or assistance when moving through the airport.

Wearing the Hidden Disabilities Sunflower discreetly indicates to people around the wearer including staff, colleagues, and health professionals that they need additional support, help or a little more time. Since its launch in 2016, it has now been adopted globally by major airports and venues and in the UK, by many supermarkets, railway and coach stations, leisure facilities, the NHS, a number of police, fire and ambulance services, and an increasing number of small and large businesses and organisations. Hidden disabilities can make people's lives particularly challenging, painful, or isolating. By wearing a sunflower lanyard, badge, or wristband someone is indicating they have a hidden disability and may find certain situations difficult or stressful, causing them to act differently.

Covid-19 has created a range of extra difficulties for people with hidden disabilities such as the wearing of face coverings in many public places. This can create complex issues for people with hidden disabilities and they may encounter stigma for not wearing a face covering despite being exempt under Government guidance.

The success of the Hidden Disabilities Sunflower and the positive response it has received has increased awareness of challenges adults and children with hidden disabilities can face. Hidden Disabilities Sunflower wearers now benefit more widely from help being offered to make their daily living a little easier.

Councillor Edwards outlined that having had two Councillors confirming that they had family members already using the scheme highlighted and cemented a very good reason for suggesting the motion. He paid tribute to his former colleague for her vision and wisdom and work undertaken in making this project happen and he urged the Council to support this scheme which made such a difference to so many people for a vast amount of reasons.

Councillor Mrs Pendleton then seconded the Motion.

Debate on this motion saw overwhelming support from all Councillors who felt that this was a great scheme and would provide so much benefit to many people in the District.

Councillor Blanchard–Cooper confirmed that although he fully supported the Motion, he wished to propose a very slight amendment to it. This was to ensure that Officers and staff and Councillors of the Council would receive the appropriate training to make the motion effective. This amendment was seconded by Councillor Stanley.

In response, Councillor Edwards confirmed that he would be happy to accept this change and confirmed that it had been remiss of him to not have mentioned training for Councillors and Officers.

Page 24 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

261

Full Council - 18.11.20

The Chairman then invited debate on the amendment which saw unanimous support.

The Chairman then returned to the substantive motion which received further supportive debate and suggestions on how this could be expanded through the District so that those who would benefit from the sunflower appeal would know how to access it.

Councillor Mrs Pendleton, as seconder to the Motion, confirmed that she was grateful to everyone for being so supportive. This was such a simple scheme to achieve but made an amazing difference to those that used it.

Councillor Edwards, as the proposer to the Motion, confirmed that he had a hidden disability and that the scheme had benefited him hugely.

The Council

RESOLVED

That the Hidden Disabilities Sunflower be embraced by Arun District Council with the Council supporting the following commitments:

 To officially recognise the Hidden Disabilities Sunflower  To officially promote what is stands for and its importance in breaking stigma  To help promote Hidden Disabilities Sunflower to local businesses and encourage them to formally look at recognising it  To promote that the Council offices are Hidden Disability friendly and promote the Sunflower on its buildings so people can identity the Council as Hidden Disability friendly  To actively promote and encourage local Town and Parish Councils and West Sussex County Council to recognise the scheme  To ensure that Officers and Councillors of the Council receive the appropriate training to make the motion effective

The Chairman then invited Councillor Bower to present Motion 4. This is as set out below:

“Council agrees to amend the wording of the Council’s Constitution at Part 6, Section 2, Scrutiny Rule 13.4 as follows with immediate effect:

13.4. If a request for a call-in is received by the Group Head of Policy within the period between the publication of the decision and the effective date, he/she shall call-in the decision for scrutiny by the Committee. For it to be valid, the request must be:

Page 25 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

262

Full Council - 18.11.20

• in writing and identify the lead Member of the call-in,

• specify the relevant decision, which is to be the subject of the call-in,

• satisfy at least one of the criteria set out in paragraph 13.8, and

• be supported by any five Members of the Council who do not have related pecuniary interests with regards to the subject of the call-in

•That the group submitting the call in request comprises EITHER members from more than one political group as defined by Section 8 of The Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990 OR individual members from one or more political groups as defined along with independent members who are not part of any political party or group.

Councillor Bower confirmed that this cross-party Motion was a simple motion to ensure that no Councillor would be disqualified from signing a request to Call-In either a Cabinet decision or an Individual Cabinet Member Decision. This Motion was in reaction to a recent incident where a Member had been disqualified from taking part in a Call-In request. Councillor Bower confirmed that his Motion had been drafted in consultation with the Interim Monitoring Officer and he urged Councillors to support it to allow the Constitution to be corrected and to allow the amendment to become immediately effective.

The motion was seconded by Councillor Northeast.

In debating the motion, Councillor Bennett confirmed that although he agreed with it, he was of the view that no Councillor should be excluded from taking part in a call-in and so he wished to make an amendment. The amendment is as set out below with deletions shown using strikethrough and additions shown using bold:

“13.4. If a request for a call-in is received by the Group Head of Policy within the period between the publication of the decision and the effective date, he/she shall call-in the decision for scrutiny by the Committee. For it to be valid, the request must be:

• in writing and identify the lead Member of the call-in,

• specify the relevant decision, which is to be the subject of the call-in,

• satisfy at least one of the criteria set out in paragraph 13.8, and

• be supported by any five Members of the Council who do not have related pecuniary interests with regards to the subject of the call-in

•That the group submitting the call in request comprises EITHER members from more than one political group as defined by Section 8 of The Local Page 26 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

263

Full Council - 18.11.20

Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990 OR it must be signed by five members, who must either come from two groups/parties, or alternatively, Members from one group plus a minimum of two Independent Councillors who are not currently Members of any political party. individual members from one or more political groups as defined along with independent members who are not part of any political party or group.

Councillor Mrs Haywood then seconded this amendment.

Many comments were made in response to this amendment. Although some Councillors stated that they broadly supported it, they still felt that it set an unreasonably high bar to achieve a call-in, compared to other Councils that simply set a 5 Councillor stipulation. In view of this, some Councillors opposed the amendment as it meant that you could still have a range of Councillors that would fulfil the conditions required, yet still have Independent Independent Councillors or a Councillor from one party not in a Group that would meet the current criteria.

A very lengthy discussion then took place with very similar arguments being presented.

Following further debate, Councillor Stanley then proposed that the issue be referred to the Constitution Working Party for further consideration. This was seconded by Councillor Blanchard-Cooper.

Many Councillors could not agree what the appropriate wording should be to confirm the requirements for Call-In and to ensure that no Councillor would be excluded from the process. Many were of the view that the matter should be referred to the Constitution Working Party but there was concern that this would add delay and they wished the matter to be resolved now so as to not prevent Call-Ins taking place immediately.

Following further debate Councillor Oppler proposed that the “question now be put” and this was seconded by Councillor Bennett.

On the advice of the Interim Monitoring Officer, the Chairman invited Councillor Bower to comment as proposer to the original Motion.

Following many Points of Orders being raised, Councillor Bower then confirmed that he was withdrawing the Motion.

The Chairman then invited Councillor Blanchard-Cooper to present Motion 5. The wording of this Motion is as set out below:

Page 27 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

264

Full Council - 18.11.20

Littlehampton Seafront

This Council hereby instructs officers to investigate the costs and potential delivery timescales associated with delivering the “2017 Littlehampton Regeneration – Seafront” and further instructs officers to prepare a report to Cabinet, outlining potential timescales for delivery and funding options.

Councillor Blanchard-Cooper then confirmed that he wished to withdraw this Motion and Motion 6 and that he would liaise with the Chief Executive to establish how they could be progressed.

306. DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Dr Walsh, presented a report which sought the Council’s approval to adopt a written disciplinary procedure for employees which communicated the organisation’s rules and the process to be followed, when dealing with employee misconduct.

It was outlined that this disciplinary procedure had been written in line with the ACAS Code of Practice and if approved, would be made available to all employees.

As with all of the Council’s employment policies, this procedure would be subject to regular review and had recently been updated to provide greater clarification for employees and to ensure ease of use. UNISON had been consulted on the contents and it was agreed at the Joint Consultative Meeting held on 23 September 2020, that the Disciplinary Procedure should be brought to Full Council for formal adoption.

Councillor Dr Walsh therefore formally proposed the adoption of this procedure and this was then seconded by Councillor Oppler.

The Council

RESOLVED

(1) The Disciplinary Procedure for Employees be formally approved and adopted; and (2) The Group Head of Corporate Support be authorised to make any further consequential changes to the Policy.

307. CALENDAR OF MEETINGS FOR 2021/22

The Council received a report from the Chief Executive which proposed arrangements for the Calendar of Meetings for 2021/22. The calendar set out meetings under the new Committee Structure which would take effect from May 2021 and was proposed by Councillor Dr Walsh and seconded by Councillor Oppler.

Page 28 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

265

Full Council - 18.11.20

Various concerns were raised in debating the calendar. Firstly, questions were asked as to why no meetings of the two Regeneration Sub-Committees had been scheduled. Although it was understood that these no longer existed under the new Committee structure, it had been implied that they would be re-established as part of the new Committee system and so reassurance was sought that meetings of these two Sub-Committees would be placed into the calendar.

Further comments were made about the need to avoid holding meetings in all school holidays including half term dates and the need to avoid the Party Conference Weeks in late summer/early autumn.

Following further discussion,

The Council

RESOLVED

That the Calendar of Meetings for 2021/22 be approved.

308. CONSTITUTION WORKING PARTY - 12 OCTOBER 2020

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Yeates, presented the Minutes from the meeting of the Constitution Working Party held on 12 October 2020.

Councillor Mrs Yeates alerted Members to the first of a series of recommendations at Minute 19 [Proposed Constitutional Changes – Update of Standing Orders Relating to Financial Procedures] which she formally proposed. The recommendations were then seconded by Councillor Bennett.

In debating these recommendations, Councillor Roberts raised concerns in relation to Recommendation (2) which was seeking authority for the Monitoring Officer to make any further consequential amendments. It was his view that all amendments to the Constitution needed to be approved by Full Council and so he proposed an amendment to Recommendation (2) that such consequential amendments be considered by Full Council. This amendment was seconded by Councillor Dendle.

Debate on this amendment then took place and the Interim Monitoring Officer was asked to provide advice. He confirmed that Recommendation (2) was a standard mechanism used to make very trivial or dominimes changes to the Constitution, these were often changes to Officer names; changing paragraph numbers or page numbers.

This advice was not accepted by Councillor Roberts who stated that he could still not accept such changes being made by an Officer without Full Council approval.

Following further debate, Councillor Oppler proposed that “the question now be put” and this was seconded by Councillor Dixon.

Following further long debate, the Chairman proposed a short adjournment.

Page 29 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

266

Full Council - 18.11.20

Following further Points of Order raised and Points of Clarification, and having received advice from the Interim Monitoring Officer, the Chairman requested that the vote on the amendment to Recommendation (2) take place.

On this amendment being put to the vote, it was declared LOST.

The Chairman then confirmed that she was adjourning the meeting until Thursday, 26 November 2020 at 6.00 pm. That meeting would consider the remaining items on the agenda published for 11 November 2020.

(The meeting concluded at 11.07 pm).

Page 30 Public Document Pack Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

299

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL HELD IN THE ARUN CIVIC CENTRE ON 26 NOVEMBER 2020 AT 6.00 PM

Present: Councillors Mrs Worne (Chairman), Brooks (Vice-Chairman), Bennett, Bicknell, Blanchard-Cooper, Bower, Buckland, Mrs Catterson, Charles, Clayden, Mrs Cooper, Cooper, Coster, Mrs Daniells, Dendle, Dixon, Edwards, Elkins, English, Mrs Erskine, Goodheart, Mrs Gregory, Gunner, Mrs Hamilton, Mrs Haywood, Hughes, Huntley, Kelly, Lury, Northeast, Oliver-Redgate, Oppler, Mrs Pendleton, Miss Rhodes, Roberts, Miss Seex, Smith, Stanley, Tilbrook, Dr Walsh, Mrs Warr and Mrs Yeates

Honorary Alderman Mr Norman Dingemans and Mrs Patricia Stinchcombe were also in attendance for all or part of the meeting.

[Note: The following Councillors were absent from the meeting during consideration of the matters detailed in the Minutes indicated: - Councillor Oliver-Redgate – Minute 343 (Part); and Councillor Mrs Erskine – Minute 343 to Minute 347 (Part)].

343. WELCOME

The Chairman welcomed Councillors, representatives of the public, press and officers to the Council Meeting. A special welcome was extended to Honorary Aldermen Mrs Stinchcombe and Mr Norman Dingemans.

The Chairman confirmed that as the meeting on 18 November 2020 had been adjourned at Item 12 – Minute 19 [Proposed Constitutional Update of Standing Orders Relating to Financial Procedures], following the vote on the amendment to Recommendation (2), this meeting, once the standing items covering Apologies and Interests had been covered, would commence at Item 12 – Minute 19 [Proposed Constitutional Changes – Update on Standing Order Relating to Financial Procedures] in terms of Recommendations (1) and (2).

344. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for Absence had been received from Councillors Batley, Mrs Caffyn, Chapman, Jones, Mrs Madeley, Miss Needs, Purchese, Mrs Staniforth and Ms Thurston and from Honorary Aldermen Mrs Goad and Mrs Morrish.

Page 31 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

300

Full Council - 26.11.20

345. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Smith declared a Pecuniary Interest in Agenda Item 15 – Cabinet – 21 September 2020 in relation to Minute 211 [Financial Support to Leisure Operating Contract] as he was an employee of Freedom Leisure. Councillor Smith confirmed that he would not take part in the debate or vote on this item and would ask to be placed in the Waiting Room whilst this item was being considered.

The Declaration of Interest Sheet set out below confirms those Members who had made a declaration of their personal interest as a Member of a Town or Parish Councillor or a West Sussex County Councillor, as confirmed in their Register of Interest as these declarations could apply to any of the issues to be discussed at the meeting.

Name Town or Parish Council or West Sussex County Council [WSCC] Councillor Tracy Baker Littlehampton Councillor Kenton Batley Bognor Regis Councillor Jamie Bennett Rustington Councillor Paul Bicknell Angmering Councillor Billy Blanchard-Cooper Littlehampton Councillor Jim Brooks Bognor Regis Councillor Ian Buckland Littlehampton and WSCC Councillor Mike Clayden Rustington Councillor Andy Cooper Rustington Councillor Alison Cooper Rustington Councillor Sandra Daniells Bognor Regis Councillor David Edwards WSCC Councillor Roger Elkins Ferring and WSCC Councillor Paul English Felpham Councillor Inna Erskine Bognor Regis Councillor Steve Goodheart Bognor Regis Councillor Pauline Gregory Rustington Councillor June Hamilton Pagham Councillor Shirley Haywood Middleton-on-Sea Councillor David Huntley Pagham Councillor Henry Jones Bognor Regis Councillor Martin Lury Bersted Councillor Claire Needs Bognor Regis Councillor Mike Northeast Littlehampton Councillor Francis Oppler WSCC Councillor Jacky Pendleton Middleton-on-Sea and WSCC Councillor Vicky Rhodes Littlehampton Page 32 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

301

Full Council - 26.11.20

Councillor Emily Seex Littlehampton Councillor Martin Smith Aldwick Councillor Samantha Staniforth Bognor Regis Councillor Matt Stanley Bognor Regis Councillor Isabel Thurston Barnham & Eastergate Councillor James Walsh Littlehampton and WSCC Councillor Jeanette Warr Bognor Regis Councillor Amanda Worne Yapton Councillor Gillian Yeates Bersted

346. QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS WITH PECUNIARY/PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS

There were no questions asked.

347. CONSTITUTION WORKING PARTY - 12 OCTOBER 2020

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Yeates reminded Councillors of where the last meeting of Full Council [18 November 2020] had ended which was at the conclusion of the amendment put forward by Councillor Roberts in relation to Recommendation (2) at Minute 19 [Proposed Constitutional Changes – Update of Standing Orders Relating to Financial Procedure Rules].

Debate returned to the substantive recommendations (1) and (2).

Looking at Recommendation (1) some concerns were expressed over the financial controls of the Council in terms of how this would work under the new Committee structure. Currently, either a Cabinet Member or Group Head had authority to make budgetary decisions. The concern was that each of the new Service Committees would have the authority to make expenditure decisions to the sum of £100k and would also be able to take a similar sum from its reserves. Questions were asked in terms of how this could be permissible and how could the Council approve a Budget that could then be changed if each Service Committee could make decisions to money from reserves and allow virements to occur outside of the budgetary process.

The Locum Lawyer responded stating that the way that the new 2021 Constitution was written allowed for the Budget and Policy Framework to be decided by Full Council. When the Budget was being prepared the Corporate Policy and Performance Committee (CPPC) would consult the Service Committees and so that it could then make recommendations to Full Council in terms determining the Council’s Budget. Each Service Committee would not be able to spend over and above its threshold.

Page 33 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

302

Full Council - 26.11.20

Despite receiving this explanation there was still concern that the areas raised had not been answered in terms of protecting the Council’s reserves and the ability of each Service Committee to be able to draw from the Council’s reserves. It was also felt that the wording in this section proposed for the new Constitution was not clear.

Following lengthy debate, it was agreed that this item [Minute 19] would be deferred and considered again at the next meeting of the Constitution Working Party.

Councillor Mrs Yeates then presented the next set of recommendations at Minute 20 [Proposed Constitutional Update of Standing Orders Relating to Financial Procedure Rules] which she formally proposed. The recommendations were then seconded by Councillor Mrs Gregory.

The Council

RESOLVED – That

(1) The proposed changes to the Constitution at Part 6 – Procedure Rules (Other) Section 6, Purchasing, Procurement Contracts and Disposals be approved; and

(2) The Monitoring Officer be authorised to make any further consequential changes to the Constitution.

Councillor Mrs Yeates then proposed the recommendations set out in Minute 22 [Draft 2021 Constitution – Parts 6, 7, 8 and 9] which were seconded by Councillor Mrs Gregory.

The Council

RESOLVED – That

(1) The proposed revisions to be incorporated into the new 2021 Constitution at Part 6, Section 1 [Access to Information Procedure Rules] be approved; (2) The proposed revisions to be incorporated into the new 2021 Constitution at Part 6, Section 5 [Officer Employment Procedure Rules] be approved; (3) The proposed revisions to be incorporated into the new 2021 Constitution at Part 8, Section 3 [Protocol on Member and Officer Relations] be approved; (4) The proposed revisions to be incorporated into the new 2021 Constitution at Part 8, Section 5 [Petitions Scheme] be approved; and (5) The proposed revisions to be incorporated into the new 2021 Constitution at Part 8, Section 6 [Filming and Photographic Protocol] be approved; Page 34 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

303

Full Council - 26.11.20

Councillor Mrs Yeates then alerted Members to the next set of recommendations at Minute 23 [Part 2 – Articles of the Constitution- Joint Arun Area Committees] which she duly proposed. The recommendations were then seconded by Councillor Mrs Gregory.

The Council

RESOLVED – That

(1) Part 3 of the Constitution [Responsibility for Functions at 11.0 – Joint Arun Area Committees be amended to remove the functions listed for Joint Arun Area Committees; and

(2) In view of Recommendation (1) above, that Part 2 – Articles of the Constitution, as presented to Full Council on 16 September 2020 be approved.

Councillor Mrs Yeates then formally presented the next set of recommendations at Minute 25 [Changes to Public Question Time [for the Remainder of this Municipal Year] which she formally proposed. The two recommendations were then seconded by Councillor Mrs Gregory.

There was much debate on these recommendations with some Councillors expressing their view that this appeared to be a ‘knee-jerk’ response following Public Question Time at the September 2020 Full Council meeting. It was accepted that there had been a lot of questions submitted from one member of the public, yet these had added value. The recommendations proposed seemed to be introducing a form of censorship which was seen to be wrong. Many Councillors felt strongly that Public Question Time should not be restricted in any way and should be encouraged and that the Chairman should have discretion to extend Public Question Time to any appropriate time suitable to that meeting.

In response to the comments made, Councillor Mrs Yeates stated that she would be happy to withdraw the recommendations asking the Constitution Working Party to take a further look at the matter.

This item was then withdrawn.

Councillor Mrs Yeates then alerted Councillors to the final recommendation at Minute 26 [Limit on the Length of Council Meetings [Guillotine] which Councillor Mrs Yeates duly proposed. The recommendation was then seconded by Councillor Mrs Gregory.

Page 35 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

304

Full Council - 26.11.20

Debate on this item saw many views being expressed. Firstly, it was felt that to postpone or adjourn a meeting was already in the power of the Chairman and so questions were asked as to why this was necessary. Other Councillors supported this proposal as it would assist those Councillors working to not have to sit in attendance at meetings that would run into the early hours of the morning. It was felt that in view of the lateness of recent meeting, the guillotine had become a necessary tool. Councillors were also reminded that all Political Group Leaders had been consulted and that there had been widespread support for this across the Council. The guillotine was also very commonly used in other local authorities and so the point was made why this Council could not support introducing the discipline of a fixed time. It was also pointed out that staff welfare also needed to be addressed and the guillotine went some way in assisting with this.

Following Points of Orders raised,

The Council

RESOLVED

That the Constitution be updated to include applying a limit of 4.5 hours onto the length of meetings for all meetings of the Council unless a majority of Councillors present vote to extend the meeting for a further half an hour at which time the meeting will stand adjourned, apart from the Development Control Committee.

348. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 2 SEPTEMBER 2020

The Chairman, Councillor Bennett, presented the Minutes from the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 2 September 2020.

349. ENVIRONMENT & LEISURE WORKING GROUP - 3 SEPTEMBER 2020

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Warr, presented the minutes from the meeting of the Environment & Leisure Working Group held on 3 September 2020.

Councillor Mrs Warr alerted Councillors to one recommendation at Minute 27 [Work Programme] which she duly proposed. The recommendation was the seconded by Councillor Brooks.

Concerns were expressed by some Councillors that some items that had been recommended for inclusion by Members on the Work Programme, earlier on in the year, had not been featured. These had included matters such as more updates on climate change; parks and open spaces; recycling, pollution; and the coast and foreshores. Questions were also asked as to why the Place St Maur appeared on the Work Programme on multiple occasions. Based on the Work Programme proposed, there were many Councillors who felt that they could not support approving it in its current form.

Page 36 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

305

Full Council - 26.11.20

Other points raised were that the Place St Maur should be a matter for the Bognor Regis Regeneration Sub-Committee and not for this Working Group.

Based on other comments made. It was suggested by Councillor Dixon that the Work Programme be referred back to the Working Group for further consideration. This suggestion was then seconded by Councillor Roberts.

Having received an explanation from the Director of Services as to why the Place St Maur had been allotted to the Working Group’s Work Programme, further discussion took place on the role of the Regeneration Sub-Committee compared to that of the Working Group.

Various Points of Orders were raised, and having heard from Councillors Brooks and Mrs Warr that the Work Programme should be referred back to the Working Group for further consideration and having heard from the Interim Monitoring Officer, it was agreed that the Work Programme for the Working Group be referred back for further consideration.

The Chairman then called a short adjournment.

350. CABINET - 21 SEPTEMBER 2020

(Prior to the consideration of this item, Councillor Smith redeclared his Prejudicial/Pecuniary interest made at the start of the meeting and requested to be placed in the waiting room for the duration of this item.)

The Chairman, Councillor Dr Walsh, presented the Minutes from the meeting of Cabinet held on 21 September 2020.

Councillor Dr Walsh alerted Members to a recommendation at Minute 211 [Financial Support to Leisure Operating Contract] which he formally proposed. The recommendation was then seconded by Councillor Oppler.

Following a lengthy debate,

The Council

RESOLVED

That a supplementary estimate for a sum up to £191,000 (Band D equivalent of £3.07) to support the Council’s Leisure Operating Contract from October to December 2020 be approved.

The Chairman then alerted Members to the next two and final recommendations at Minute 214 [Options to Progress Webcast Improvement Project]. Councillor Dr Walsh then formally proposed these two recommendations which were then seconded by Councillor Stanley.

Page 37 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

306

Full Council - 26.11.20

There was much debate on this item. Many Councillors confirmed that they could not support the cost of £65k for this project at this time and in view of the financial situation that the Council found itself in as a result of the Pandemic. There were other more vital priorities to address which was to continue in supporting residents and businesses in the area. It was also felt that the technical issues experienced in the past could be overcome. What was required was a more flexible approach to the webcasting of meetings and that a hybrid option should be investigated to provide flexible resilience allowing some Councillors to be present in the Council Chamber and others attending virtually and in view of the fact that it was likely that virtual meetings would continue for some time.

Others spoke in support of the recommendations confirming that the upgrades were required to allow the Council to continue webcasting some of the Council meetings once normality returned – this being a physical presence again in the Council Chamber, especially as the public had become used to being able to watch all meetings live.

Following a lengthy debate, and in view of the fact that it could be some time before meetings could resume in the Council Chamber, it was felt that this project should be looked at again in line with what other guidance might be available in terms of hybrid and virtual meetings. Requests were also made to receive the viewing figures of meetings since lockdown and if these could be compared to viewing figures from the year before as this would then indicate how vital this service was to the viewing public.

Having again made points that this was not the right time to be spending money on anything other than services that were vital to the public, the proposer, Councillor Dr Walsh, confirmed that he was happy to withdraw this item and he asked Officers to reconsider the proposals and to find the most technically up to date solution for further consideration by a future meeting of Cabinet.

Councillor Gunner then made a Statement in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 13.2 in relation to Minute 220 [London Road Coach Lorry Park - Exempt – Paragraph 3 – The Supply of Goods and Services]. Councillor Gunner referred to the sum that could have been received which would have delivered much needed investment in Bognor Regis from students. Councillor Gunner outlined that this money could have been invested into other regeneration schemes, but that Cabinet had turned the offer down. This had been why a Call-In had been requested which had been unsuccessful and so Councillor Gunner urged Cabinet to look at this decision again.

The Interim Monitoring Officer reminded Councillors of the need to respect Exempt items and their confidentiality and requested Councillor Gunner to put his request for reconsideration back to Cabinet in writing and he strongly urged the Councillor to not to continue to debate this item.

Page 38 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

307

Full Council - 26.11.20

Various Points of Order were then raised where it was stated that this was an important matter that needed further debate and for questions to be asked and answered which were responded to by the Interim Monitoring Officer.

The Interim Monitoring Officer urged Councillors to refrain from raising any further questions on this confidential matter. If this request was refused; it would be necessary for the meeting to move into Exempt business to protect confidential information and the Council from any future challenge. Councillors were reminded that this was not an opportunity for them to attempt a further Call-In process.

This advice was disputed with Councillors urging that the matter be debated further tonight. Councillors were reminded by Councillor Dr Walsh that the preferred bidder had withdrawn its offer.

This point was disputed by some Councillors who made further Points of Order.

Councillor Dr Walsh provided further explanation and confirmed that discussions were continuing with the Police and that the suggestions made by some Councillors that the Police were not interested were far from the truth, negotiations were still ongoing. Councillor Dr Walsh confirmed that he would accept a written statement from Councillor Gunner which he would respond to confirming when the matter could be discussed further under Exempt Business rules and in line with the Constitution.

Councillor Gunner urged Councillors to move into Exempt business now and that if this could not happen that he would write to Councillor Dr Walsh as an assurance had now been made that some form of debate would take place.

Councillor Tilbrook then made a Statement in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 13.2 in relation to Minute 216 [The Council’s Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic Situation] where he praised the work of the Working Party and he hoped that all twelve of its recommendations would be processed soon.

This developed into a debate in terms of the Working Party’s Recommendation (8) where an update was requested.

Councillor Dr Walsh confirmed that these recommendations were being progressed but as the minute highlighted, it was necessary to consider, in prioritising them, the Council’s financial position and the amount of available Officer time to take projects forward.

A further statement was then made by Councillor Dendle in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 13.2 on the recommendations approved by Cabinet from the Covid-19 Working Party in relation to the Sussex by the Sea website and the rebranding of this web site.

Page 39 Subject to approval at the next Full Council meeting

308

Full Council - 26.11.20

351. PLANNING POLICY SUB-COMMITTEE - 22 SEPTEMBER 2020

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Yeates, presented the minutes from the meeting of the Planning Policy Sub-Committee held on 22 September 2020.

Councillor Mrs Yeates alerted Councillors to a recommendation at Minute 14 [Arun District Council Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) 2019/20 which she formally proposed. The recommendation was then seconded by Councillor Lury.

In conducting the named vote on this recommendation, the Committee Services Manager was interrupted by comments made by Councillors.

Following some comments made by Councillor Dendle, the Chairman confirmed that she wished to not hear further from Councillor Dendle for the remainder of the meeting. This was seconded by Councillor Mrs Warr.

In response, a Vote of No Confidence in the Chairman of the Council was immediately proposed by Councillor Bower and this was promptly seconded by Councillor Cooper.

The Interim Monitoring Officer confirmed that he would need to check the Constitution on this matter.

The Chairman therefore called a short adjournment.

The Interim Monitoring Officer confirmed that a vote of no confidence in the Chairman could not be legally heard and he then issued a stern rebuke to Councillors in terms of their conduct and behaviour he had seen during this meeting on several occasions. In view of this, the Interim Monitoring Officer confirmed that the Chairman had absolute discretion to decide if she did not wish to hear further from a Councillor. He also stated that the Chairman needed to consider if the meeting could continue on this basis.

The Chairman confirmed that it was her wish to adjourn the meeting and she consulted with the Chief Executive who confirmed that in line with Council Procedure Rule 8 [Cancellation, Postponement or Adjournment of a meeting] that the meeting was now adjourned.

. (The meeting concluded at 10.00 pm)

Page 40 Agenda Item 10

ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL

REPORT TO AND DECISION OF FULL COUNCIL ON 13 JANUARY 2021

SUBJECT: A27 ARUNDEL IMPROVEMENTS

REPORT AUTHOR: Nigel Lynn – Chief Executive DATE: 27 November 2020 EXTN: 37600 PORTFOLIO AREA: Leader of the Council & Economy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Following Highways England’s Preferred Route Announcement (Grey Route), the report seeks to provide a corporate response to that announcement.

RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 It is proposed that : The Chief Executive be authorised to respond to Highways England with the Council’s interim observations as outlined in 1.16 – 1.21 of the report, and to welcome the opportunity to take part in the statutory community consultation at the appropriate stage.

1. BACKGROUND: 1.1. Highways England announced on 15 October 2020 that the Grey Route (Option 5BV1) was the preferred route (Preferred Route Announcement)

1.2. There was a consultation in 2017, followed further consultation that concluded in October 2019. 1.3. The 6 options in October 2019 being:-  Cyan (Option 1V5) No support  Beige (Option 1V9) No Support  Crimson (Option 3V1) Little support (5 ; 31)

Page 41

 Magenta (Option 4/5AV1) Well supported (31 : 5)  Amber (Option 4/5AV2) No Support  Grey (Option 5BV1) No support 1.4. The Council therefore resolved to confirm the Magenta route as the Council’s supported route. 1.5. Importantly, it further resolved to urge Highways England to consider all potential opportunities on any preferred route corridor, which would further reduce the impact on residents and the environment. 1.6. It also resolved to encourage Highways England to use high quality architectural standards, take appropriate account of flood risk, consider a junction with Ford Road, investigate routing Footpath 2207 away from the railway and using the River to barge construction materials to site and suggested the creation of a cycleway along the River Arun 1.7. Council also delegated authority to the Director of Place to commission and submit a Local Impact Statement required as part of a formal Development Consent Order process, working collaboratively with West Sussex County Council, Arundel Town Council, Walberton Parish Council, Lyminster and Crossbush Parish Council and the South Downs National Park Authority. (Subsequently also with Slindon Parish Council) 1.8. Reasons given by Highways England for choosing the Grey Route were as follows:  How well the proposed designs would meet the scheme objectives  Potential impacts on local communities and the environment around Arundel  The extent to which the proposals would comply with planning policy  Feedback received during our public consultation process  The cost of delivering the scheme and the value-for-money that would be achieved by doing so. 1.9. Highways England has also stated: “While there are no easy answers to the challenges of improving the A27 around Arundel, the results of our extensive assessment work have clearly identified Grey as the best long-term solution.” 1.10. Whilst the Grey Route is the most expensive of the options put forward in the 2019 consultation, Highways England has identified the necessary funds from within the Road Investment Strategy allocation to deliver the Grey route. 1.11. Next Steps 1.12. The Preferred Route Announcement (PRA) is a step within a process; the next step (Stage 3) would be Preliminary design encompassing Statutory Community Consultation and an application for development consent. 1.13. There would then follow Stages 4 (Statutory Procedures and Powers) and Stage 5 (Construction Preparation) together with Examination by the Planning Inspectorate and a decision by the Secretary of Sate for Transport.

Page 42

1.14. Any response given to Highways at this stage can only therefore be considered as an interim response to the proposals as a whole. 1.15. Highways England’s current programme shows a 2023/24 construction start 1.16. Interim Observations 1.17. Highways England has recognised that local communities, particularly in Binsted, Tortington and Walberton, will be concerned about the impact of the new road on their villages. There will be a need to work closely with these communities and other relevant stakeholders, including Arun District Council and West Sussex County Council to design the most appropriate mitigation measures. 1.18. Such measures identified by Highways England include:- • Planting of suitable vegetation to mitigate landscape impacts • Flood management measures to avoid changes to flood characteristics • Screening to mitigate impacts on cultural heritage setting • Green bridges and oversized structures (like culverts) to facilitate safer animal crossings of the A27 • Habitat creation to provide compensation for habitats affected by the scheme • Low noise surfacing, noise barriers and where practicable, putting the road in cuttings to mitigate noise and visual impacts 1.19. These mitigation measures go towards meeting the Council’s wishes mentioned in 1.5 above. There is clearly more work to be done in ensuring that these measures and potentially others are carried forward into the detail design and we await details of how this is anticipated to be achieved, including at Avisford Grange. 1.20. The Council should offer to work closely with Highways England and its designers, consultants and contractors, to ensure that every possible measure is achieved and maximised and to work towards the goals outlined in 1.6 above. 1.21. The Grey route was not the preferred route of the Council but an ‘off-line’ route is welcomed, rather than an on-line route or no improvements. However, it is important that the mitigation of any impacts on local communities should be as extensive as reasonably practicable.

2. PROPOSAL(S): It is proposed that the Chief Executive be authorised to respond to Highways England with the interim observations as outlined in 1.16 – 1.21 of the report, and to welcome the opportunity to take part in the statutory community consultation at the appropriate stage. 3. OPTIONS: 1. Write to Highways England stating no support for the Grey Route 2. Not to write 4. CONSULTATION: All external consultation is deemed to be the responsibility of Highways England

Page 43

Has consultation been undertaken with: YES NO Relevant Town/Parish Council - Not by ADC Relevant District Ward Councillors As background papers Other groups/persons (please specify) - Not by ADC 5. ARE THERE ANY IMPLICATIONS IN RELATION TO YES NO THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL POLICIES: (Explain in more detail at 6 below) Financial

Legal

Human Rights/Equality Impact Assessment See 6 (below) Community Safety including Section 17 of Crime & Disorder Act Sustainability Asset Management/Property/Land Technology Other (please explain) 6. IMPLICATIONS: There should be no direct implications on Arun policies but there will be other implications that have an impact and these will be identified in the Local Impact Statement required as part of a formal Development Consent Order

7. REASON FOR THE DECISION: To impart to Highways England the Council’s interim views on the proposals.

8. BACKGROUND PAPERS: • Highways England’s Preferred Route Announcement brochure, together with other supporting documentation, at www.highwaysengland.co.uk/a27arundel • Further Consultation Response letter (N. Lynn to Highways England: Oct 2019) • Equality Impact Assessment

Page 44 EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Name of activity: A27 ARUNDEL IMPROVEMENTS Date Completed: 27 November 2020 Directorate / Division Chief Executive / Leader of the Council & Lead Officer: Nigel Lynn responsible for activity: Economy Chief Executive Existing Activity  New / Proposed Activity  Changing / Updated Activity 

What are the aims / main purposes of the activity? To provide a response to Highways England following the Preferred Route Announcement NB this EIA relates to the response and not to the Highways England proposals or announcement.

What are the main actions and processes involved? Consideration of the implications of the route choice in terms of socio-economic impacts together with environmental and other impacts. Page 45 Page NB the improvements to the A27 Trunk road at Arundel are being provided by others and Arun DC does not have a decision-making part to play in the project.

Who is intended to benefit & who are the main stakeholders? Users of the national and local road networks; the residents of, and visitors to, Arun District; locally affected residents and businesses

Have you already consulted on / researched the activity? The promoter of the road improvements (Highways England) has undertaken arrange of consultation activities, the latest of which concluded in October 2019.The Council provided a formal response to that exercise following consideration and debate at Full Council

Impact on people with a protected characteristic (What is the potential impact of the activity? Are the impacts high, medium or low?)

Protected characteristics / groups Is there an impact If Yes, what is it and identify whether it is positive or negative (Yes / No) Age (older / younger people, Potentially Provision of safeguards to ensure safety of road users and all those living, working or recreating children) in the vicinity of the new road

Equality Impact Assessment Arun District Council 1 Disability (people with physical / Yes Provision of suitable design/mitigation to ensure equalities compliant access is available for sensory impairment or mental road users and all those living, working or recreating in the vicinity of the new road to ensure no disability) adverse impacts Gender reassignment (the process of No transitioning from one gender to another.) Marriage & civil partnership No (Marriage is defined as a 'union between a man and a woman'. Civil partnerships are legally recognized for same-sex couples) Pregnancy & maternity (Pregnancy is No the condition of being pregnant & maternity refers to the period after the birth) Page 46 Page Race (ethnicity, colour, nationality or No national origins & including gypsies, travellers, refugees & asylum seekers) Religion & belief (religious faith or No other group with a recognised belief system) Sex (male / female) No Sexual orientation (lesbian, gay, No bisexual, heterosexual) Whilst Socio economic disadvantage potentially In due course a Local Impact Statement will be developed by the Council and others – only at that people may face is not a that point will impacts (positive or negative) be identified protected characteristic; the potential impact on this group should be also considered

Equality Impact Assessment Arun District Council 2 What evidence has been used to assess the likely impacts?

Data provided by Highways England

Decision following initial assessment

Continue with existing or introduce new / planned activity Yes Amend activity based on identified actions No

Action Plan

Impact identified Action required Lead Officer Deadline

Currently detailed design is not available to indicate any Build into Prepare Local Impact Statement KR identified impacts that have not been mitigated design process

Page 47 Page

Monitoring & Review

Date of last review or Impact Assessment: N/A Date of next 12 month review: 26 November 2021 or at the Statutory Community Consultation Stage if sooner Date of next 3 year Impact Assessment (from the date of this EIA): 26 November 2023

Date EIA completed: 27 November 2020

Signed by Person Completing: Nigel Lynn – Chief Executive

Equality Impact Assessment Arun District Council 3 This page is intentionally left blank Page 49 Page 50 Agenda Item 11 Subject to approval at the next Planning Policy Sub-Committee meeting

7

PLANNING POLICY SUB-COMMITTEE

22 September 2020 at 6.00 pm

Present: Councillors Mrs Yeates (Chairman), Bower, Chapman, Charles, Dixon, Edwards (Substitute for Councillor Hughes), Elkins, Lury, Ms Thurston and Tilbrook

11. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Hughes, Huntley, Jones and Oppler.

12. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest made.

13. MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 30 June 2020 were approved by the Subcommittee as a correct record and would be signed by the Chairman as soon as possible following the Council’s resumption of normal working.

14. ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING STATEMENT (IFS) 2019/20

(In the course of discussion on this matter, Councillor Elkins declared a personal interest as a member of West Sussex County Council. He remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote.)

The Planning Policy Team Leader introduced this report which set out the detail of why an Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) was now required to be prepared and published by all planning obligation collecting authorities on an annual basis and the content of such a statement. The main aim of this change to the CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) Regulations was to provide a way to make developer contributions fully transparent to enable anyone to ascertain how much an individual development site had contributed to infrastructure provision.

In discussing the item, Members commended the report and welcomed this approach as providing transparency to the public. They participated in a full general debate to improve their understanding, with the Principal Planning Officer responding to any queries raised. A particular point was put forward with regard to GIS mapping and the benefit that could have on illustrating infrastructure contributions from sites with planning permissions. As this was an issue not strictly pertinent to the item on the table, the Group Head of Planning encouraged Members to review the current GIS

Page 51 Subject to approval at the next Planning Policy Sub-Committee meeting

8

Planning Policy Sub-Committee - 22.09.20

system on the Council’s website and feedback comments to officers to enable further consideration of the matter.

The Subcommittee

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL

That the Arun Infrastructure Funding Statement 2019/20 be approved and published on the Council’s website in accordance with Regulation 121A of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended).

15. GYPSY & TRAVELLER & TRAVELLING SHOWMEN SITE ALLOCATIONS DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT - PREFERRED OPTIONS

(In the course of discussion on this matter, Councillor Elkins declared a personal interest as a member of West Sussex County Council. He remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote.)

The Planning Policy Team Leader presented this report which sought approval to undertake a Regulation 18 Draft Gypsy & Traveller and Travelling Showmen Site Allocation Development Plan Document (Draft DPD) ‘Preferred Options’ public consultation.

Members were appraised of the background and detail as to how the preferred options had been arrived at and particularly highlighted that a new location at Bilsham Corner had been identified for inclusion towards the end of the Plan period as it might offer scope for accommodating a range of Gypsy & Traveller (G&T) pitches and Traveller Showmen (TSM) plots and thus provide a degree of contingency and flexibility should delivery not progress in accordance with the plan accommodation requirements. The Planning Policy Team Leader also clarified that Climate Change and flooding matters had been raised by the Environment Agency and West Sussex County Council (e.g. the Caravan site and Little Meadow Bilsham Corner). However, officers were confident the planning permission and level 2 Flood Risk Assessments at the Caravan Site showed that technical solutions on the ground were possible and the proposed Little Meadow broad location allocation towards the end of the plan period to accommodate a plot shortfall and contingency period was, similarly, likely to offer scope to mitigate risks and vulnerability to meet national policy requirements. There was little to choose from between sites according to the ‘G&T Site Identification Study’, the ‘Sustainability Appraisal’ and limited capacity and so the plan should progress to consultation which might generate further evidence and possible options.

Unfortunately, the Planning Policy Team Leader had to report that 5 existing sites that should have been included in the document for safeguarding as G&T and TSM sites on the polices map (these are separate from and not sites proposed for intensification) had been omitted due to a gremlin in the system but would be added and ARU044 2 Wyndham Acres should also have been listed in the safeguarding policy but was correctly shown on the policies map. These were:- Page 52 Subject to approval at the next Planning Policy Sub-Committee meeting

9

Planning Policy Sub-Committee - 22.09.20

ARU030 Ryebank Caravan Park G&T ARU052 Cottage Piggeries G&T ARU045 The Paddocks G&T ARU022 The Drive TSM ARU023 Fairfield Eastergate Lane TSM

In debating the matter, questions were asked relating to the consultation process and the Planning Team Leader advised Members of the steps that would be taken to ensure that the consultation was in line with Regulation 18 and, particularly, to take account of the effect that the pandemic might have on accessibility. In fact, the consultation period had been extended to 8 weeks from 6 weeks specifically because of the pandemic.

Further debate centred around suitability and sustainability of sites; social cohesion and social harmony; and site notices, all of which were addressed at the meeting by the Planning Team Leader.

The Subcommittee

RESOLVED – That

(1) The consultation Draft Gypsy & Traveller and Travelling Showmen Site Allocations Development Plan Document ‘Preferred Options’ be agreed for an eight week public consultation in October 2020; and

(2) The Group Head of Planning, in consultation with the Planning Portfolio Holder and the Chairman be granted delegated authority to finalise the draft Preferred Options DPD and accompanying consultation documentation.

(The meeting concluded at 7.22 pm)

Page 53 This page is intentionally left blank Public Document Pack Agenda Item 12 Subject to approval at the next Standards meeting

177

STANDARDS

24 September 2020 at 6.00 pm

Present: Councillors Edwards (Chairman), Bower, Coster, English, Kelly and Tilbrook

Independent Members: Mr J. Thompson, Mr B. Green, Mrs S. Prail and Mr J. Cooke

Councillors Charles and Clayden were also in attendance at the meeting.

221. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Bennett and Blanchard-Cooper.

222. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Coster declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 9, Register of Complaints Against Councillors[Exempt], and stated he would leave the meeting if there was any discussion on the item.

223. MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 20 February 2020 were approved by the Committee as a correct record and would be signed by the Chairman as soon as possible following the Council’s resumption of normal working.

224. ASSESSMENT HEARING PANEL PROCEDURES

It had been brought to the attention of the Chairman that there were anomalies in the Assessment Hearing Panel Procedures and, as an Hearing was scheduled for 21 October 2020, he felt that this should be addressed as a matter of urgency at this meeting for the benefit of all parties concerned.

Members views were expressed that it would be unfair to change the process at this time whilst there was an ongoing case as the relevant parties had already been advised of the procedure. It was felt that a review should be undertaken and a report brought back to the meeting scheduled for 3 December 2020 to enable the Committee to fully consider the matter.

Hoey Ainscough Associates Ltd had been commissioned to act on the Council’s behalf with regard to Standards issues and the Chairman welcomed Mr Hoey to the meeting and thanked him for his attendance. He asked Mr Hoey’s advice with regard to the risk to the Council if the process was not changed for the upcoming hearing. Mr Hoey advised that the key issue was that the Assessment Hearing Panel had to be

Page 55 Subject to approval at the next Standards meeting

178

Standards - 24.09.20

treated as any other Committee of the Council and should therefore decide whether hearings should be heard in closed or public session on a case by case basis. At the present time, the Panels had been set up to consider all cases in closed session. He was of the view that, if Members wished to maintain the status quo for the hearing in October, that would present a low risk but that was for Members to assess.

Mr Hoey confirmed that he would prepare a report for the next meeting of the Committee on 3 December 2020 to enable Members to reconsider the procedures in respect of Assessment Hearing Panels.

Members agreed that no change be made to the procedure at this time.

225. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION MODEL MEMBER CODE OF CONDUCT

(In considering this item, Mr Hoey declared a personal interest as his company had been invited by the LGA to write the Code.)

The Chief Executive advised the Committee that the LGA (Local Government Association) had not yet finalised the New Model Member Code of Conduct. Mr Hoey confirmed that it was anticipated that the New Code would be approved at the LGA’s Annual General Meeting due to be held in October and it was therefore suggested that the matter be deferred for consideration at the meeting on 3 December 2020.

The Committee

RESOLVED

That consideration of the New Model Member Code of Conduct be deferred to the meeting on 3 December 2020.

226. NEW SOCIAL MEDIA GUIDANCE FOR COUNCILLORS

The Chief Executive introduced this report and stated that the new Social Media Guidance would sit as a separate document to the New Model Members Code of Conduct but would be referenced within that Code. Hoey Ainscough Associates Ltd had been asked to review the existing guidance as social media had transformed the way that people communicated and it was important for Councillors to know how to use the medium effectively as a communication tool.

In considering the matter, some Members expressed their views that the new guidance was not strong enough and it could just be ignored, it had no “teeth”. However, Mr Hoey advised that there were legal remedies available if Members breached the Code of Conduct and there was a particular difficulty in that Members were also private individuals who could express their views in that capacity. The guidance was to merely set out how Councillors could avoid getting into difficulties and to provide a framework for approaching social media.

Page 56 Subject to approval at the next Standards meeting

179

Standards - 24.09.20

The Chief Executive reiterated that there were other routes that could be taken to deal with problems arising with unacceptable use of social media by Members. Mr Hoey also advised that his company was working with the LGA as that body wished to see something more explicit included in the new Code of Conduct that applied to the use of social media. He confirmed that the law made it very clear that the Council only had jurisdiction over Councillors when acting in that specific role and not when acting as a private individual. The Government was being pressed to expand the definition of when the Code applied to cover the use of social media but that was still to be looked at.

Comment was made that the new guidance was an improvement on the previous version but would it not be useful to make reference to GDPR (General Data Protection Regulations) and SARs (Subject Access Requests) as Councillors should be aware that if they named individuals there could be repercussions? The Chief Executive stressed that Members needed to read the guidance very carefully and understand that any breaches could be referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office and there could be sanctions.

It was suggested that mandatory training should be provided but the Chief Executive advised that could not be imposed on Councillors but Group Leaders could ensure that all their members were aware of and understood the guidance. In addition, the Chairman, when presenting the Minutes, could raise the issue at Full Council.

The Committee

RECOMMEND TO CABINET – That

(1) The new Social Media Guidance for Councillors be endorsed, replacing the previous version endorsed by Cabinet on 31 May 2016; and

(2) The Acting Monitoring Officer be authorised to make any consequential changes arising from the adoption of a new Members Code of Conduct.

227. REGISTER OF ASSESSMENTS OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST COUNCILLORS

In presenting this report, the Chief Executive provided a verbal update on case 20/06 to advise that an informal resolution had been agreed.

The Committee then

RESOLVED

Page 57 Subject to approval at the next Standards meeting

180

Standards - 24.09.20

That the Register of Complaints against Councillors and progress of any outstanding complaints be noted.

228. EXEMPT INFORMATION

The Committee

RESOLVED

That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and accredited representatives of newspapers be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it may involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act by virtue of the paragraph specified against the item.

229. REGISTER OF ASSESSMENTS OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST COUNCILLORS [EXEMPT - PARAGRAPH 1 - INFORMATION RELATING TO INDIVIDUALS]

(Prior to consideration of this item, Councillor Coster redeclared his personal interest and stated he would leave the meeting if any discussion took place on the matter pertaining to him.)

The Chief Executive presented this report and also provided verbal updates on a number of the cases included in the register.

Following a brief discussion, the Committee

RESOLVED – That

(1) The Register of Complaints against Councillors be noted; and

(2) The Acting Monitoring Officer send a refresher to all Members on the importance of making open minded declarations, where appropriate, and how to make an open minded declaration.

(The meeting concluded at 7.05 pm)

Page 58 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 13 Subject to approval at the next Development Control Committee meeting

181

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

30 September 2020 at 2.30 pm

Present: Councillors Bennett (Chairman), Ms Thurston (Vice-Chairman), B Blanchard-Cooper, Bower, Chapman (Substitute for Councillor Roberts), Charles, Clayden (Substitute for Councillor Mrs Pendleton), Coster, Edwards, Mrs Hamilton, Kelly, Lury, Tilbrook, Mrs Warr and Mrs Yeates

Councillor Huntley was also in attendance for part of the meeting.

230. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Mrs Pendleton and Roberts.

231. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Agenda Item 12 – Submission of West of Bersted Masterplan Framework for Endorsement – The following Councillors declared a personal interest for the reasons stated:-

Councillor Lury as a member of Bersted Parish Council and a member of the Bersted Advisory Group. Councillor Mrs Yeates as a member of Bersted Parish Council and Chairman of the Bersted Advisory Group. Councillor Edwards as the County Councillor for Bersted and as a member of the Bersted Advisory Group. Councillor Mrs Hamilton as a member of Pagham Parish Council and that would apply to the Bersted site.

Planning Application AW/297/20/PL – Councillor Coster declared a personal interest and stated that he would make a statement at consideration of the item.

232. MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 2 September 2020 were approved by the Committee as a correct record and would be signed by the Chairman as soon as possible following the Council’s resumption of normal working.

Member comment was made that, in respect of Minute 180 - Planning Application F/15/20/WS, the letters sent by officers on behalf of the Council to West

Page 59 Subject to approval at the next Development Control Committee meeting

182

Development Control Committee - 30.09.20

Sussex County Council and to the Minister relating to the potential for a call-in were excellent and covered all the points raised by Members in the debate.

233. P116/19/OUT - LAND ADJACENT TO SEFTER SCHOOL HOUSE, SEFTER ROAD, BOGNOR REGIS PO21 3EE

Public Speakers: Mr P. Atkins, Objector Mr M. Josey, Objector Mrs E. Lawrence, Agent Cllr D. Huntley, Ward Member

P/116/19/OUT – Outline application with all matters reserved, except for access, for the erection of 4 No. semi-detached 3 bedroom houses & 2 No. detached 4 bedroom houses with associated access, parking and gardens. This application is a Departure from the Development Plan, Land adjacent to Sefter School House, Sefter Road, Bognor Regis

The Planning Team Leader presented this report and also provided the Committee with a verbal update report covering the following:-

 25 further letters of objection had been received on the grounds of infrastructure, traffic, highways, drainage, loss of farmland, wild life, flooding and pollution, all of which had been addressed in the officer’s report.  A Councillor had raised the issue of local finance and the Planning Team Leader addressed this by referring to Sections 70 (2) and 70 (4) of the Town & Country Planning Act.

Whilst a raft of Member objections to the proposal were raised at the meeting it was acknowledged that, without support from statutory consultees, it would be difficult to justify any refusal and the Committee therefore

RESOLVED

That the application be approved as detailed in the report.

234. FG/73/20/PL - EASTLANDS, LITTLEHAMPTON ROAD, FERRING BN12 6PB

Public Speaker: Cllr S. Abbott, Ferring Parish Council

FG/73/20/PL – Variation of Condition 4 approved under FG/8/20/PL for the condition to read “The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person or persons solely or mainly working, or last working, at the equestrian centre at Eastlands, or a widow or widower of such a person, and to any resident dependents”.

The Planning Team Leader presented this report and confirmed that the variation to the wording of the relevant condition complied with planning guidance.

Page 60 Subject to approval at the next Development Control Committee meeting

183

Development Control Committee - 30.09.20

Members participated in a full debate as a number of concerns were expressed that the variation would compromise the original permission which had been for a dwelling house to support the running of the equestrian business. However, strong advice was provided by the Group Head of Planning that the wording was the standard wording set out in circular 11/95 which, as government guidance, was considered to be acceptable and to go against that would be unreasonable. Further advice was provided by the Planning Team Leader that, should the dwelling use no longer be tied to the business, a planning application would have to be submitted to delete the condition and so that matter would be considered at that time.

The Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be approved as detailed in the report.

235. BN/57/19/RES - LAND EAST OF FONTWELL AVENUE, FONTWELL AVENUE, FONTWELL BN18 0SB

Public Speaker: Ms E. Murphy, Agent

(In the course of consideration of this item, Councillor Ms Thurston declared a personal interest as a member of Barnham & Eastergate Parish Council.)

BN/57/19/RES – Approval of reserved matters for 3785sqm of light industrial floorspace (Class B1(b)(c) following the grant of WA/22/15/OUT, Land east of Fontwell Avenue, Fontwell Avenue, Fontwell

The Committee received a comprehensive presentation from the Principal Planning Officer, together with the officer’s written report update which set out the detail of:-

 discussions that had been had regarding the retention of trees and resultant reduction in car parking provision;  the size and precise location of the attenuation pond yet to be agreed  a revised layout plan and consequential changes to the submitted landscaping scheme, including the planting of English oaks.  Amendment to the recommendation that, if Members were minded to approve the application, the decision be delegated to the Group Head of Planning to approve following receipt of a satisfactory amended landscaping scheme and subject to the conditions set out in the officer’s report, with the reference numbers of plans, drawings and documents updated accordingly.

In considering the proposal, the Principal Planning Officer was commended for his work, particularly on safeguarding the trees on the site, and Members welcomed the additional employment opportunities that would be generated by the applicant. The installation of 574 solar panels was applauded and, following a query with regard to

Page 61 Subject to approval at the next Development Control Committee meeting

184

Development Control Committee - 30.09.20

odour, that was satisfactorily addressed by the Principal Planning Officer at the meeting, the Committee then

RESOLVED

That the application be approved and the decision be delegated to the Group Head of Planning following receipt of a satisfactory amended landscaping scheme and subject to the conditions set out in the officer’s report, with the reference numbers of plans, drawings and documents updated accordingly.

236. AB/75/20/PL - 55-57 HIGH STREET, ARUNDEL BN18 9AJ

AB/75/20/PL – Conversion of existing mixed use space to 1 No. 1 bedroom flat. This application affects the character & appearance of the Arundel Conservation Area and affects the setting of a Listed Building, 55-57 High Street, Arundel

The Planning Team Leader presented this report, together with the officer’s written report update which advised that 3 additional objections had been received. A verbal update was also provided that the Council’s Conservation Officer was of the opinion that the proposal was acceptable as there would be less than substantial harm to a heritage asset.

Following consideration, the Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be approved as detailed in the report.

237. AW/197/20/PL - THE FORMER SHIP INN, ALDWICK STREET, ALDWICK PO21 3AP

(Prior to consideration of this application, Councillor Coster declared a personal interest and stated that he wished to make the meeting aware that he might have made observations or comments in connection with the application – these were the views he held at that time. However, he had an open mind about this item and he would listen and consider the relevant issues presented to the Committee and confirmed that he would reach his decision based on merit. He remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote.)

AW/197/20/PL – Variation of conditions 8 – concerning hours of deliveries and 10 - types of vehicles making deliveries following AW/211/14/PL. This application is in CIL Zone 4 (zero rated) as ‘other development’, The Former Ship Inn, Aldwick Street, Aldwick

The Planning Team Leader presented this report to the Committee, together with the officer’s written report update which set out a representation from Aldwick Parish Council. Page 62 Subject to approval at the next Development Control Committee meeting

185

Development Control Committee - 30.09.20

In considering the proposal, views were expressed that there was no significant difference to what had earlier been refused due to road safety issues and therefore the same conclusion must be reached. However, Member comment highlighted that a traffic survey and road safety reports that had been requested for the previous application had, as detailed in the report, been responded to by the applicant and County Highways had reviewed the documents and raised no objection. Other Members urged caution in moving towards a refusal as the case would certainly be lost at appeal.

Following further comment opposing any approval, the Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be approved as detailed in the report.

238. APPEALS

The Committee received and noted the list of appeals that had been received.

239. SUBMISSION OF WEST BERSTED MASTERPLAN FRAMEWORK FOR ENDORSEMENT

(Prior to consideration of this item, Councillors Edwards, Mrs Hamilton, Lury and Mrs Yeates had declared a personal interest and remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote.

Councillor Coster also declared a personal interest as he had attended a meeting of the West of Bersted Advisory Group and remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote.)

Prior to detailed consideration of this item, the Chairman read out a statement reminding the Committee that it was being asked to endorse the Framework Masterplan for the West of Bersted strategic allocation within the Arun Local Plan. It did not, and should not, include details relating to how infrastructure might be secured or delivered, i.e. highway mitigation measures or school provision, and greater detail relating to the layout, appearance, landscaping of the site, parking and housing design would all be considered when Reserved Matters applications came forward. He requested that Members focus their discussion solely on the overarching principles set out in the Framework Masterplan (FM). He then invited the Senior Planning Officer to commence his presentation.

The Committee received a full and comprehensive presentation on the detail of the FM from the Senior Planning Officer in tandem with the report included in the agenda and together with the officer’s written report update which provided information relating to:-

Page 63 Subject to approval at the next Development Control Committee meeting

186

Development Control Committee - 30.09.20

 Receipt of petition and 61 additional comments following expiration of the consultation period on 21 September 2020  Objection from Councillor Stanley  Receipt of consultation responses set out in the update  Comment from the West of Bersted Advisory Group  Amendments to the Framework Masterplan, as detailed in the update and which had been incorporated in the final submitted version for endorsement  Amended recommendation to take account of the final submitted version

The Committee heard that the FM had been prepared to facilitate the development of at least 2,500 homes and associated infrastructure, including a new primary school, community facilities, public open space, sports and retail provision. The concept of the Masterplan layout was based on two character areas; one to the north (Character Area A), and one to the south (Character Area B). The northern area would be based on a grid layout and the southern area would be centred around the green space in an orbital layout.

The subsequent planning applications based on this document would deliver a comprehensive package of infrastructure and discussions were currently ongoing with the main key stakeholders involved in infrastructure provision. Officers would be reporting back to the Advisory Group Members regarding those discussions to ensure proposed delivery was considered and scrutinised by all. They were satisfied that the FM would allow a robust package towards infrastructure to be secured at the planning application stage.

In concluding his presentation, the Senior Planning Officer acknowledged that the developers had made appropriate concessions throughout the process to ensure the Masterplan aligned with the adopted Arun Local Plan. He stated that the submitted Framework Masterplan would enable both Officers and Members to robustly and comprehensively determine the detailed design of future planning applications on the site.

In opening up the debate, due to the Council’s past experience, concerns were expressed around the actual delivery of the infrastructure required, particularly with regard to the provision of school and health facilities. It was stated that such provision must happen and it was advised that the Advisory Group too were of the view that health facilities had to be improved, with phasing not being acceptable. Member comments were made that the infrastructure providers should be represented on the Advisory Groups to ensure they were engaged early in the process, and that included County Highways as it was felt that highways matters needed to be addressed prior to reaching the planning application stage.

The Senior Planning Officer reassured Members that the issues raised had been noted and would be discussed with the relevant parties.

The Chairman thanked the Senior Planning Officer for his presentation and the Committee then Page 64 Subject to approval at the next Development Control Committee meeting

187

Development Control Committee - 30.09.20

RESOLVED

That the Land at West Bersted Framework Masterplan Version for Endorsement(update) 18723-SBR-ZZ-XX-RT-A-80204 Rev 13 be endorsed.

(The meeting concluded at 5.28 pm)

Page 65 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 66 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 15 Subject to approval at the next Littlehampton Regeneration Sub-Committee meeting

7

LITTLEHAMPTON REGENERATION SUB-COMMITTEE

7 October 2020 at 6.00 pm

Present: Councillors Miss Seex (Chairman), B Blanchard-Cooper (Vice- Chairman), Bicknell, Buckland, Mrs Caffyn, Goodheart, Gunner, Miss Rhodes and Dr Walsh

Councillors Charles, Cooper, Mrs Cooper and Roberts were also in attendance for all or part of the meeting.

12. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest made.

13. MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 10 June 2020 were approved by the Subcommittee as a correct rocord and would be signed by the Chairman as soon as possible following the Council’s resumption of normal working.

14. STRATEGIC REVIEW OF ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL'S TOURISM SERVICE

The Chairman welcomed to the meeting Mr Adam Bates, Blue Sail Consulting, who had been appointed to undertake a review of the Council’s tourism function. The review had considered all aspects of tourism support offered by the authority and its recommendations would be put forward to Cabinet for consideration and decision; the Subcommittee was being requested for their views which would be forwarded to Cabinet to assist their deliberations of the matter.

Mr Bates gave a presentation which covered his brief for the review and what Arun should be doing to fit in with others in marketing, management, and development to improve the offer in the District and to increase staying visitors over the dominance of day visitors as at the present time. Tourism was an important sector for the local economy and, whilst there was a good variety, i.e. coast, towns and countryside, it was felt that what was on offer was good not great and that there was a modest impact on tourism spend and jobs. To encourage visitors to stay, better quality accommodation would be required and experiences provided that were worth travelling for. The offer therefore needed to be renewed, new markets attracted, year round value for money provided and higher value jobs encouraged.

Members welcomed the report from Mr Bates, which they had found interesting and informative and then participated in a question and answer session, summarised as follows:-

 Dominance of day visitors and how best to encourage people to stay in the district to increase the spend. Mr Bates stated that, fundamentally, Arun had two broad markets i.e. families and couples and that generally speaking people

Page 67 Subject to approval at the next Littlehampton Regeneration Sub-Committee meeting

8

Littlehampton Regeneration Sub-Committee - 7.10.20

were looking to take short breaks due to changing work patterns. Rural accommodation was increasingly popular, e.g glamping, and for a significant economic impact Travel Lodges/Premier Inns and mid range accommodation was required.  Concern was raised relating to the resourcing of the plan within the existing resource envelope and the three year time frame. Members were advised that, although there was quite a lot that could be actioned immediately, focus should be given to providing 5 or 6 things that could make the most difference and biggest impact.  Working with partners was highlighted and particular mention was made to the Littlehampton Harbour Board. Mr Bates agreed that the most should be made of the beaches and River Arun and the opportunities for water based activities, offering a good variety would help get visitors to come and stay longer.

The Chairman thanked Mr Bates for his comprehensive review, useful presentation and attendance at the meeting and invited him to leave if he so wished.

The Chairman then invited the Group Head of Economy to present her report which set out the background to the review, its remit and the four strategic recommendations for the Council’s tourism service contained therein. Support and any further comments were being sought from the Subcommittee, which would then be indicated to Cabinet when it considered and decided on the matter at a future meeting. It was also brought to Members’ attention that there would be changes to the service should the recommendations be supported.

In opening up the debate, the Chairman welcomed the report from Blue Sail and expressed her view that that approach was the right one and that a Strategic Tourism Investment Role was required to coordinate and work with businesses and towns and seek investment for the District.

Whilst a concern was expressed that any changes to the service should not be part of the discussion, the Group Head of Economy emphasised that, in supporting the recommendations from Blue Sail, change was inherent to the direction the Council would be taking, including the cessation of Sussex by the Sea website, removal of the Visitor Information Points at Bognor Regis, Littlehampton and Arundel and the bi-annual Visitor Guide and she wanted Members to be aware of that. Other Members recognised that that change was contained in the detail of the review and fully supported it as it was recognised that, to achieve an improved role in the tourism sector, things had to move forward and change.

The Subcommittee

RESOLVED

That officers to make Cabinet aware that the review recommendations contained within the Arun Strategic Review of Tourism are supported by the Subcommittee.

Page 68 Subject to approval at the next Littlehampton Regeneration Sub-Committee meeting

9

Littlehampton Regeneration Sub-Committee - 7.10.20

15. PROPOSED NEW COMMERCIAL PITCHES ON LITTLEHAMPTON SEAFRONT

In consideration of this matter, Councillors Cooper and Mrs Cooper spoke to the item.

On 26 May 2020 the Development Control Committee considered an application for temporary commercial pitches on the Littlehampton Promenade near the river and at Banjo Road Coach Park. Members had deferred the application on several grounds and particularly wished to receive the views of the Subcommittee prior to determination.

The Subcommittee now received a full and comprehensive report from the Senior Regeneration Officer which addressed all the issues raised by the Development Control Committee in respect of the proposal. Members were advised that the overall aim was to boost the local economy through the enhancement and improvement of the Littlehampton Seafront offer for its visitors. This would draw in more visitors, encourage them to stay longer and spend more, thus increasing footfall which would in turn benefit all the businesses located in the vicinity and, as a footnote, support the aims of the Strategic Tourism Review which had been considered as a previous item on the agenda.

Members expressed a number of concerns in the course of consideration of this matter which revolved around:-

 Potential to replicate facilities/services to the detriment of existing businesses  Potential sale of alcohol which would exacerbate an already serious problem  Potential for unattractive units and furniture at the relevant sites  For safety reasons, paddle boarding or water activities should not be allowed near the river due to it being so fast flowing and dangerous

The Senior Regeneration Officer was able to assure Members that any commercial activities that took place at the two sites could be regulated via conditions attached to an Operating Schedule as drawn up by the Property & Estates Department, in consultation with Legal, to ensure that control was secured on what was being provided. She was also able to advise that the Town Council was keen to utilise Banjo Road and that the Town and District would work together to ensure there was no conflict with other events.

Member comment as made that the proposal offered the opportunity to encourage new outlets into the town to provide activities and services for the benefit of tourists and residents alike and there would be no need to replicate. Additional support was given that there was a need to provide a stronger offering along the seafront

In concluding the debate, it was formally proposed and seconded that the Subcommittee advise the Development Control Committee that it supported the planning application and that restrictions would be attached to the Operating Licence and would be enforced by the Property & Estates Department to ensure that the

Page 69 Subject to approval at the next Littlehampton Regeneration Sub-Committee meeting

10

Littlehampton Regeneration Sub-Committee - 7.10.20

Riverside site only provided facilities relating to recreation and entertainment, with no food or drink, and that the Banjo Road site would be permitted to sell food but no alcohol and to provide recreation and entertainment. On being put to the vote, the Subcommittee agreed.

The Subcommittee

RESOLVED

That the Development Control Committee be advised that the Subcommittee supported the planning application and that restrictions will be attached to the Operating Licence and will be enforced by the Property & Estates Department to ensure that the Riverside site only provides facilities relating to recreation and entertainment, with no food or drink, and that the Banjo Road site will be permitted to sell food but no alcohol and to provide recreation and entertainment.

16. ECONOMY GROUP'S SUPPORT TO BUSINESSES DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

The Group Head of Economy presented this report which provided an update on the work of the team to date to support local businesses throughout the pandemic. She particularly highlighted that the Arun Business Partnership had over 3,000 businesses on its mailing list and all members received weekly electronic bulletins with the most up to date government guidance and information. Partnership working throughout this time had played an important role in keeping businesses abreast of the situation and everyone had found creative ways of working to ensure information was circulated to as wide a spectrum as possible. She paid particular tribute to the hard work and commitment of the Revenues & Benefits Team who had worked so diligently to ensure grant payments were sent out in a timely manner.

The Subcommittee was advised by the Group Head of Economy of a number of initiatives and actions covered in the report, both in terms of action taken and steps for moving forward with recovery planning. She was thanked for her comprehensive coverage of the issues detailed and the Leader of the Council also acknowledged the phenomenally huge extra workload that her team and many members of staff and had taken on during this very difficult time.

Following brief comment, the Subcommittee noted the report.

17. LITTLEHAMPTON REGENERATION POSITION STATEMENT

In consideration of this item, Councillor Roberts spoke to the item.

In presenting the Position Statement, the Group Head of Economy provided an in depth update in respect of the Littlehampton Town Centre Public Realm Scheme in light of the difficulties that had been experienced. The update could not be included in

Page 70 Subject to approval at the next Littlehampton Regeneration Sub-Committee meeting

11

Littlehampton Regeneration Sub-Committee - 7.10.20 the Position Statement included in the agenda as it had to be published prior to the Members’ briefing on 29 September.

The Subcommittee was advised that the Council had issued the Invitation to Tender for the public realm in June 2020, as soon as practical after lockdown had been lifted. The tender deadline was 21 July and the bids were assessed by 5 August. Two bids were submitted but one was eliminated because it was non-compliant and the compliant bid was significantly higher than the budget available so could not be accepted.

The project team reviewed the tendering process and bids to understand why the costs were so much over what was expected; the cost increase appeared to be due to increases in materials and the contractors’ increased profit margins and contingencies. Value engineering, through changing the paving (by far the single largest expenditure) to an equivalent alternative, would reduce the costs but not enough to bring the project back into budget.

The project team met to discuss options for delivering the scheme within budget and an alternative solution to drop Phase 1 was agreed with key members on 10 September. Funders were then contacted to advise of the changes and implications of this.

A briefing to update Members was held on 29th September.

The second Invitation to Tender (ITT) was published on 5 October with tenders to be returned by 16 November for bids for the detailed design for Phases 1, 2 & 3 of the project and construction of Phases 2 & 3. This was a two stage open book approach and open procedure tender process (i.e. the full tender documents were published for any interested party to access via Contracts Finder). It was hoped this would generate more bids.

The ITT stated a maximum budget for the construction works and all bids over that value would be disqualified. There might be a risk that no contractors would submit bids under the threshold but procurement believed that to be a low risk.

Members participated in some debate on the matter and concerns were raised with regard to the possibility of losing the funding altogether should the completion date not be met. The Group Head of Economy advised that the funders were seeking reassurance that the project would actually be delivered, rather than by a certain date, and she was confident that evidence could be provided to that effect. It was questioned whether it would be better to delay Phase 3 rather than Phase 1 as Phase 1 was the gateway to the town via the train station but a response was given that that was not possible due to the way the funding was set up as Phases 1 & 2 would be funded by the Coastal Communities Fund and Phase 3 was separate LEP funding.

Following further comments, the Subcommittee noted the update and the remainder of the Position Statement.

Page 71 Subject to approval at the next Littlehampton Regeneration Sub-Committee meeting

12

Littlehampton Regeneration Sub-Committee - 7.10.20

18. THANKS

As this was the last meeting of the Subcommittee the Committee Manager, Carrie O’Connor, would be attending before leaving, the Chairman and Members thanked her for her 34 years’ service to the Council and wished her well in her retirement.

(The meeting concluded at 9.04 pm)

Page 72 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 16 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

199

CABINET

19 October 2020 at 5.00 pm

Present: Councillors Dr Walsh (Chairman), Oppler (Vice-Chairman), Coster, Mrs Gregory, Lury, Stanley, Mrs Staniforth and Mrs Yeates

Councillors Bennett, Bower, Chapman, Charles, Clayden, Mrs Cooper, Cooper, Dendle, Dixon, Edwards, English, Gunner, Roberts and Tilbrook were also in attendance for all or part of the meeting.

249. WELCOME

The Chairman welcomed Members, members of the public and Officers to what was the sixth virtual meeting of Cabinet. He provided a brief summary of how the meeting would be conducted and the protocol that would be followed and how any break in the proceedings due to technical difficulties would be managed.

250. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no Declarations of Interest made.

251. QUESTION TIME

The Chairman confirmed that no questions had been submitted for this meeting.

252. URGENT BUSINESS

The Chairman confirmed that there were no items for this meeting.

253. MINUTES

The minutes from the meeting of Cabinet held on 21 September 2020 were approved as a correct by Cabinet. The Chairman confirmed that these would be signed at the earliest opportunity to him.

254. BUDGET VARIATION REPORTS

There were no items for this meeting.

255. THE COUNCIL'S FUTURE FINANCIAL ISSUES

The Leader of the Council introduced this report outlining that the Council’s 151 Officer had provided various reports over recent months highlighting the Council’s current financial position and the scale of its financial issues for the future. Whilst acknowledging the lack of clarity, due to a variety of uncertainties, this report provided

Page 73 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

200

Cabinet - 19.10.20

an update on possible financial measures, proposed by Officers, for Cabinet to consider helping anticipated future deficits, particularly from 2022/23. Although Cabinet had received regular updates on the Strategic Targets, this report provided an update following the Coronavirus Pandemic Lockdown, which had commenced on 23 March 2020, the detail of which had been set out in Appendix A to the report.

The Chairman stated that the Council’s Corporate Management Team, had been working with Group Heads of services examining possible changes to service delivery that would assist the Council’s Budget. These proposals had been set out in Appendix B to this report. The Chairman then invited the Chief Executive to work through the first part of the report and Appendix A. He reminded Councillors that the Council had agreed the ten Strategic Targets in 2019, long before the Council had any idea of the financial troubles lying ahead of it. Appendix A provided a target and timescale update for each of the targets listed. Members were reminded of the fact that for the last eight months; Officers have been tied up with the Coronavirus pandemic. However, it was appropriate, currently, for Cabinet to consider each target and its appropriateness in the current climate and the estimated revised timescales.

The Chairman firstly invited debate on the first part of the report and the strategic targets as set out in Appendix A.

Cabinet was very much of the view that Officer’s focus had rightly been in responding to the demands of Covid-19 and it was accepted that this had had an impact on targets. However, Cabinet confirmed that it felt that all of the targets were still very relevant and revised timescales were noted.

The Cabinet Member for Technical Services, Councillor Stanley, made reference to strategic target (8) [Public Engagement Strategy] stating that this had been one of the targets that had been rapidly progressed and as a result of the pandemic as it had been vital for the Council to engage better with the public through better digital channels. He referred to the last Cabinet meeting where funding had been recommended for an enhanced webcasting service and that significant improvements were being made to the Council’s web site in terms of design and content to make information clearer and easier to find, especially in relation to the top transactional services. Work had also progressed in looking at call handling and introducing web chats at a time when the public wanted to engage with the Council in different ways and were demanding to do this too. There was now an expectation through places like Amazon and Netflix that people should be able to communicate with larger organisations in different ways. This was right and the Council was responding to this and as it had become not just a personal preference from the customer prospective but a necessity to be able to contact and engage with the Council in different ways. Councillor Stanley stated that had been a lot of success and engagement around social media activity, with the introduction of the Leader of the Council’s social media broadcasts and so this was a target that had progressed very well.

The Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor Mrs Gregory, praised the work on housing [target 7] and confirmed some good news items against the target set. She stated that there were now 90 new housing units in the pipeline and that there would be Page 74 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

201

Cabinet - 19.10.20 another 22 progressing further by the end of this month. The Council had also secured 2 temporary accommodation units of family size. There were also schemes where terms had already been agreed providing a more accurate reflection on progress. Looking at this, a scheme in Bognor Regis had been proposed for extension to provide a further two properties.

The Cabinet Member for Commercial and Business Development, Councillor Coster, acknowledged the distractions brought about by Covid-19 and stated that despite this much progress had been made in pushing forward the strategic targets. Examples were the change in governance [target 5] and the Public Engagement Strategy. Even regeneration issues were pushing forward, the details of which would be reported through soon.

The Chairman echoed the positives raised by Cabinet Members and re- emphasised that Covid-19 had been a huge and all-consuming distraction, nationally and locally for the Council and that Officers had battled to undertake this challenge whilst at the same time having to also complete the day job. The result of this was that Arun continued to see one of the lowest incidents of Covid in the country and he paid tribute to Arun’s residents who had adhered to the relevant protocols.

The Chairman then alerted Councillors to Appendix B to the report. He stated that according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies, there had been a near decade of austerity within Local Government finance, with an average budget reduction for Districts of 40% and a decline in spend by the population of 23%. The medium-term financial outlook did not look good, particularly as the Government’s own most recent figures referred to a reduction in growth of 5% nationally. The pressure on Districts was larger as they moved towards a Government “levelling up” through the Business Rate reset and the Fair Funding Review, which were still scheduled to happen in April 2021. The Institute of Fiscal Studies estimated that whilst the forthcoming unfunded financial pressures on County Councils would be around 1.5%, for Districts it would be around 8%, largely because of the nature in how Districts obtained their finances.

It had to be accepted that the Coronavirus pandemic had put additional pressure onto the Council to find new, and innovative ways, of balancing the books. In 2018, the Council’s Vision 2020 programme saved the Council £3m pa on its revenue costs, which had helped to put the Council into a stronger position. But now the Council needed to consider more ways to balance its budget.

The Chairman drew Members’ attention to Appendix B of the report which provided a list of possible avenues the Council could embark upon and which asked Cabinet to provide guidance to Officers on each of the items listed. Some of the items on the list had already been achieved, some were ongoing, whilst the remainder needed Cabinet support. Depending upon the steer from Cabinet, Officers would then move these projects forward in an appropriate way.

Page 75 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

202

Cabinet - 19.10.20

The Chief Executive then explained the varying sections in Appendix B and alerted Cabinet to the Officer comments showing the areas that the Council’s Corporate Management Team were keen to progress. In total there were 35 items for Cabinet to consider and prioritise and it was outlined that in response to whatever Cabinet instructed Officers to do, further reports would be forthcoming.

In debating this item, Cabinet was of the view that in looking at the Council’s current financial situation and the possible financial measures that could be taken to help future deficits, attention needed to be given to looking at investments not just about making savings. Examples provided were Proposals 7 [introduce solar panels for car parks] and 11 [electric charging points] which would be investments in commercial activities which would bring environmental benefits which could also produce an income stream. The recruitment of a Commercial Manager was supported and seen as vital to progressing many of the proposals outlined. It was acknowledged that the Council would have to make difficult decisions and choices but that some potential schemes were not negotiable and were too important to not progress. These were highlighted and it was stated that they were already budgeted for, being the replacement roof for the Littlehampton Chapel as a cost of £250k. Another important priority was that of accessibility and making Bognor Regis beach accessible to all, this was confirmed as another priority which would be budgeted for in next year’s budget. This was why the recruitment of a Commercial Manager was vital so that investments could be made to protect the lifestyles of Arun’s community. All the 35 proposals were supported by Cabinet and it confirmed that they should be pushed forward to maintain the very high level of customer satisfaction in Arun.

A non-Cabinet Member stated that this was a long ‘to do’ list and involved a lot of work if all proposals were agreed. How would non-Cabinet Councillors be kept updated on progress. Would this be via individual Cabinet Member monthly reports or would a working document be sent out with timeframes and an update on progress?

In response, the Chairman and the Chief Executive explained that before any of the projects listed in Appendix B were progressed, update reports would be submitted to Cabinet or the appropriate Committee for approval. In some cases, some of the proposals would be automatically progressed by Officers. There would also be regular updates provided to Members through the normal channels, this was a starting point by asking Cabinet to confirm how it wished to proceed with each of the proposals listed.

The Cabinet

RESOLVED

The report be noted, and Officers be instructed to proceed with each proposal.

The Cabinet confirmed its decision as per Decision Notice C/018/191020, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of the Minutes.

Page 76 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

203

Cabinet - 19.10.20

256. RESPONSE TO THE PLANNING WHITE PAPER - PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE

The Cabinet Member for Planning, Councillor Lury, introduced this report stating that it set out a summary of the fundamental changes being consulted upon on the Government’s Planning White Paper – Planning for the Future. These changes, if implemented, would result in significant changes to the planning system and the way in which the Council would have to operate. Councillor Lury outlined his observations – these have been summarised below:

 looking at binding house numbers and the top down approach – he could not find any reference on how to replace duty to co-operate and he had concerns about who would be the arbiter of constraints in an area, would the infrastructure deficit that Arun had, be accepted as a constraint?  He had concerns about the extension of permitted development rights – where would a resident go to object and then where would be the quality control?  On the Infrastructure Levy, Councils could borrow to provide up front infrastructure, but for large projects this would be a huge risk  He had concerns on the idea that the public could get involved at stage 1, when there would be no details  On the stripping back of local plans – this sounded like a good idea going from 7 years to 30 months, but was this workable?  The new White Paper was not all negative – the new design code was great but how would you be able to get builders to build beautiful homes – how would this work in practice?

Councillor Lury stated that the Council’s planned responses to the consultation questions had been set out in Appendix 1 to the report and that Cabinet was being asked to agree these. He then invited the Group Head of Planning to outline some of the main changes proposed.

The Group Head of Planning confirmed that the White Paper presented the most fundamental changes to the planning system in a generation. It was seeking to streamline and modernise the planning system by introducing 24 proposals which would be implemented by the end of 2024. This led to 26 consultation questions being asked and Officers had drafted responses for Cabinet to agree.

The Group Head of Planning then talked about the main proposals. The main thrust to the changes would be how Local Plans would be produced in terms of their content in that they would only designate three different types of land uses. Growth areas that would automatically benefit from outline planning permission, renewals for smaller scale developments, and protected areas where there would be stringent controls such as areas of countryside and areas of outstanding natural beauty. The timetable to produce plans would be reduced to 30 months. The standard housing methodology would be binding on Local authorities and plans produced would have to make provision to meet this by law. There would be more emphasis on design quality and a new proposal called “fast track to beauty”. In terms of decision making, there would be a greater

Page 77 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

204

Cabinet - 19.10.20

emphasis on digitalisation and more standard planning statements. There was also the potential for the automatic refund on fees if applications were not determined in time.

There were a lot of proposals to be welcomed, but there were also many questions that remained unanswered. The main issues were the distinct lack of opportunity taken to address climate change. The Government had made some positive statements but had not followed these through in the White Paper. The simplification to Local Plans were welcomed but timescales need to be realistic. There were also issues around public engagement which needed to be ironed out because there was potential for less public involvement in the process and short timescales to get involved at various stages. There were also questions around strategic planning and joint working with potential implications on income in terms of performance and numerous issues around additional resourcing. The Group Head of Planning outlined that the Council would have to wait to see what type of detail might come through and the likely amount of income that could be received if there was the need to create posts around design. Another missed opportunity had been to not address the issue of developers building without permissions and them receiving penalties for doing so.

The Chairman commenced debate and referred to question 8a. He referred to infrastructure capacity stating that although the Government had said that they would move to a system of funding it by Government up front, then recovering from the developer later, he was not sure how this would work and who would initiate and agree it. Looking at highways, the frequent answer that the Council received from WSCC, as Highways Authority, was in relation to the size of developments proposed which would only make a small incremental adjustment to traffic or a particular stretch of road, the accumulative effect of development did not seem to be addressed.

The Group Head of Planning confirmed that there were more questions than answers and that there was the need to consider Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) now and not just Section 106 monies. Large items that were not delivered through strategic allocations would have to come forward from CIL and would be down to the Council to determine how to spend these funds when received on an annual basis. There would be different reports being submitted for Member consideration later. On cumulative impacts, these were taken into account in terms of looking at what was committed through transport assessments, but these might not always be able to include small windfall sites. The issue of forward funding projects through proposals in the white paper would be a decision that the Council would need to take in terms of the amount of risk it might wish to expose itself to and the long-term issue of then recouping money back through the CIL process.

The Chairman then raised a concern over 9a [Do you agree that there should be automatic outline permission for areas for substantial development (Growth Areas) with faster routes for detailed consent? There was a caveat there in terms of who and how these decisions would be made, local residents would have less and less say over routine permissions than at current. The Group Head of Planning confirmed that the White Paper had that potential, though there were professionals who saw it very differently and saw public engagement being more front loaded. There was a big issue around outline or permission in principles from whether a site or area was defined for Page 78 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

205

Cabinet - 19.10.20 growth in that who prepared that evidence to justify an allocation in a plan – there was a whole new level of detail that the Council currently prepared evidence base for. It was outlined that if this burden should fall on the Council then the burden should fall on the developers to do this, though nothing had been detailed in the White Paper that explained this.

Other Cabinet Members spoke thanking the Group Head of Planning for a most comprehensive report and for drafting some excellent responses. They confirmed that infrastructure was a huge issue that needed to be addressed and needed to be specifically linked to development in that it should not happen without the infrastructure being in place first such as highways, doctors and dentist surgeries and that the development of these should be the responsibility for the developer.

The Group Head of Planning in response confirmed that he was noting the comments made and that if Cabinet wanted to add wording or strengthen any of the responses supplied, would they be happy to delegate this authority for him to sort in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning. Cabinet confirmed that it would be happy for this action to take place.

Other comments made saw Cabinet confirming that it was happy that a more efficient and simplified planning system would follow the White Paper but that this could not come at the cost of local democracy. Some of the proposals presented were felt to be long overdue but that they missed some integral points, the main one being the climate change agenda and delegation on planning permissions i.e. building out. There was concern expressed over the large amounts of applications that were not moving forward making land supply worse. It was felt that the situation around infrastructure should be tied more with the developers and that highways were a big issue as were schools and GP surgeries, just to name a few from a very long list. The ability to have more input with large development was mentioned, as with a significant amount of small developments it was the accumulative effect that was causing concern, who then made the decision and stepped in, in relation to infrastructure and smaller development.

The Chairman then invited non-Cabinet Members to ask questions. It was stated that historically, the District’s infrastructure deficit had restricted Arun’s ability to attract inward investment to improve the local economy and employment opportunities, this was why the existing local plan had sought to address north/south connectivity, it was felt that this area of planning needed to be included in the white paper as part of Arun’s response. The Duty to Co-operate was introduced to ensure cross border and strategic matters would be addressed in areas without returning to the County structure plan rather than removing the Duty to Co-operate. It was felt that this should be extended to include infrastructure providers who had a responsibility. The removal of Section 106 and CIL was felt to be significant and would influence the delivery of infrastructure and so needed to be addressed in the Council’s response.

Page 79 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

206

Cabinet - 19.10.20

Others spoke confirming that they were delighted to see that the Council’s priorities were sustainability, climate change and affordable housing. Concerns were expressed as to how authorities would respond to the remaining constraints evidence and in view of the District’s unique location. Concern was also expressed over-growth and renewal areas. Overall, it was agreed that the responses provided formed a robust series of responses on these issues. It was outlined that a firm response needed to be added to ensure that the District’s farmland was retained. Agreement was given to the idea of requisitioning land previous offered for landowners up rather than taking it from them. Any proportion on growth and renewal zones?

The Cabinet

RESOLVED

To note the contents, of and proposals, within the White Paper, and agree to the responses to the consultation questions contained within Appendix 1, with the comments raised at the meeting being added to the responses by the Group Head of Planning in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning.

The Cabinet confirmed its decision as per Decision Notice C/019/191020, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of the Minutes.

257. ENGINEERING SERVICES ANNUAL REVIEW

The Cabinet Member for Technical Services, Councillor Stanley, introduced the Engineering Services Annual Review for 2020 confirming that this covered all aspects of the Engineering Service for the past year as well as identifying the issues lying ahead.

Councillor Stanley stated that there were several issues that involved consideration of significant financial sums and he invited the Group Head of Technical Services and the Engineering Services Manager to highlight the most important issues and to answer questions from Members.

The Engineering Services Manager explained that the report looked at the Council’s engineering services operations looking both backwards and forwards. He referred to the Community Flood Fund which had benefited a range of schemes on the coast and inland worth around £10m across the District. The report sought a modest top up to that fund which would enable the Council to continue to bring forward much needed works by the Council and its partners. Turning to Pagham, the report set out how the Council had managed the situation following the natural breach and regrowth of the spit which was the underlying problem in the area. The Council was continuing with the adaptive management approach but outlined that it should be noted that the Page 80 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

207

Cabinet - 19.10.20 current method of reducing risk to life and property relied very heavily on there being a reliable source of shingle and other various constraints. Accordingly, the Council was looking at all other options with its partners and outlined that the recently announced Innovative Flood and Coastal Resilience Fund would be explored. Regarding the Coastal Change Management Area, this was an investigatory way forward and it was outlined that the Council was not proposing a (CCMA) at this time, as this was not a straightforward process. The Engineering Services Manager then mentioned the other aspects of the section’s work being internal drainage boards and issues surrounding the River Arun IDB.

The Chairman invited Cabinet debate. Cabinet welcomed the report and although had heard that a CCMA would not be introduced at this time, felt that the Council needed to investigate this with some urgency in view of climate change emergency measures.

Points raised by non-Cabinet Councillors related to Climping and a further update was requested. The Chairman reminded Councillors that the Climping frontage was the responsibility of the Environment Agency (EA) and not the Council, though the Council was in constant dialogue with the EA in terms of pushing forward a resolution to this matter. The Engineering Services Manager outlined that work behind the scenes had explored all ways that the Littlehampton Economic Growth Area (LEGA) scheme could contribute and that other methods of providing the defence in terms of a ‘mini Medmerry’, similar to that at Selsey was being investigated, although the Climping topography was not favourable in that respect. The Council was also looking to see if the Innovative Flood and Coastal Resilience Programme could assist.

Questions were also asked about Elmer and whether the provision of boulders over the years had improved the situation.

Following further discussion,

The Cabinet

RESOLVED – That

(1) The report be noted;

(2) The contributions from the Community Flood Fund at Paragraph 1.4.3 of the report be approved;

(3) A £50,000 ‘top’ up to the Community Flood Fund in the 2021/22 Budget be endorsed;

Page 81 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

208

Cabinet - 19.10.20

(4) Support be given to the Council making a bid to the DEFA/EA Innovative Flood and Coastal Resilience Programme;

(5) The inclusion of £50,000 in each of 2021/22 and 2022/23 to be available for the purpose of beach material recycling at Pagham beach be endorsed;

(6) Approval be given to the use of the Community Flood Fund to supplement the Coast Protection revenue budget, subject to approval in accordance with the scheme of delegation, not to exceed a total of £50,000 per annum;

(7) Authorisation be given to the Engineering Services Manager to undertake the necessary preparatory work relating to the three new schemes shown within Appendix 1 to the report, and to make funding applications to the Environment Agency; and

(8) Authorisation be given to Officers to enter discussions regarding new arrangements relating to the River Arun Internal Drainage Board in accordance with Paragraph 1.10.5 of the report.

The Cabinet also

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL

That a supplementary estimate be approved for a sum of £30,000 (which equates to a Band D Council Tax equivalent of £0.48) with underspends carried forward to future financial years, to investigate the introduction of a Coastal Change Management Area.

The Cabinet confirmed its decision as per Decision Notice C/020/191020, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of the Minutes.

258. PUBLIC SPACE PROTECTION ORDER (PSPO) - DOG CONTROLS

The Cabinet Member for Technical Services, Councillor Stanley, introduced this report stating that Dog Controls in Arun transferred into Public Space Protection Orders, or PSPOs, in October 2017 and would expire after three years. In deciding whether to replace them and in what form, the Council had taken account of feedback received over the three year period and so minor amendments were proposed which had been subject to a comprehensive public consultation exercise which demonstrated support for the amended PSPOs being adopted.

The Group Head of Technical Services then outlined the main amendments proposed which had been set out in Appendix A of the report, the Proposed Public Space Protection Orders.

Page 82 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

209

Cabinet - 19.10.20

The Cabinet

RESOLVED – That

(1) The proposed Public Space Protection Order, to be effective from 6 November 2020 be adopted; and

(2) The proposed Public Space Protection Orders as shown in Appendix A of the report be:

 The Fouling of Land by Dogs  Dogs on Leads by Direction  Dogs Exclusion  Dogs on Leads

The Cabinet confirmed its decision as per Decision Notice C/021/191020, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of the Minutes.

259. RENEWAL OF THE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FOR THE HR/PAYROLL IT SYSTEM

The Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Corporate Support. Councillor Oppler, introduced this item confirming that Cabinet was being asked to approve the renewal of the HR/Payroll system.

The Financial Services Manager confirmed that the Council had the option of agreeing an ongoing maintenance contract without undertaking a tender process as permitted by Regulation 32(2)(b) of the Pubic Contract regulations 2015 and that Cabinet approval was sought to agree to the renewal of the maintenance contract subject to the procurement requirements being met.

Non-Cabinet Councillors asked questions. As this contract exceeded the EU threshold, it should be required to go through the normal tender process but that the Council had chosen not to go out to tender because of intellectual property rights to the system, meaning that it was unlikely that there would be any other providers who could maintain this system. It was felt that other providers should be investigated and pursued as the contract amount, nearly £190k was a large sum of money. It was felt that the renewal of this maintenance contract required further scrutiny before any decision to proceed in approving the recommendation was taken.

The Financial Services Manager explained that the annual cost was around £40k which benchmarked as being reasonable anything else would cost more as the Council would have to incur all costs of implementing a new system. This was the most economical way, to the renew the Contract with a capped increase in costs of 1% per annum for the life of the contract.

Further questions were asked which were responded to at the meeting.

Page 83 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

210

Cabinet - 19.10.20

The Cabinet, then

RESOLVED – That

(1) Agreement be given to the renewal of the maintenance contract for the HR/Payroll/IT system with SumTotal, on an ‘Evergreen’ basis, subject to the procurement requirements being met, as set out below; and

(2) Delegated authority be given to the Group Head of Corporate Support to sign and enter into the renewal contract on behalf of the Council.

The Cabinet confirmed its decision as per Decision Notice C/022/191020, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of the Minutes.

260. SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE FOR THE PROCUREMENT AND AWARD OF A NEW HOUSING MANAGEMENT IT SYSTEM

The Cabinet Member for Residential Services, Councillor Mrs Gregory, introduced this item stating that it updated Cabinet and sought approval in respect of the procurement and award of a new Integrated Housing Management IT System with some of the associated project costs being met from within the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) budget. The new system would provide greater accessibility to services for tenants and leaseholders.

The Group Head of Residential Services provided some further background. She explained that the Council had been running the existing system since 2014 and that the current contract was due to expire in November 2021. The Covid-19 pandemic and the necessity to work from home had highlighted a number of system limitations, the conclusion being that the current system was not fit to meet future needs. The new system would provide the opportunity to implement cloud hosting; a modern customer self-service portal; contractor portal and an integrated document management system. This would result in a reduction of paper used with manual processes being replaced by electronic billing and integrated processes reducing the need for the customer to have to physically visit the Civic Centre. To start the procurement process, it was confirmed that Full Council would be asked to approve a Housing Revenue Account supplementary estimate of £160k.

The Cabinet Member for Residential Services confirmed that the new system would be a positive for tenants as it would provide them with self-service opportunities that they did not have now. Cabinet fully supported the procurement and award of the new integrated Housing Management IT System.

Non-Cabinet Councillors outlined that although they were pleased to see advances in technology, they had concerns about investing significant sums into a new system when the existing system had only been procured back in 2014. There was also concern that the request to approve funding for this scheme seemed to have come Page 84 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

211

Cabinet - 19.10.20 out of nowhere and a request was made for the finances to be re-explained as what had been set in the report was confusing.

The Group Head of Residential Services explained the figures involved. She outlined that the current contract expired in November 2021 and so work was progressing twelve months in advance of that date to provide time to implement the new system, so this was a planned process. In terms of the total project cost this was explained by the Group Head of Residential Services and the Financial Services Manager. Having received this explanation, there were non-Cabinet Councillors who insisted to know what the outcomes from this investment would be. It was explained that there were would be greater efficiencies in terms of transactional costs and that the self-service opportunities would provide tenants and leaseholders with a service seven days a week twenty- four hours a day. Until the system had been running for a period of time, it would not be possible to confirm what tangible savings could be made in respect of staff time and in terms of service delivery.

Further questions were asked about the business case for the new system and that sight of this was needed to see the full detail of the project and to ascertain benefits versus costs that would accrue and where would savings be made. It was agreed that the business case for the system as presented to the Arun Improvement Programme Board would be sent to those Councillors who requested it.

Following further discussion,

The Cabinet

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL

(1) That a Housing Revenue Account (HRA) supplementary estimate of £160k [which equates to a weekly rent of 92p per dwelling) be approved for the costs associated with the procurement and implementation of a new integrated housing management IT system

The Cabinet also

RESOLVED – That

(1) The virement of £240k from within existing budgets be approved - £140k from capital budget x25 and £100k from revenue contingency underspend;

(2) Approvement be given to the procurement and awards of a 2+1+1 contract to a total value of £500k (inclusive of maintenance and support costs) of a new Integrated Housing Management System, subject to Full Council approving the supplementary estimate in Recommendation (1) above; and

Page 85 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

212

Cabinet - 19.10.20

(3) The ongoing maintenance and support costs for the new system of £50k of which £15k is accounted for within existing budgets be noted. The Cabinet confirmed its decision as per Decision Notice C/023/191020, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of the Minutes.

261. THE COUNCIL'S RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC SITUATION

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Dr Walsh, introduced this item confirming that this was another of the Chief Executive’s regular updates to Cabinet and had been based on the weekly updates sent to all Councillors and partners.

The Chairman stated that unfortunately, only a few weeks ago, it had been thought that we were coming out of this dreadful pandemic, but things had since changed dramatically. Whilst the prevalence of the virus remained low across West Sussex, there were some peaks around and outside of the District that the Council needed to watch carefully.

The Chief Executive then guided Cabinet through some of the essential detail in the update report. He confirmed that the Council’s Environmental Health team continued to support local businesses and workplaces regarding the new restrictions in place and that Central Government had allocated £75k in additional resources to assist this work. Also, funding had been provided to meet the £500 payment for those having to self-isolate. The Council was already administering this money to these in need, with this latest payment scheme being up and running quickly from 12 October 2020. Overall, in relation to Covid-19, the points made earlier about savings and income generating ideas, Officers would continue to work with Cabinet Members to reduce additional costs and raise additional income. Every effort was being made to try to keep Covid-19 costs to a minimum.

Before inviting Cabinet Members to discuss the report, the Chairman confirmed that he wished to have placed on record his tribute to staff who were keeping everything going in additional to managing the extra work as a result of Covid-19.

Cabinet echoed these comments and congratulations were extended also to the Council’s Revenues and Benefits team who were actively now administering the £500 paid for those having to self-Isolate. Staff had managed to set up the payment scheme through the Northgate system very quickly and were very thoroughly scrutinising application received as the first two received had been fraudulent and picked up and dealt with by Officers.

Other question asked by Non-Cabinet Members were around Test and Trace as it was understood that this would become a Local Authority responsibility. Could any update be provided on this in terms of costings as it had been suggested that the company responsible to date had been charging for the service. The Chief Executive confirmed that WSCC would be administering this and that he was awaiting a response back in terms of costings. It was agreed that once this response had been received, it would be included in the weekly briefings that he and the Leader of the Council Page 86 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

213

Cabinet - 19.10.20

provided to Councillors. The Chief executive was asked how much support Arun might need to give and it was agreed that the response to this would be provided in the weekly briefing.

A further question was asked in relation to Test and Trace and the support to be given to local communities. The question related to local secondary schools where cases had been reported that there were several year groups precluded from going to school. The concern was that some of these students were out and about in the community when they should be at home isolating. Did the Council have a plan to support local schools and how was it undertaking tracing these young people and preventing them from being out. The Chairman responded stating that this was a WSCC function as the Local Education Authority. The Chief Executive added to this stating that he had been in discussion with WSCC, from an enforcement perspective. The £75k grant paid to the Council was to be used to assist with enforcement and the 75k would be used for environmental health teams to be going out and working in the community. In terms of the issues raised about young people, part of the enforcement work would cover this type of enforcement.

Following some discussion, the Cabinet

RESOLVED – That

(1) The actions taken to date be noted; and

(2) It be noted that following the discussion at Cabinet on 21 September 2020 in relation to the recommendations from the Covid-19 Recovery Working Party held on 8 September 2020, the Chief Executive will present a report to Cabinet on 16 November 2020 which will prioritise the recommendations and identify any costs.

The Cabinet confirmed its decision as per Decision Notice C/024/191020, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of the Minutes.

262. STANDARDS COMMITTEE - 24 SEPTEMBER 2020 - NEW SOCIAL MEDIA GUIDANCE FOR COUNCILLORS

The Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Corporate Support, Councillor Oppler, presented the Minutes from the meeting of the Standards Committee held on 24 September 2020, which had been circulated separately to the agenda.

Councillor Oppler alerted Cabinet to recommendations at Minute 226 [New Social Media Guidance for Councillors] which set out a new Social Media Guidance for Councillors which Cabinet was being asked to endorse.

In discussing this guidance, Cabinet broadly supported it.

Page 87 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

214

Cabinet - 19.10.20

Non-Cabinet Councillors then asked a series of questions and raised some concerns around what the Policy recommended Councillors should not do.

Following a lengthy discussion, the Chairman proposed that the Policy be refereed back to the Standards Committee for further discussion and to allow that Committee to fully review the list of recommendations that Councillors should not undertake. This was seconded by Councillor Coster.

The Cabinet then

RESOLVED

That the new Social Media Guidance for Councillors be referred back to the next meeting of the Standards Committee for further discussion and debate.

The Cabinet confirmed its decision as per Decision Notice C/025/19102020, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of the Minutes.

263. OVERVIEW SELECT COMMITTEE - 6 OCTOBER 2020

There were no items to be reported to Cabinet from this meeting.

(The meeting concluded at 7.56 pm)

Page 88 ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL

DECISION NOTICES FROM THE MEETING HELD ON MONDAY 19 OCTOBER 2020

REF NO. DECISION

C/018/19102020 The Council’s Future Financial Issues C/019/19102020 Response to the Planning White Paper – Planning for the Future C/020/19102020 Engineering Services Annual Review C/021/19102020 Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) – Dog Controls C/022/19102020 Renewal of the Maintenance Contract for the HR/Payroll IT System C/023/19102020 Supplementary Estimate for the Procurement and Award of a New Housing Management IT System C/024/19102020 The Council’s Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic Situation C/025/19102020 Standards Committee – 24 September 2020 – New Social Media Guidance for Councillors

PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE DECISIONS WILL COME INTO EFFECT FROM 10.00 A.M. ON 28 OCTOBER 2020 UNLESS THE CALL-IN PROCESS IS APPLIED

If a Councillor wishes to request a call-in of any of the decisions taken above, they will need to take the following steps in line with the Scrutiny Procedure Rules at Part 6 of the Constitution – Scrutiny Procedure Rules (Other)

They will need to: • Submit their request in writing for a Call-In to the Group Head of Policy & Scrutiny and identify who will act as the lead Member of the Call-In • Specify which decision is to be the subject of the Call-In • Explain which of the criteria for the Call-In apply

Page 89 REFERENCE NO: C/018/19102020

URGENT DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 14.11 OF THE NO SCRUTINY PROCEDURE RULES SUBJECT: THE COUNCIL'S FUTURE FINANCIAL ISSUES OFFICER CONTACT: Nigel Lynn – Chief Executive Tel: 01903 737600 Email: [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Council’s 151 Officer has provided various reports over recent months highlighting the Council’s current financial position and the scale of our financial issues for the future. Whilst acknowledging the lack of clarity (due to various uncertainties), this report provides an update on possible financial measures to help future deficits.

Officers request that Cabinet considers the items identified and advise on the way forward. DECISION: Cabinet

RESOLVED

That the report be noted and Officers be instructed to proceed with each proposal.

REASON FOR THE DECISION: To enable Officers to investigate a series of measures to reduce the Council’s revenue budget. OPTIONS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED: To suggest alternative proposals CABINET MEMBER(S):

DECLARATION OF INTEREST BY CABINET MEMBER(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISION: None

DISPENSATIONS GRANTED : N/A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS DECLARED BY A CABINET MEMBER CONSULTED IN RESPECT OF THIS DECISION: None

Page 90

REFERENCE NO: C/019/19102020

URGENT DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 14.11 OF THE NO SCRUTINY PROCEDURE RULES SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO THE PLANNING WHITE PAPER - PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE OFFICER CONTACT: Neil Crowther – Group Head of Planning Tel: 01903 737839 Email: [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On 6 August, the Government published a White Paper – Planning for the Future – for consultation. The consultation period expires on 29 October 2020.

Consultation description:

‘The Planning for the future consultation proposes reforms of the planning system to streamline and modernise the planning process, bring a new focus to design and sustainability, improve the system of developer contributions to infrastructure, and ensure more land is available for development where it is needed’. DECISION: Cabinet

RESOLVED

To note the contents, of and proposals, within the White Paper, and agree to the responses to the consultation questions contained with Appendix 1, with the comments raised at the meeting being added to the responses by the Group Head of Planning in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning.

REASON FOR THE DECISION: The Council should respond to such consultation containing such fundamental changes. OPTIONS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED: To either amend the response or to submit no response. CABINET MEMBER(S):

DECLARATION OF INTEREST BY CABINET MEMBER(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISION: None DISPENSATIONS GRANTED : N/A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS DECLARED BY A CABINET MEMBER CONSULTED IN RESPECT OF THIS DECISION: None

Page 91

REFERENCE NO: C/020/19102020

URGENT DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 14.11 OF THE NO SCRUTINY PROCEDURE RULES SUBJECT: ENGINEERING SERVICES ANNUAL REVIEW OFFICER CONTACT: Roger Spencer – Engineering Services Manager Tel: 01903 737812 Email: [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report is presented as an update on the Council’s Engineering Service Area and explores the issues addressed in the preceding year and outlines matters that have arisen, or are foreseen for the coming year, across the service area.

Specific matters relating to the Pagham coastal defences, River Arun Internal Drainage Board, Community Flood Fund and Defra/Environment Agency recently published document are included. This report also recommends that the Council considers designating a Coastal Change Management Area.

The report also seeks to request future budgetary provision for a number of these matters particularly proposed future expenditure at Pagham and a continuation of the Community Flood Fund. DECISION:

Cabinet RESOLVED - That (1) The report be noted; (2) the contributions from the Community Flood Fund noted at Paragraph 1.4.3 be approved; (3) a £50,000 ‘top-up’ to the Community Flood Fund in the 2021/22 Budget be endorsed; (4) Support be given to the Council making a bid to the Defra/EA Innovative Flood and Coastal Resilience Programme; (5) the inclusion of £50,000 in each of 2021/22 and 2022/23 to be available for the purpose of beach material recycling at Pagham beach be endorsed; (6) the use of the Community Flood Fund to supplement the Coast Protection revenue budget, subject to approval in accordance with the scheme of delegation, not to exceed a total of £50,000 per annum be approved; (7) the Engineering Services Manager be given authorisation to undertake the necessary preparatory work relating to the three new schemes shown within Appendix 1 to the report, and to make funding applications to the Environment Agency; and (8) authorisation be given to Officers to enter discussions regarding new arrangements relating to the River Arun Internal Drainage Board in accordance with paragraph 1.10.5 of the report.

Page 92 Cabinet also RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL (9) to approve a supplementary estimate of £30,000 (which equates to a band D equivalent of £0.48) with underspends carried forward to future financial years, to investigate the introduction of a Coastal Change Management Area.

REASON FOR THE DECISION: To ensure resources are used sustainably to manage flood and erosion risk in the District. OPTIONS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED:

Not to accept the Report

Community Flood Fund

Not to approve the proposed scheme contributions (para 1.4.3) – the effect being that the schemes would be unlikely to proceed.

Not to make any further contributions and use up the fund over time (this removing the ability to make PF contributions and probably not see schemes progress);

Replenish and keep to previous target level (i.e. £750,000) by two further annual contributions of £250,000;

Replenish at an alternative level (higher or lower) with annual contributions greater or less than £250,00 – perhaps set annually as part of the budget setting process.

Not to approve the concept of using Community Flood Fund to augment the coast protection Revenue budget – the effect would be to allow the continued decline in the condition of the Council’s coastal defence assets

Augment the coast protection Revenue budget by some other means

Not approve the investigation into the formation of a Coastal Change Management Area – this would lead to uncertainty regarding the unsustainable situation and a greater risk to life and property

Not to approve the new schemes within the proposed Coast Protection Capital Programme – the effect would be that there would be an increased risk of erosion and /or flooding to the areas concerned.

River Arun Internal Drainage Board

Instruct officers to negotiate the terms of any future Board funding based around the current funding arrangement, whereby there is an unbalanced geographic contribution/spend arrangement.

Instruct officers to negotiate the terms of any future Board that excluded Arun District involvement. CABINET MEMBER(S):

DECLARATION OF INTEREST BY CABINET MEMBER(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISION: None Page 93 DISPENSATIONS GRANTED : N/A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS DECLARED BY A CABINET MEMBER CONSULTED IN RESPECT OF THIS DECISION: None

Page 94

REFERENCE NO: C/021/19102020

URGENT DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 14.11 OF THE NO SCRUTINY PROCEDURE RULES SUBJECT: PUBLIC SPACE PROTECTION ORDER (PSPO) - DOG CONTROLS OFFICER CONTACT: Nat Slade – Group Head of Technical Services Tel: 01903 737683 Email: [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report informs Cabinet of the findings of a public consultation exercise to review the existing Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) Dog Controls which expires in October 2020 and recommends to Cabinet options for a new PSPOs to be effective from 6 November 2020. DECISION: Cabinet RESOLVED (1) to adopt the proposed Public Space Protection Orders, to be effective from 6 November 2020; (2) the proposed Public Space Protection Orders be as shown in Appendix A – as: a. The Fouling of Land by Dogs.

b. Dogs on Leads by Direction.

c. Dogs Exclusion.

d. Dogs on Leads.

REASON FOR THE DECISION: To mitigate the expiration of Arun’s current PSPOs by implementing new Orders which take into account the outcomes of a comprehensive consultation exercise, meet the needs of the district and enables the Council and partners to reduce anti-social behaviour from dogs and improve community safety. OPTIONS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED: Alternative options available:

 Adopt the proposed PSPOs, effective from a later date  Amend the proposed PSPOs and adopt  Not to adopt PSPOs for dong controls. This will result in the current Orders expiring and being discharged leaving no POSPOs in place within the District and not have any dog controls to tackle anti-social behaviour and nuisance. CABINET MEMBER(S):

DECLARATION OF INTEREST BY CABINET MEMBER(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISION: None DISPENSATIONS GRANTED : N/A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS DECLAREDPage BY A95 CABINET MEMBER CONSULTED IN RESPECT OF THIS DECISION: NONE

Page 96

REFERENCE NO: C/022/19102020

URGENT DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 14.11 OF THE NO SCRUTINY PROCEDURE RULES SUBJECT: RENEWAL OF THE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FOR THE HR/PAYROLL IT SYSTEM OFFICER CONTACT: Karen Pearce – Human Resources Manager Tel: 01903 737807 Email: [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The maintenance contract for the Council’s HR/Payroll IT system (SumTotal) is due for renewal. The Council has the option of agreeing an ongoing ‘evergreen’ maintenance contract without undertaking a tender process as permitted by Regulation 32(2)(b) of the Public Contract Regulations 2015. DECISION: Cabinet RESOLVED - That (1) the renewal of the maintenance contract for the HR/Payroll IT system with SumTotal, on an ‘Evergreen’ basis, subject to the procurement requirements being met, as set out below; be agreed and (2) delegated authority be given to the Group Head of Corporate Support to sign and enter into the renewal contract on behalf of the Council.

REASON FOR THE DECISION: The award of Contracts above the European tender threshold requires Cabinet approval. OPTIONS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED: 1. To agree to the renewal of the maintenance contract for the HR/Payroll IT system with SumTotal for a period of one year, accepting a 5% increase in cost and uncapped increase in future costs. 2. To procure a new HR/Payroll system, however, this is likely to be expensive, there is no in-house project management support available and probably unachievable in the timescale available. 3. To do nothing. However, this would leave the Council without any product support for a business-critical system, a situation which would become untenable very quickly.

CABINET MEMBER(S):

DECLARATION OF INTEREST BY CABINET MEMBER(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISION: None DISPENSATIONS GRANTED : N/A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS DECLARED BY A CABINET MEMBER CONSULTED IN RESPECT OF THIS DECISION: None

Page 97

REFERENCE NO: C/023/19102020

URGENT DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 14.11 OF THE NO SCRUTINY PROCEDURE RULES SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE FOR THE PROCUREMENT AND AWARD OF A NEW HOUSING MANAGEMENT IT SYSTEM OFFICER CONTACT: Karen McGreal – Business Improvement Manager and Satnam Kaur – Group Head of Residential Services Tel: 01903 737718 Email: [email protected] and [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report provides a budgetary update in respect of the procurement and award of a new Integrated Housing Management IT System contract for a period of four years. The project is anticipated to cost c£600k. In order to commence the project in the current financial year a Housing Revenue Account (HRA) supplementary capital estimate of £160k and a virement of £240k from within existing 2020/21 HRA budgets is requested. Provision will be made in the 2021/22 Housing Revenue Account budget for the £200k balance. DECISION: Cabinet RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL The approval of a Housing Revenue Account supplementary estimate of £160k (which equates to a weekly rent of 92p per dwelling) for the costs associated with the procurement and implementation of a new integrated housing management IT system. Cabinet RESOLVED – That (1) the virement of £240k be approved from existing budgets - £140k from capital budget x 25 and £100k from revenue contingency underspend; (2) the procurement and award of a 2+1+1 Contract be approved to a total value of £500k (inclusive of maintenance and support costs_ of a new Integrated Housing Management System, subject to Full Council approving the above supplementary estimate; (3) the ongoing maintenance and support costs for the new system of £50k of which £15k is accounted for within existing budgets be noted.

REASON FOR THE DECISION: To enable services to continue to be provided to our council housing tenants and leaseholders through the provision of a modern integrated housing management system and to regularise the budget position. OPTIONS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED: To not approve the supplementary estimate, virement or contract award. However, this is not considered to be a viable option. The current contract expires in November 2021 and the system limitations have shown it is not possible to meet our business requirementPage or our98 tenant and leaseholders’ expectations of a modern interactive housing service. CABINET MEMBER(S):

DECLARATION OF INTEREST BY CABINET MEMBER(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISION: None DISPENSATIONS GRANTED : N/A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS DECLARED BY A CABINET MEMBER CONSULTED IN RESPECT OF THIS DECISION: None

Page 99

REFERENCE NO: C/024/19102020

URGENT DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 14.11 OF THE NO SCRUTINY PROCEDURE RULES SUBJECT: THE COUNCIL'S RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC SITUATION OFFICER CONTACT: Nigel Lynn – Chief Executive Tel: 01903 737600 Email: [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report updates Cabinet on the Council’s response to the pandemic situation and possible proposals for economic recovery. DECISION:

Cabinet

RESOLVED to:

(1) note the actions taken to date;

(2) note that following the discussion at Cabinet on 21 September 2020 in relation to the recommendations from the Covid-19 Recovery Working Party held on 8 September 2020, the Chief Executive will present a report to Cabinet on 16 November which will prioritise the recommendations and identify any costs.

REASON FOR THE DECISION: For Cabinet to note the Council’s response to the Covid-19 Pandemic. OPTIONS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED: None – further details were requested CABINET MEMBER(S):

DECLARATION OF INTEREST BY CABINET MEMBER(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISION: None DISPENSATIONS GRANTED : CONFLICT OF INTERESTS DECLARED BY A CABINET MEMBER CONSULTED IN RESPECT OF THIS DECISION: None

Page 100

REFERENCE NO: C/024/19102020

URGENT DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 14.11 OF THE NO SCRUTINY PROCEDURE RULES SUBJECT: STANDARDS COMMITTEE - 24 SEPTEMBER 2020 - NEW SOCIAL MEDIA GUIDANCE FOR COUNCILLORS OFFICER CONTACT: Nigel Lynn – Chief Executive Tel: 01903 737600 Email: [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report seeks the views of the Standards Committee relating to a new Social Media Guidance document for Councillors. It is open to Standards Committee to recommend that Cabinet endorse the Guidance in whole, or with amendments. DECISION: Cabinet

RESOLVED

That the Social Media Guidance for Councillors be referred back to the next meeting of the Standards Committee for further discussion.

REASON FOR THE DECISION: To debate further sections of the guidance OPTIONS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED: None CABINET MEMBER(S):

DECLARATION OF INTEREST BY CABINET MEMBER(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISION: None

DISPENSATIONS GRANTED : N/A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS DECLARED BY A CABINET MEMBER CONSULTED IN RESPECT OF THIS DECISION: None

Page 101

Page 102 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 17 Subject to approval at the next Bognor Regis Regeneration Sub-Committee meeting

5

BOGNOR REGIS REGENERATION SUB-COMMITTEE

21 October 2020 at 6.00 pm

Present: Councillors Stanley (Chairman), Brooks (Vice-Chairman), Mrs Daniells, Dixon, English, Mrs Madeley, Oppler and Mrs Warr

Councillors Charles, Cooper, Mrs Cooper, Edwards, Gunner, Mrs Pendleton and Roberts were also in attendance for all or part of the meeting.

8. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Dixon declared a personal interest as a member of the Bognor Regis Civic Society.

9. MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 17 June 2020 were approved by the Committee as a correct record and would be signed by the Chairman as soon as possible following the Council’s resumption of normal working.

10. STRATEGIC REVIEW OF ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL'S TOURISM SERVICE

The Chairman welcomed to the meeting Mr Adam Bates, Blue Sail Consulting, who had been appointed to undertake a review of the Council’s tourism function. The review had considered all aspects of tourism support offered by the authority and its recommendations would be put forward to Cabinet for consideration and decision; the Subcommittee was being requested for its views which would be forwarded to Cabinet to assist their deliberations of the matter.

Mr Bates gave a presentation which covered his brief for the review and what Arun should be doing to fit in with others in marketing, management and development to improve the offer in the District and to increase staying visitors over the dominance of day visitors as at the present time. Tourism was an important sector for the local economy and, whilst there was a good variety, i.e. coast, towns and countryside, it was felt that what was on offer was good but not great and that there was a modest impact on tourism spend and jobs. To encourage visitors to stay, better quality accommodation would be required and experiences provided that were worth travelling for. The offer therefore needed to be renewed, new markets attracted, year round value for money provided and higher value jobs encouraged.

Mr Bates highlighted the 4 recommendations contained in the review which would have implications for the way in which the Council would organise and support tourism development in the District in order to meet its wider strategic ambitions.

Page 103 Subject to approval at the next Bognor Regis Regeneration Sub-Committee meeting

6

Bognor Regis Regeneration Sub-Committee - 21.10.20

Members welcomed the report from Mr Bates and participated in a question and answer session, summarised as follows:-

 Web sites promoting the District – it was acknowledged that the 3 town websites (Littlehampton, Bognor Regis and Arundel) were good and that Sussex by the Sea should be retired but that there should perhaps be a cloaking page to transfer information across to the towns and the South Downs National Park websites. Comment was made that Experience West Sussex made no reference to the beach at Bognor Regis, which was felt to be a glaring omission. Mr Bates stated that views on web sites were very subjective and, from his observation, Experience West Sussex was doing a good job in trying to create a narrative to draw people into the area and inspire them to stay and do different things. In advising that Experience West Sussex was not just a web site, it also covered marketing and information, the Group Head of Economy requested Members to pass on to her any comments they had about it and she would take it up with that body.  Comment was made that tourism was important to the local economy and must be supported. It was felt there was a demand for fun seaside activities and events and Bognor Regis needed to focus on its core strengths, e.g. its safe beach. Mr Bates agreed that events were a powerful tool but thought had to be given to the type and range in order to attract visitors.  Concerns were raised at the proposal to shift emphasis away from the Sussex by the Sea website as it was felt that it had been successful in referring people to the other more detailed town website. It would therefore be a shame to lose it.

As the Chairman was experiencing connectivity issues, the Vice-Chairman took the chair for the remainder of this item and he thanked Mr Bates for a very good report and for his attendance at the meeting. He invited Mr Bates to leave the meeting.

The Vice-Chairman then invited the Group Head of Economy to present her report which set out the background to the review, its remit and the four strategic recommendations for the Council’s tourism service contained therein. Support and any further comments were being sought from the Subcommittee, which would then be indicated to Cabinet when it considered and decided on the matter at a future meeting. It was also brought to Members’ attention that there would be changes to the service should the recommendations be supported and that a Strategic Tourism Investment role was required to coordinate and work with the partners, towns and businesses. Members were advised that it was being proposed that Sussex by the Sea website would cease operation; the annual Visitor Guide would no longer be produced; and the Visitor Information Points in Bognor Regis, Littlehampton and Arundel would no longer exist in their present format. The Group Head of Economy acknowledged that there was a lot the team would like to do but the reality was what could actually be done to develop the tourism offer with the resources available.

In opening the debate, broad support of the four recommendations was expressed. However, other views focussed on the loss of the Sussex by the Sea website and the detrimental impact that would have on attracting visitors to the town,

Page 104 Subject to approval at the next Bognor Regis Regeneration Sub-Committee meeting

7

Bognor Regis Regeneration Sub-Committee - 21.10.20

even though it was acknowledged it was dated in its present format and other websites now served that function.

The Chairman stated that the Council did have to reflect on its position with regard to tourism. Although it was lucky to have strong links with key stakeholders, the Council did have to take a step back to assess who was best placed to deliver certain aspects of tourism. He was therefore of the view that the idea of developing a strategy alongside strategic partners and stakeholders made sense.

In being put to the vote, the Subcommittee did not accept the report’s recommendation and therefore

RESOLVED

That officers to make Cabinet aware that the review recommendations contained within the Arun Strategic Review of Tourism are not supported by the Subcommittee.

11. PRESENTATION ON THE_TRACK CREATIVE DIGITAL HUB AT BOGNOR REGIS RAILWAY STATION

The Chairman welcomed to the meeting Anne de Sausmarez, Principal Economic Development Officer, West Sussex County Council, who was in attendance to give a presentation on the recently established digital hub known as The Track.

Ms De Sausmarez advised the meeting that the aim of the project was to create a digital hub which would add value to the local economies of Bognor Regis and Coastal West Sussex by supporting the growth of high value knowledge economy businesses and jobs, including in the creative digital sectors. It was envisaged that a shared workspace would enable such businesses and entrepreneurs to work together collaboratively and flexibly. It was delivered by WSCC, with funding support from Coast to Capital LEP Local Growth Fund and partnership support from the District Council and Bognor Regis Town Council.

The Subcommittee was advised that valuable input to the project had been provided by:

Hemingway Design for their vision in transforming the empty space at Bognor Regis Railway Station and for The Track branding of the project. Wired Sussex for their expertise and experience in working with the digital sector. Town Square Space, as the operator of the project.

Following completion of lengthy negotiations with British Rail regarding leasing of the premises in September 2019, work was able to commence and was due to be completed in April 2020. However, due to lockdown and the pandemic, that did not occur until July and two Community Managers had now been appointed to take the project forward.

Page 105 Subject to approval at the next Bognor Regis Regeneration Sub-Committee meeting

8

Bognor Regis Regeneration Sub-Committee - 21.10.20

Slides of the refurbished premises were shown to Members, who were impressed with this new facility, particularly as the digital element of the District’s local economy seemed to be expanding.

Following a brief question and answer session which covered a charging regime for space; activities that could be held under social distancing rules; and engagement with the business community, the Chairman thanked Ms de Sausmarez for her informative presentation and invited her to leave the meeting.

12. ECONOMY GROUP'S SUPPORT TO BUSINESSES DURING THE COVID 19 PANDEMIC

The Group Head of Economy presented this report which provided an update on the work of the team to date to support local businesses throughout the pandemic. She particularly highlighted that the Arun Business Partnership had over 3,000 businesses on its mailing list and all members received weekly electronic bulletins with the most up to date government guidance and information. Partnership working throughout this time had played an important role in keeping businesses abreast of the situation and everyone had found creative ways of working to ensure information was circulated to as wide a spectrum as possible. She paid particular tribute to the hard work and commitment of the Revenues & Benefits Team as they had worked so diligently to ensure grant payments were sent out in a timely manner.

The Economic Regeneration Officer provided further information to the Subcommittee on the disbursement of the Reopening the High Streets Safety Fund.

In concluding her presentation of the report, the Group Head of Economy focussed on paragraph 1.25, Recovery Planning. She stated that the team was preparing for that and highlighted the range of initiatives that were being put in place now and which would continue. The Youth Works project was particularly highlighted as there were significant issues around youth unemployment locally.

Following brief comment from Members relating to recovery planning and the Youth Works project, the Chairman complimented the partnership working that had been undertaken with relevant stakeholders with signage, etc to make the town centre feel safe.

The Subcommittee noted the report.

13. BOGNOR REGIS REGENERATION POSITION STATEMENT

The Chairman welcomed to the meeting, Heather Allen, Bognor Regis BID (Business Improvement District) Coordinator, who was in attendance due to the absence of Jason Passingham, to provide the Subcommittee with an update on the work of BID during these very difficult times due to the pandemic.

Page 106 Subject to approval at the next Bognor Regis Regeneration Sub-Committee meeting

9

Bognor Regis Regeneration Sub-Committee - 21.10.20

Ms Allen provided some detail on a number of promotion campaigns that would be held throughout October to support businesses. Christmas events could not be held this year but arrangements were in place for stand alone lighting to be installed in different parts of the town to provide visual enhancement, together with an elf house to try to create a really magical experience.

It was acknowledged that High Streets had been changing prior to Covid and that had now accelerated. However, if everybody kept working together positively and pro-actively, the opportunity to help shape that change could be seen to be an exciting time.

Members commended Ms Allen for her enthusiasm and positivity and, following a brief discussion, the Chairman thanked her for her attendance and contribution.

The Subcommittee noted the remainder of the Position Statement and was reminded by the Chairman to contact the Group Head of Economy should any Member have any queries.

(The meeting concluded at 8.37 pm)

Page 107 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 108 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 18 Subject to approval at the next Housing & Customer Services Working Group meeting

5

HOUSING & CUSTOMER SERVICES WORKING GROUP

5 November 2020 at 6.00 pm

Present: Councillors Bennett (Chairman), Mrs Pendleton (Vice-Chair), Bicknell, Mrs Cooper, Mrs Haywood, Hughes and Ms Thurston

Apologies: None

10. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

No declarations of interest were made.

11. MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 21 July 2020 were approved as a correct record by the Working Group and will be signed by the Chairman as soon as practicably possible.

12. ADDITIONAL AND SELECTIVE LICENSING SCHEMES FOR HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION

The Group Head of Technical Services advised Members of the Working Group that the report presented to them was as a result of a motion that was approved at the Full Council Meeting on 25 February 2020 that requested Officers to explore what options existed to introduce further controls on the number and quality of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs). He advised that the report set out options to introduce an additional licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation or a selective licensing scheme for the private rented sector as a means of addressing the quality of houses in multiple occupation. A separate report is being taken to Development Control Committee in relation to the potential controls for managing the quantity of HMOs. The Principal Environmental Officer then drew members attention to the following points contained within the report:

 Currently operate a mandatory Licensing scheme that is shared nationally across England that currently works with the criteria of: o 5 or more people sharing facilities o ensuring the licence holder is a fit and proper person o property inspected to ensure it meets minimum standards o the licence is up to maximum of 5 years at a time  Additional Licensing schemes could be brought in where a local authority is aware that there are significant problems. The authority would need to expand the description of HMO’s to be broader. The regime would be similar, and the advantages are outlined within the report it would enable us to inspect properties ensuring that they are brough up to standard and puts the onus on the landlord.

Page 109 Subject to approval at the next Housing & Customer Services Working Group meeting

6

Housing & Customer Services Working Group - 5.11.20

 If we were to take this route there would be a 10-week consultation period  Selective licensing scheme would apply to the entire private rented sector not just HMOs and applies to areas with significant issues such as migration, high levels of deprivation or an increase in crime rates, these issues would need to be evidenced in these areas in order to introduce this option. If such a scheme was to apply to the entire district, then it would require approval from the secretary of state. The Selective licensing scheme does have a larger scope.

The Group head then reminded Members that funding was required to research, if there was sufficient evidence of the criteria being met for either an Additional Licensing or Selective Licensing.

The Chairman then invited questions from Members of the Working Group a summary of the points raised is detailed below:

 Why had there not been more frequent inspections since 2012? It was explained that since 2012 proactive inspections of the private rented sector had only taken place in licensed HMOs, though other inspections had been undertaken where problems had been brought to the attention of the Council.  Are there other seaside towns we could share best practices with? It was confirmed that Arun had been in contact with Brighton and Hove Council and could link up with them to learn more about their best practice process, however it was also highlighted that every district was different and while lessons could definitely be learnt the difference between districts would mean a bespoke approach.  Were Officers confident that £20,000 would make a difference to the residents of Arun district? It was explained that there was no certainty that the research would conclude that the criteria to introduce either licensing regime had been met. However, if the criteria was met and the Council decided to introduce one of the licensing regimes, there would be significant benefit. The main benefit is that the licensing regime would allow the resourcing of an expanded inspection programme that would identify deficiencies in the quality/standard of housing, enabling the Council to require landlords to rectify.  Could the extra cost of overseeing HMO’s be recouped from landlords as they would be making a financial advantage from renting out their properties in this way? It was confirmed that, that would be the intention by bringing in the licensing regime.  It was confirmed that there were a several different channels in which complaints regarding anti-social behaviour are received inclusive of work with the Community Team at Arun. It was hoped that from the research carried out it would be able to pinpoint much more clearly the root cause of these issues and the ability to evidence and track these would ultimately help the residents of Arun District.  It was confirmed that the modelling would inform whether either regime criteria would be met and that the Council was not preferencing one over the other at this time.

Page 110 Subject to approval at the next Housing & Customer Services Working Group meeting

7

Housing & Customer Services Working Group - 5.11.20

The Working Group RECOMMED THAT CABINET:

1) Agree officers continue to research and gather further evidence to help support whether additional HMO licensing (Housing Act 2004, s.56-60) or selective licensing of the private rented sector (Housing Act 2004, s.80- 84) is justified. And;

2) Ask Full Council approves a supplementary estimate of up to £20,000 (which equates to a band D equivalent of £0.32) to commission the services and expertise to undertake the appropriate research and collation of data in order to support whether additional HMO Licensing or selective licensing of the private rented sector is justified.

13. CUSTOMER SERVICES STRATEGY

The Group Head of Neighbourhood Services provided Members of the Working Party with an overview of his report. It was explained that the strategy also included the addition of a customer charter. He then highlighted that a reoccurring theme throughout the strategy was the importance of obtaining and acting on feedback to drive the strategy forward. An action plan had been included to help embed the strategy. He then explained that the pandemic had really highlighted the importance and significance of the role that a digital service provides for customers. In Summing up he advised Members that consultation had been sought with both senior management and staff and that the next step was to take the strategy to Cabinet once the draft had been finalised.

The Working Group noted the contents of the report.

14. WATER HYGIENE POLICY & MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Group Head of Residential Services provided Members with an overview of her report. She explained that the Water Hygiene Policy had been compiled to ensure that the Council could comply with regulations and manage any risks for all its properties as well as clearly setting out the Councils responsibilities and its Contractors responsibilities.

The Chairman then invited comments from Members and a summary of key points raised is below:

. It was advised that an electrical safety policy would be brought to the Working Group in February 2021 and it was confirmed that a specialist contractor was used to identify any risks and undertake work. Some further questions were asked in relation to the removal of lead piping being removed and replaced with plastic. Advice was given that this level of detail is covered within the terms and conditions during the procurement of the contractor and would be documented within their risk assessments which would be separate from the policy.

Page 111 Subject to approval at the next Housing & Customer Services Working Group meeting

8

Housing & Customer Services Working Group - 5.11.20

. It was asked if anyone had contracted any of the illnesses detailed within the policy and could it be proven that it was from the water. It was confirmed that there had certainly not been any cases during the Group Head of Residential Services time with the Council, she further explained that weekly and monthly testing was completed by contractors and so the Council would be aware very quickly should there be an outbreak, that would require action to be taken.

The Working Group RECOMMEND TO CABINET that:

2) the Water Safety Policy 2020 be adopted 3) delegated authority be given to the Group Head of Residential Services in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Residential Services to make minor changes to the policy and plan

15. GAS SAFETY POLICY & MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Group Head of Residential Services provided Members of the Working Group with an overview of her report. It was explained that the policy had been complied to ensure that the Council could comply with the Regulatory Framework for Social Housing in England and that the request of the Working Group was for them to recommend to Cabinet this policy for approval to allow managers to implement with Council contractors and staff.

The Chairman then invited comments from Members where it was discussed that under section 2.5 of the policy it referred to monitors to be fitted by 2021 and could that be extended to also dictate that batteries would be changed on an annual basis. Also, at section 2.6 it states that the Council would remove and isolate gas fires by December 2021, the question was asked if this meant all gas fires would be removed? It was confirmed that the Group Head of Residential Services would need to check but it was her understanding that all gas fires would be removed and in reference to the request to document an annual change for batteries that it was already included in the safety checks.

The Chairman then put forward a proposal which was seconded for the wording for part 2 of the recommendation to be amended to read as:

2) delegated authority be given to the Group Head of Residential Services in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Residential Services and the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the H&CS Working Group to make minor changes to the policy

After a short discussion this proposal was put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

The Working Group then returned to the substantive recommendation and RECOMMEND TO CABINET that:

Page 112 Subject to approval at the next Housing & Customer Services Working Group meeting

9

Housing & Customer Services Working Group - 5.11.20

1) The Gas Safety Policy October 2020 be approved 2) delegated authority be given to the Group Head of Residential Services in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Residential Services and the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the H&CS Working Group to make minor changes to the policy

16. REPORT BACK FROM CABINET/FULL COUNCIL

The Chairman confirmed that the recommendations made at the Working Groups last meeting on 21 July 2020, were approved by Cabinet at their meeting on 21 September 2020.

The working Group noted this update.

17. WORK PROGRAMME 2020/2021

The Group Head of Residential Services presented the work programme to Members advising that the electrical safety policy and the repairs policy would be brought to the Working Group in February 2021. Further to this she advised that the Income Recovery Policy was subject to a corporate review due to the breathing space policy that has been recently introduced.

The Working Group noted the update.

(The meeting concluded at 6.58 pm)

Page 113 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 114 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 19 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

219

CABINET

16 November 2020 at 5.00 pm

Present: Councillors Dr Walsh (Chairman), Oppler (Vice-Chairman), Coster, Mrs Gregory, Lury, Stanley and Mrs Yeates

Councillors Bennett, Bicknell, Bower, Brooks, Charles, Clayden, Mrs Cooper, Cooper, Dendle, Dixon, Edwards, English, Gunner, Kelly, Mrs Pendleton, Roberts, Ms Thurston, Tilbrook and Mrs Worne were also in attendance for all or part of the meeting.

273. WELCOME

The Chairman welcomed Members, members of the public and Officers to what was the seventh virtual meeting of Cabinet. He provided a brief summary of how the meeting would be conducted and the protocol that would be followed and how any break in the proceedings due to technical difficulties would be managed.

274. APOLOGY FOR ABSENCE

An Apology for Absence had been received from the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhood Services, Councillor Mrs Staniforth.

275. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Coster declared a Personal Interest in Agenda Items 12 [Place St Maur, Bognor Regis] and 13 [Sunken Gardens, Bognor Regis] and confirmed that he wished to make this meeting aware that prior to his role as a District Councillor he had been involved and engaged with the community in his area with regard to regeneration through the Bognor Regis Civic Society and that the understanding he gained from his experiences with the Civic Society had caused him to make comments in connection with or in accordance with these subject matters. These were Councillor Coster’s views that he held at the time and so he wished to make it clear that he had an open mind regarding these items and that he would listen and consider all the relevant issues and interests presented and would then reach his decision on merit. Councillor Coster asked that this Personal Interest and Declaration be recorded in the minutes of this meeting.

276. QUESTION TIME

The Chairman confirmed that three questions had been submitted for this meeting in line with the Council’s Virtual Meeting Procedure Rules amended by Full Council on 15 July 2020

Two questions related to the A27 Arundel By-Pass and all were for the Leader of the Council, Councillor Dr Walsh to respond to.

Page 115 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

220

Cabinet - 16.11.20

The first question related to the recent Highways England public consultation of local affected citizens around Arundel regarding a proposed bypass, where an overwhelming 64% of respondents had been against any change or were for the "Arundel Alternative." A tiny amount supported the grey route - 7%. The remaining 29% supported other offline routes. Arun District Council had not supported the Grey route.

The questioner asked why the Council supported it now and in light of the Council’s very own emergency declaration on climate change. He also asked if the Council thought that this consultation had been worthwhile in any shape or form?

Councillor Dr Walsh responded stating that he had been an advocate of an offline solution for an Arundel Bypass for many years. With all the routes considered there were clearly positives and negatives for each option, and he would have preferred that Highways England had chosen the Magenta route option. They had not and had opted instead for the Grey route. There were clearly issues with this route that Highways England need to address but now the route had been identified as the preferred route it had his support in principle.

Regarding the broader questions, this country was not yet able to abandon the need to improve its road network. That required the Government to make far reaching decisions about how it moved people, goods and services around. In terms of the consultation, he believed it was important that there had been an opportunity for everyone to express an opinion.

The questioner then asked a supplementary question which was responded to at the meeting.

The second questioner explained the situation that he now found himself in as he had exchanged contracts on a house at Avisford Grange in February 2020 and so the new announcement from HE had been devastating for him and others in a similar situation. The questioner asked how the Council would make sure residents and homeowners were gong to to be protected from this plan and whether the Council would stand behind residents and help them to oppose this route?

Councillor Dr Walsh responded outlining that the Council had granted outline permission for the Avisford Grange development in February 2018, before the Grey route had emerged as an option. Councillor Dr Walsh stated that he was disappointed that Highways England, in making its statement on the preferred route, had not provided greater clarity to the residents affected in terms of how they intended to mitigate the impact of the proposed road. Councillor Dr Walsh confirmed that he intended to write to the Chief Executive of Highways England to ask that they provide the questioner and other similarly affected residents on this development with clarity on what they proposed to mitigate the impact of the scheme at the earliest opportunity. A copy of the response received would be provided.

The questioner then asked a supplementary question which was responded to at the meeting.

Page 116 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

221

Cabinet - 16.11.20

The third and final question related to the 3D art installations in Littlehampton Town Centre approved by Littlehampton Town Council (LTC) and the Council (ADC), and the Cabinet. The questioner confirmed that she could not find reference to this in agendas or minutes and could the payment be recouped by insurance for unacceptable outcome from Artist and installer?

Councillor Dr Walsh responded outlining that this initiative was being progressed by Littlehampton Town Council and he declared his own personal interest as a Member of the Littlehampton Town Council. The Town Council was involving and consulting with Arun District Council as the scheme progressed. ADC had passed the scheme to LTC and its Policy and Finance Committee agreed on 15 June 2019 to delegate authority to its Town Clerk in consultation with the Chairman to authorise to progress phases 1 and 2 of this scheme – in view of the fact that the Chairman was also a District Council Member, that authority was also delegated to also include the Vice- Chairman of the Policy and Finance Committee in all discussions and decisions. This work resulted in a contractor being selected from three quotations and confirmation of this could be found from the September and October meetings of the Policy and Finance Committee by looking on the Town Council’s web site. This was approved with no discussion and it had been noted at the October meeting with no concerns raised. The artwork had been installed and since repaired so there was no need to consider an insurance claim as the product was in place.

(A schedule of the full questions asked and the responses provided can be found on the Pubic Question Web page at: https://www.arun.gov.uk/public-question-time )

The Chairman then drew Public Question Time to a close.

277. URGENT BUSINESS - RECRUITMENT OF THE ROLE OF GROUP HEAD OF COUNCIL ADVICE AND MONITORING OFFICER (EXEMPT - PARAGRAPH 1 - INFORMATION RELATING TO INDIVIDUALS)

The Chairman confirmed that there was one urgent item for this meeting to consider which related to the recruitment of the role of Group Head of Council Advice and Monitoring Officer. This was being considered as urgent as Cabinet needed to be updated on the recruitment of this key post. As this was an Exempt report, this would be considered at the end of the meeting.

278. MINUTES

The minutes from the meeting of Cabinet held on 19 October 2020 were approved as a correct by Cabinet. The Chairman confirmed that these would be signed at the earliest opportunity to him.

279. BUDGET VARIATION REPORTS

There were no matters discussed.

Page 117 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

222

Cabinet - 16.11.20

280. THE COUNCIL'S RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC SITUATION

The Chairman introduced this report confirming that it provided a formal update on progress on Covid-19 related issues since the last meeting of Cabinet held on 19 October 2020. He outlined that just when some may have thought that the virus was easing, on 5 November everything changed with another National Restriction.

The Chief Executive confirmed that the Clinically Extremely Vulnerable (previously known as Shielded) response, was again being led by West Sussex County Council (WSCC) with this Council supporting in any way necessary. Furthermore, East and West Sussex, with Kent and Brighton & Hove Councils had requested a local response to the contact part of the test and trace approach (only) by the Government which may involve the Council being involved in some way in the future.

Questions asked covered the administration of the Covid enforcement grant of £75k and the local restrictions support grant to assist those not being able to work due to having to self-isolate, an update was requested in terms of how the Council was managing this. The Chief Executive confirmed that the Council was processing grants for those that were self-isolating and that the Council had received a grant of £75k to cover enforcement or guidance for the public.

Congratulations were extended to the Council’s Officers who continued to work long hours in processing the various grants for the benefit of residents and businesses as well as dealing with all aspects of the Council. It was reported that the Council’s Revenues and Benefits section had to date dealt with claims totalling more than £30m in addition to the normal day job.

Other questions raised by non-Cabinet Councillors related to the work of the Greater Brighton Economic Board (GBEB) in terms of the Arundel Chord and its importance in allowing economic vitality and resilience for the Brighton mainline routes between London and Brighton as such a route would allow trains from Brighton to get to London via the south coast. They have confirmed lobbying for the Brighton man line but not for the Arundel Chord. As the Council paid to be a member of the Greater Brighton Economic Board assurance was sought that the Council continued to lobby for this vital piece of infrastructure. Reassurance was given that the Arundel Chord had been raised at virtually every meeting.

Further questions raised related to the Covid-19 current grant applications. Although the work completed to date was acknowledged it was fact that small businesses faced hard challenges and many representations were being forwarded to Ward Councillors on this issue. Was the portal now open for businesses to be able to claim small business grants and when would businesses be able to apply? Also, what were the timescales for getting applications out, it was felt that this process needed to be speeded up. It was explained that following the Government’s announcement local Councils were putting together the criteria across West Sussex and that the two parts to this process would hopefully go live this week.

Page 118 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

223

Cabinet - 16.11.20

There was concern that some businesses were flouting lockdown rules by continuing to trade. It was confirmed that Trading Standards and Licensing Officers were continuing to look into these issues but that their work did rely upon solid information and evidence being provided.

The Cabinet

RESOLVED

That the actions taken to date be noted.

The Cabinet confirmed its decision as per Decision Notice C/027/16112020, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of the Minutes.

281. COVID -19 RECOVERY WORKING PARTY - KEY OUTCOMES FROM CABINET

The Chairman introduced this item outlining that the Covid-19 Recovery Working Party had met on three occasions. This report provided the Officer response to some of the ideas that emerged. Councillor Dr Walsh stated that it should be noted that in the Implications section of the report, the Chief Executive had highlighted the workload for Officers as the pandemic continued, and capacity clearly remained an issue.

The Chief Executive then worked through the Appendix to the report which set out the Officer response to some of the ideas that had emerged. It had to be accepted that the high workload for Officers as the pandemic continued could not be ignored nor could the spare capacity of Officers to undertake new projects.

A specific point raised related to Theme 2 [Labour Markets, Unemployment and Skills]. The Council had supported the emergency provision of IT equipment to disadvantaged pupils and students and in recognition of this, the Cabinet had supported seeking clarification from West Sussex County Council about any plans it had to continue the supply of IT equipment to disadvantaged pupils. It was confirmed that WSCC no longer supplied old IT equipment to students and so the Council was now looking at a more local approach. An update was also provided on the recruitment of the post of Climate Change and Sustainability Manager.

A debate took place on the provision of IT equipment to disadvantaged young people where it was hoped that some sort of local scheme could be progressed. Statements were also made with regard to the agreement to seek the approval of the Council to seek a commercial buyer of the Sussex by the Sea brand where it was confirmed that the results of the debates on this subject following meetings of the two Regeneration Sub-Committees would be fed into a future meeting of Cabinet.

Page 119 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

224

Cabinet - 16.11.20

Further debate focused on the Council’s green agenda [Theme 5] which had been confirmed as a strategic aim of the Council and concern was expressed in terms of the remit of the new Climate Change and Sustainability Manager post in terms of the target set on green insulation and heating for homes as it had been highlighted that the theme 5(ii) was a medium priority and was not within the current remit of this new post. It was explained that the new post’s ultimate task would be to form a carbon reduction plan for all of the Council’s operations. It was highlighted by one Councillor that anything to with the climate emergency should not be a medium or low priority.

The Cabinet

RESOLVED

That the report be noted, and Officers instructed to proceed with each of the proposals listed in Appendix A to the report.

The Cabinet confirmed its decision as per Decision Notice C/028/16112020, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of the Minutes.

282. BUDGET MONITORING REPORT TO 30 SEPTEMBER 2020

The Cabinet Member for Corporate Support, Councillor Oppler, introduced this report confirming that it set out the Capital, Housing Revenue and General Fund Revenue budget performance to the end of September 2020. He confirmed that the report presented some slightly better news than originally expected as the Council had now received £480k from income compensation scheme and £499k from the fourth tranche of Covid-19 grant funding. The Council had also made internal budget savings which would be made available to resource re-allocation. However, it was important to note that the Council still needed to remain cautious as it moved forward with the Pandemic as loss of income remained its greatest risk, with car parking being the most significant issue as well as the financial support to the Leisure Contractor as a result of lockdown restrictions.

The Financial Services Manager confirmed that the audit of the Council’s financial statements had been completed and was ready to report into the next meeting of the Audit & Governance Committee taking place on 19 November 2020. It was positive that no changes to the outturn report considered by that Committee had been required and so this put the Council’s budget for next year on a sound footing.

Following some discussion,

Page 120 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

225

Cabinet - 16.11.20

The Cabinet

RESOLVED – That

(1) The report at Appendix 1 be noted; and

(2) The actions taken to mitigate the Council’s net expenditure due to the Covid-19 pandemic be noted.

The Cabinet confirmed its decision as per Decision Notice C/029/16112020, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of the Minutes.

283. FOOD WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE TRIAL

In the absence of the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhood Services, the Chairman introduced this item stating that this Council had made a firm commitment to tackling climate change and therefore it was wholly appropriate for Cabinet to consider a report proposing a trial food waste and absorbent hygiene products collection service. Councillor Dr Walsh stated that everyone had a role to play in reducing their waste as far as possible by recycling as much as possible of what was left. It was fact that significant volumes of food were currently wasted in Arun and so this trial had been designed to test assumptions; to gauge the views of a sample of residents; and to provide valuable data which the Council could consider and use to inform future decision making.

Councillor Dr Walsh confirmed that he firmly believed that many residents would fully support the proposal for a trial as there was a growing number of environmentally conscientious residents who wanted to have the opportunity to do the right thing when it came to waste reduction and recycling. If ultimately, we can reduce the amount of food wasted and recycle as much of what is left as possible, then this would be a positive development for all concerned. This trial was a positive first step in exploring this possibility.

The Group Head of Neighbourhood Services and the Environment Services and Strategy Manager then provided further details on all aspects of the proposed trial. The key points have been summarised below:

 The Government was expected to mandate the separate collection of food waste as early as 2023  The trial would address the fact that Arun’s food waste equated to 46% of the content of total waste.  From a 2018 modelling exercise, this collection system was the optimal collection model in terms of maximising recycling rates.  If approved, all residents would be provided with a 240-litre residual bin as well as internal and external food waste caddies

Page 121 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

226

Cabinet - 16.11.20

 Looking at operational delivery, the report set out how the trial would look and work on the ground. Collections would be made by the Council’s existing cleansing contractor, Biffa.  AHP collections would be undertaken by Medisort, the Council’s existing clinical waste collection contractor.  Throughout the trial Ward Members and the Cabinet Member including the Environment & Leisure Working Group and the appropriate new Committee will be kept fully appraised of the trial including details such as resident satisfaction and other data.  The project timetable identified a proposed start date of March 2021  Looking at outcomes and targets, customer satisfaction would be evaluated  The trial would be funded by WSCC as the disposal authority who would set aside a performance improvement fund for Districts and Boroughs within the West Sussex Waste Partnership to bid for in respect of projects that would deliver improvements in recycling performance.  The importance of compiling a well-considered communications plan was key to ensure resident engagement and understanding.

In discussing the proposed trial, Cabinet fully supported this scheme and as this was fully funded by WSCC and as the Government had an expectation for all Local authorities to meet a 50% recycling rate. It was also recognised that the collection of Food Waste could also likely become a mandatory requirement, although it was more likely that the Government would provide additional resources through “New Burdens Funding”. Questions were asked about where in the District this trial would take place and as some Councillors had received representation from some of the conservation areas that might not be appropriate for such a trial. The process that would be followed once the trial area had been confirmed was explained in that there would be a period of engagement and communication with residents in the trial area. It was felt that this was an initiative that many people had been waiting for and it provided the Council with the opportunity to fully test a trial before such a scheme was enforced. This trial would be fully funded by WSCC and would address the 42% of food waste that was currently in the Council’s residual waste.

A variety of questions were asked by non-Cabinet Councillors. These related to the location of the food trial and what areas should be targeted or avoided. It was outlined that it was important for the trial area chosen to have a mix of tenures to thoroughly test the scheme. Questions were asked over the cost of vehicles and whether these could be electric, or hydrogen fuelled and whether the Council had any control over the cost of bins, caddies and liners.

In response, although no assurance could be provided on the type of vehicle to be used, reassurance could be provided that the Council was actively exploring these types of options with Biffa, its current Contractor, and would seek to keep all costs for the project down to a minimum through procurement and negotiation.

Page 122 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

227

Cabinet - 16.11.20

The Cabinet

RESOLVED – That

(1) Approval be given to proceed with a Food Waste and Absorbent Hygiene Products (AHP) collections trial using a ‘123’ service at outlined in the report for a period of twelve months, commencing in March 2021;

(2) It be noted and support given to the governance arrangements which are designed to allow the respective project teams to take all necessary decisions to successfully delver the trial within the framework outlined in the report; and

(3) The necessary drawing down of funding from West Sussex County Council (WSCC) and expenditure associated with Arun’s delivery of the trial as outlined in the report, be approved.

The Cabinet confirmed its decision as per Decision Notice C/030/16112020, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of the Minutes.

284. BEACH ACCESS, BOGNOR REGIS

The Cabinet Member for Technical Services, Councillor Stanley, introduced this item confirming that this administration had, for a long time, held ambition to improve access to the beach in Bognor Regis for people with mobility issues. It was explained that such a scheme could have significant benefits for the experience of disabled residents and visitors to the area and so Councillor Stanley was pleased that the Council was now able to report on the first phase of investigatory work into the options available to take this ambition forward.

The Group Head of Technical Services followed by the Engineering Services Manager provided further information. It was explained that the report identified a range of options to fulfil this aim and these were briefly outlined in terms of the different approaches considered and what the Council could and could not pursue.

Prior to inviting debate, the Chairman confirmed that he had been provided with a statement from Councillor Brooks, who had had to leave the meeting and so this was read out. This outlined that Option 7 [the Timber Piled Ramp] would be very expensive and only addressed part of the problem. The beach west of the pier in front of the old Esplanade site and Rock Gardens flats was where the shingle was regularly washed away due to the shape of the shoreline. This area already had half-buried under the shingle a lower promenade, steps and a ramp suitable for pushchairs and pneumatic tyred wheelchairs. Pneumatic wheelchairs could be provided to gauge response, this could be part of a café concession. Further consideration on using tested techniques, the area might be developed to form a protected sandy bay, permitting access for all disabilities using a lift direct to the sand. As the Council owned the adjacent land and

Page 123 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

228

Cabinet - 16.11.20

car park, there was also the opportunity to add disabled toilets, cafe, and family entertainment with concessions to help with costs. The addition of showers and changing rooms alone would also attract wind surfers, scuba divers and other water sports enthusiasts. Support was therefore given to Recommendation 3) but with the addition of Option 1.

In debating the report, many comments, ideas and concerns were expressed which have been summarised below:

 There was a lot to consider and many risks, but the Council was duty bound to consider these  Getting down to the beach was more straight forward than getting back up  Support was given to exploring further Options 4, 5 and 7  It would be vital to ensure that appropriate consultation would be undertaken but with the right groups of people, those that would need to use it  There was concern over the cost and size of the ramp proposal  What groups had been identified for the consultation  There was concern that the Council might also have to provide a service in operating any scheme, not just the means of accessing the beach  How would the size of the proposed ramp fit in with the local area?  Some of the suggestion put forward were outside of the remit set for this exercise and were a matter for the wider Seafront Strategy for Bognor Regis.  Beach friendly wheelchairs would be required  It was essential to get people involved who experienced access difficulties so that they could contribute first hand  Should other areas in the District be considered, why Bognor Regis?  There were concerns expressed over the logistics and functionality, this was a difficult matter to resolve unless the Council could pursue some sort of sea water Lido.  Should a cross-party Working Party be established to take this forward and to undertake the required consultation  How many other locations had been considered and rejected? Other locations could be easier and more cost effective.  The risks associated with this project were of concern – it was agreed that all options would have to be fully assessed  Could the Council look at other areas and look at partnership opportunities?

In responding to the debate and matters raised, the Chairman reminded Councillors that at this early stage, Cabinet was being requested to endorse further investigation and the potential viability of Options 4, 5 and 7 as a means of improving access to the lower beach at Bognor Regis, the findings of which would be brought back to Cabinet or the relevant Committee to consider further with the final solution being informed by those that would use such a facility.

Page 124 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

229

Cabinet - 16.11.20

Following further discussion and responses from Officers,

The Cabinet

RESOLVED – That

(1) The report be noted;

(2) It be agreed not pursue Options 1, 2, 3, 6 or 8; and

(3) Endorsement be given for further investigation and potential viability of Options 4, 5 and 7 as a means of improving access to the lower beach at Bognor Regis, with findings and further recommendations to be reported back to the relevant Committee.

The Cabinet confirmed its decision as per Decision Notice C/031/16112020, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of the Minutes.

285. PLACE ST MAUR - BOGNOR REGIS

(Prior to the commencement of this item, Councillor Coster redeclared his Personal Interest made at the start of the meeting).

The Chairman confirmed that he wished to announce that the Council had been successful with its bid for £1.2m of Coast to Capital funding with the caveat that the funding is provisional subject to final checks and due diligence. This was an exciting good news item to share.

The Cabinet Member for Technical Services then introduced this report confirming that it provided an update on the Place St Maur project in Bognor Regis which aimed to deliver much needed improvements to the public realm. This was an important seafront site which had a very run-down appearance but once the enhancements would be delivered, the site would provide much wider benefits for Bognor Regis. The report also sought to make recommendations to Full Council regarding funding for the project.

Points of Order were raised in terms of whether this item contradicted a Motion approved by Full Council and whether this item should be considered by the Bognor Regis Sub-Committee rather than at Cabinet. The Chief Executive confirmed that it was necessary for the Council to continue to push the next stages of the project and in light of the successful bid received from the Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership, there was a tight timescale in place to spend the funding awarded.

The Principal Landscape and Project Officer then presented the report reminding Councillors that back in March 2020, Cabinet had recommended to Full Council the approval of the draft design brief for public realm improvements at the Place St Maur; the procurement of consultants to enable the delivery of the project and the

Page 125 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

230

Cabinet - 16.11.20

virement of up to £235k for this purpose and other associated project costs. It had also recommended that the enhancement proposals be prepared for public consultation. These recommendations were approved by Full Council on 22 July 2020. The funding application in the sum of £1.2 m had then been prepared with £370k of Council partnership funding and had included the delivery of public realm works at the Place St Maur as well as design concepts for a section of the Esplanade. The procurement of consultants to produce proposals had commenced via a tender on the Council’s portal. The consultant would prepare concept designs for both sites and then develop final designs before preparing technical information for the construction tender process. Now that confirmation had been received that the Coast to Capital bid had been successful, it would be necessary to comply with a range of terms and conditions and enter into a funding agreement with Coast to Capital. It was proposed that approval be given for this, subject to scrutiny of the terms and conditions by Legal Services in consultation with the Monitoring Officer. It was also proposed that authority be given to draw down the external funding. The project proposal had been set out in Appendix 1 to the report defining the scope of the project; setting out objectives and deliverables. It also defined the current risks and outlined the Service Delivery Programme with key milestones, which would be used to monitor progress. It was proposed that the Project Proposal be approved to provide clear direction to the project team.

Before inviting debate, the Chairman confirmed that the confirmation received on the successful funding was very positive news. The Place St Maur site had, for a long time, looked dishevelled and unkept. This project would provide enhanced public realm to bring the enhancement of this important site forward.

The remainder of Cabinet agreed that this was stunningly good news for Bognor Regis and the wider Arun District, this was because the current state of the Place St Maur had looked appalling for many years, whilst the Council had been discussing regeneration issues. This project was greatly supported by Butlins and would ensure that what was a vital link between the seafront and the Town Centre would be enhanced. The Bognor Regis Business Improvement District (BID) had confirmed its support and it was acknowledged that the residents of Bognor Regis would be delighted to now see action being taken to refurbish this wonderful seafront location.

In considering the report, questions were asked about what plans the Council had in place to achieve good engagement with the public and in terms of the final designs. The engagement proposals planned with local stakeholders and groups were explained and in terms of how these would be taken forward considering the current Covid-19 restrictions.

Having formally thanked the Principal Landscape and Project Officer and her team for their sterling work to get this project through the investment board of Coast to Capital, the Cabinet

Page 126 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

231

Cabinet - 16.11.20

RESOLVED – That

(1) The project proposal as set out at Appendix 1 be approved; and

(2) Approval be given to the designs being presented to future Cabinet meetings.

The Cabinet also

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL – That

(1) Approval be given to a supplementary estimate of £370k for the Place St Maur project, funded from the unallocated capital project earmarked reserve; and

(2) Authority be given for the Council to enter into a funding agreement with Coast to Capital and approve the drawdown and expenditure of external funding, with the terms and conditions of the funding agreement to be reviewed and agreed by Legal Services in consultation with the Monitoring Officer.

The Cabinet confirmed its decision as per Decision Notice C/032/161120, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of the Minutes.

286. SUNKEN GARDENS , BOGNOR REGIS

(Prior to the commencement of this item, Councillor Coster redeclared his Personal Interest made at the start of the meeting).

The Cabinet Member for Technical Services, Councillor Stanley, introduced this report which sets out the scope and detail of a project to refurbish the Sunken Gardens in Bognor Regis. It was outlined that this project would provide an important opportunity to improve this well-loved greenspace and would further contribute to the wider improvements in the Town.

The Principal Landscape and Project Officer was then invited to present the item. The plans in place for this project were explained to include how the Council would address anti-social behaviour issues to reverse this trend and create a destination for both locals and visitors. The proposals for the site had been set out in the appendix attached to the report. To allow the project to be delivered, Full Council would be asked to approve a supplementary estimate of £500k funded from the £316k balance of the earmarked reserve identified for unallocated project funding and essential capital maintenance.

Page 127 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

232

Cabinet - 16.11.20

The points made in debating this item, focused on the fact that the Sunken Gardens were a community asset that needed to be protected as they were greatly valued by the local community and needed to be retained and enhanced. By opening the southern entrance, this would encourage more people to use the gardens and would enhance links to the seafront. Thanks, were extended to the Bognor Regis Community Gardeners who had played a vital part helping to maintain the gardens and being involved in stakeholder activities.

A Point of Order was raised and concern expressed that by considering this item the Council was contradicting a motion already approved by the Council and that this item fell under the remit of the Bognor Regis Regeneration Sub-Committee and so should not be considered by Cabinet. The Chief Executive confirmed that he had liaised with the Council’s Interim Monitoring Officer and the matter could be discussed and agreed by the Cabinet, if they so wished.

Following some discussion, the Cabinet

RESOLVED

That the scope of the Sunken Gardens project be approved and that the project team progresses its delivery, subject to Full Council approval of Recommendation 2 below.

Cabinet also

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL

That approval be given to a supplementary estimate of £500k for the Sunken Garden project funded from the £316k balance of the earmarked reserve identified for unallocated project funding and essential capital maintenance and the balance of £184k which equates to a Band D equivalent Council Tax of £2.97.

The Cabinet confirmed its decision as per Decision Notice C/033/161120, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of the Minutes.

287. KINGLEY GATE DEVELOPMENT, LITTLEHAMPTON - COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SECTION 106 FUNDING

(Prior to the commencement of this item, Councillor Dr Walsh declared a Personal Interest as a Member of Littlehampton Town Council).

In the absence of the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhood Services, the Chairman introduced this report stating that it sought authority to draw down Section 106 contributions from the Kingley Gate development to allow for the management and maintenance of the community facilities. These facilities, which were virtually complete,

Page 128 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

233

Cabinet - 16.11.20 were being transferred to the Council for everyone to use including changing facilities, sports pitches, a play area and public open space.

In addition, the report sought authority to transfer a financial contribution from this development towards a community building due to be delivered by Littlehampton Town Council at Eldon Way, Wick, Littlehampton.

The Group Head of Neighbourhood Services then explained the recommendations set out in the report.

Having thanked the Officer team for their work in this project which was an excellent example of joint working with developers and Parishes,

The Cabinet

RESOLVED – That

Subject to the various Section 106 sums being received, approval be given to:

(1) The drawing down of the following sums to fund the Council’s ongoing maintenance commitments on receipt of the sums on transfer of the facilities:

 Public open space sum £334,798, plus indexation  Play areas sums £24,000, plus indexation  Playing fields sum £24,144.00 – plus indexation  Changing facilities sum £16,324 – plus indexation  Total: £399,266 plus indexation

(2) Additional annual revenue expenditure of up to £30,000 plus indexation in respect of the Council’s maintenance commitments for the public open space areas, play area and changing facilities as outlined in Recommendation 1 above be approved. This to include the extension of an existing temporary post in the Greenspace service to use the 5% management sum; and

(3) Approval be given to the transfer of the Community Facilities commuted sum of £263,464.37 (held by Arun District Council) to Littlehampton Town Council by way of a Deed of Agreement towards construction of the replacement community facility building known as the Keystone building at Eldon Way, Littlehampton.

The Cabinet confirmed its decision as per Decision Notice C/034/161120, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of the Minutes.

Page 129 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

234

Cabinet - 16.11.20

288. ESTABLISHMENT OF A PLANNING REVIEW WORKING PARTY

The Chairman, Councillor Dr Walsh, presented this report highlighting that it would be in the Council’s best interest to respond to the Planning Review undertaken quickly when presented. Dates were being finalised and a presentation for Members would hopefully be held on 24 November 2020.

Councillor Dr Walsh outlined that as soon as the presentation had been received by Mr Hannaby, Members would need to consider his recommendations. It was felt that it would not be appropriate for the Development Control Committee to lead on this, although they would have an input. The proposal within the report was to create a small Working Party of Members in advance, so that Officers could prepare dates for these meetings and provide Members with notice. This Working Party would then report to Cabinet and Full Council.

The establishment of a cross party Working Party made up of 7 Members, in political proportionality was proposed by the Chief Executive. However, Councillor Dr Walsh believed that the Working Party would need to be slightly larger in size and so he proposed a size of 8 by putting forward an amendment to the Officer Recommendation 1 (b) to read ”politically balanced and 8 in size to consist of 3 Liberal Democrats; 3 Conservative; 1 Independent and 1 Arun Independent or 1 Green...”.

In debating this item, the Cabinet confirmed that it was looking forward to receiving the presentation from Hannaby Associates and agreed that this was the most sensible way forward to look at whatever may be presented. Cabinet completely understood the rationale behind the cross party Working Party as opposed to the Development Control Committee acting as lead and was interested to learn if measures would be put into place to restrict Development Control Members sitting on the Working Party, which would go against the purpose of it. Councillor Dr Wash agreed that it would not work if Members from Development Control were to be the judge and jury in their own case and that it was important for other Councillors to have the opportunity to be involved in the overview and scrutiny of the report. He confirmed that Member would be appointed to the Working Party by their respective Group Leader to ensure that Development Control duplication would not happen, although a mix of Development Control Member and other non-Development Control Members would probably be ideal, providing some planning experience to the Working Party.

Comments made by non-Cabinet Councillors were that the establishment of the Working Party was welcomed but that it had been hoped that the size of the Working Party would have been similar to that for the Covid-19 Recovery Working Party which had a much fairer balance of support. There were some Councillors who did not agree that it would be inappropriate for Development Control Members to sit on this Working Party as to exclude Councillors with extensive planning knowledge was a short-sighted move.

Following some discussion,

Page 130 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

235

Cabinet - 16.11.20

Cabinet

RESOLVED – That

(1) support be given to the establishment of a Planning Review Working Party based on the following terms:

(a) Terms of Reference – to consider the findings and examine the recommendations from the Planning Review (when presented) so that the Council can agree which recommendations it wants to accept and establish a monitoring process to ensure that recommendations are followed through. The Working Party will report to Cabinet, who will report to Full Council; (b) Size of the Working Party – the seats on this Working Party will be politically balanced and 8 in size (3/LD, 3/Cons, 1/Ind, 1/AI or 1/G). (c) Nominations to the seats – to be confirmed by the relevant Group Leaders immediately if the proposal is accepted by Cabinet; (d) Proposals for the allocation of seats if vacancies occur – to be for the relevant Group Leader to fill the vacant seat and report this information to the next Full Council meeting; (e) Timescale for the work to be undertaken – over the next few months following receipt of the forthcoming presentation and publication of the report (establishing the Working Party now means that the Council will be ready to conduct this work speedily); and (f) To report back to Cabinet as soon as possible to enable the Council to progress with any recommendations it supports.

(2) If established, the Working Party can then:

(a) Review its terms of reference at its first meeting and recommend any change back to Cabinet; (b) Make any recommendations to Cabinet based on the terms of reference – it will have no decision-making authority; and (c) Meet in private unless it agrees that it will work to the Meeting Procedure Rules at Part 5 of the Council’s Constitution.

The Cabinet confirmed its decision as per Decision Notice C/035/161120, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of the Minutes.

Page 131 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

236

Cabinet - 16.11.20

289. EXEMPT INFORMATION

The Cabinet

RESOLVED

That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and accredited representatives of newspapers be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it may involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act by virtue of the paragraph specified against the item.

290. RE CRUITMENT OF THE ROLE OF GROUP HEAD OF COUNCIL ADVICE AND MONITORING OFFICER [EXEMPT - PARAGRAPH 1 - INFORMATION RELATING TO ANY INDIVIDUAL]

The Chief Executive presented this urgent report advising Cabinet of the latest position regarding the appointment of the vacant position of Group Head of Council Advice and Monitoring Officer.

In accordance with the Constitution at Part 6 – Procedure Rules (Other) – section 7 – Officer Employment at Section 2.6 – Consultation Procedure for Appointment, it was confirmed that the Chief Executive had delegated authority to make this appointment but this report was asking Cabinet to note the latest position that the Council was in. This was to confirm that no appointment had been made and Cabinet was asked to note the Chief Executive’s approach going forward which was to seek the temporary employment of an interim Monitoring Officer from 2 December 2020, when the existing arrangement with Chichester District Council sharing their Monitoring Officer would cease and to see a permanent replacement through a recruitment agency process in the New Year.

Following discussion and debate,

The Cabinet

RESOLVED

That the outcome of the recruitment process for the vacant role of Group Head of Council Advice and Monitoring Officer be noted.

The Cabinet confirmed its decision as per Decision Notice C/026/161120, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of the Minutes.

(The meeting concluded at 9.06 pm) Page 132 ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL

DECISION NOTICES FROM THE MEETING HELD ON MONDAY 16 NOVEMBER 2020

REF NO. DECISION

C/026/16112020 Urgent Business – Recruitment of the Role of Group Head of Council Advice & Monitoring Officer [Exempt – Paragraph 1] C/027/16112020 The Council’s Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic Situation C/028/16112020 Covid-19 Recovery Working Party – Key Outcomes from Cabinet C/029/16112020 Budget Monitoring Report to 30 September 2020 C/030/16112020 Food Waste Collection Service Trial C/031/16112020 Beach Access, Bognor Regis C/032/16112020 Place St Maur, Bognor Regis C/033/16112020 Sunken Gardens, Bognor Regis C/034/16112020 Kingley Gate Development, Littlehampton – Community Facilities and Section 106 Funding C/035/16112020 Establishment of a Planning Review Working Party

PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE DECISIONS WILL COME INTO EFFECT FROM 10.00 A.M. ON 25 NOVEMBER 2020 UNLESS THE CALL-IN PROCESS IS APPLIED

If a Councillor wishes to request a call-in of any of the decisions taken above, they will need to take the following steps in line with the Scrutiny Procedure Rules at Part 6 of the Constitution – Scrutiny Procedure Rules (Other)

They will need to: • Submit their request in writing for a Call-In to the Group Head of Policy & Scrutiny and identify who will act as the lead Member of the Call-In • Specify which decision is to be the subject of the Call-In • Explain which of the criteria for the Call-In apply

Page 133 REFERENCE NO: C/026/16112020

URGENT DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 14.11 OF THE YES SCRUTINY PROCEDURE RULES SUBJECT: URGENT BUSINESS – RECRUITMENT OF THE ROLE OF GROUP HEAD OF COUNCIL ADVICE AND MONITORING OFFICER [EXEMPT – PARAGRAPH 1] OFFICER CONTACT: Nigel Lynn – Chief Executive Tel: 01903 737600 Email: [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: To advise Cabinet of the latest position with regard the appointment of the vacant position of Group Head of Council Advice and Monitoring Officer.

In accordance with the Constitution at ‘Part 6 – Procedure Rules (Other) – Section 7 – Officer Employment at Section 2.6 – Consultation Procedure for Appointments’, the Chief Executive, has delegated authority to make this appointment, but this report is asking Cabinet to note the latest position the Council is in.

In accordance with Part 3 (Responsibility for Functions) Section 2.0, Paragraph 2.3 of the Council’s Constitution, the Cabinet may consider items of an urgent nature where special circumstances apply. The circumstances for presenting this report as a matter of urgency are to ensure that Cabinet are formally made aware of the position of Group Head of Council Advice & Monitoring Officer as soon as possible. This is not a key decision and therefore the agreement of the Chairman of the Overview Select Committee is not required. However, the Chairman has been informed of this report out of courtesy. DECISION: The Cabinet

RESOLVED

The outcome of the recruitment process for the vacant role of Group Head of Council Advice and Monitoring Officer be noted.

REASON FOR THE DECISION: To ensure that the Council has a permanent Group Head of Council Advice and Monitoring employed by the Council to fulfil its legal and statutory obligations. OPTIONS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED: a) To note the outcome of the recruitment process for the role of Group Head of Council Advice and Monitoring b) To propose an alternative arrangement for the Chief Executive to pursue. CABINET MEMBER(S): DECLARATION OF INTEREST BY CABINET MEMBER(S) None RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISION: DISPENSATIONS GRANTED : N/A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS DECLARED BY A CABINET MEMBER CONSULTED IN RESPECT OF THIS DECISION: None

Page 134

REFERENCE NO: C/027/16112020

URGENT DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 14.11 OF THE NO SCRUTINY PROCEDURE RULES SUBJECT: THE COUNCIL'S RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC SITUATION OFFICER CONTACT: Nigel Lynn – Chief Executive Tel: 01903 737600 Email: [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: To update Cabinet on the Council’s response to the pandemic situation and possible proposals for economic recovery. DECISION: The Cabinet

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

REASON FOR THE DECISION: For Cabinet to note the Council’s response to the Covid-19 Pandemic. OPTIONS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED: To request further information. CABINET MEMBER(S):

DECLARATION OF INTEREST BY CABINET MEMBER(S) None RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISION: DISPENSATIONS GRANTED : N/A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS DECLARED BY A CABINET MEMBER CONSULTED IN RESPECT OF THIS DECISION: None

Page 135

REFERENCE NO: C/028/16112020

URGENT DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 14.11 OF THE NO SCRUTINY PROCEDURE RULES SUBJECT: COVID-19 RECOVERY WORKING PATY - KEY OUTCOMES FROM CABINET OFFICER CONTACT: Nigel Lynn – Chief Executive Tel: 01903 737600 Email: [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report prioritises the recommendations from Cabinet of 21 September 2020 in relation to the Covid-19 Recovery Working Party and attempts to identify associated costs, if known at this time. DECISION: The Cabinet

RESOLVED

To note the report and it instructed Officers to proceed with each proposal listed in Appendix A attached to the report.

REASON FOR THE DECISION: To support the ambition of the Council to help the community recover from the Corona virus pandemic as quickly and painlessly as possible. OPTIONS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED: Provide alternative or additional proposals for Officers to consider further. CABINET MEMBER(S):

DECLARATION OF INTEREST BY CABINET MEMBER(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISION: None DISPENSATIONS GRANTED : N/A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS DECLARED BY A CABINET MEMBER CONSULTED IN RESPECT OF THIS DECISION: None

Page 136

REFERENCE NO: C/029/16112020

URGENT DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 14.11 OF THE NO SCRUTINY PROCEDURE RULES SUBJECT: BUDGET MONITORING REPORT TO 30 SEPTEMBER 2020 OFFICER CONTACT: Carolin Martlew – Financial Services Manager Tel: 01903 737568 Email: [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Budget Monitoring Report sets out the Capital, Housing Revenue and General Fund Revenue Budget performance to the end of September 2020. DECISION: The Cabinet

RESOLVED – That

(1) The report in Appendix 1 be noted; and

(2) Note the actions taken to mitigate the Council’s net expenditure due to the Covid- 19 pandemic.

REASON FOR THE DECISION: To ensure that spending is in line with approved Council policies and that it is contained within overall budget limits. OPTIONS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED: There were no other options considered. CABINET MEMBER(S):

DECLARATION OF INTEREST BY CABINET MEMBER(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISION: None DISPENSATIONS GRANTED : N/A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS DECLARED BY A CABINET MEMBER CONSULTED IN RESPECT OF THIS DECISION: None

Page 137

REFERENCE NO: C/030/16112020

URGENT DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 14.11 OF THE NO SCRUTINY PROCEDURE RULES SUBJECT: FOOD WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE TRIAL OFFICER CONTACT: Joe Russell-Wells – Group Head of Neighbourhood Services and Ollie Handson – Environment Services and Strategy Manager Tel: 01903 737914 or 01903 737955 Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: To set out proposals to work in partnership with West Sussex County Council (WSCC) to deliver a twelve-month Food Waste and Absorbent Hygiene Products (AHP) collection service trial across approximately 1,150 properties in Arun. DECISION: The Cabinet

RESOLVED – That

(1) Approval be given to proceed with a Food Waste and AHP Collections trial using a 123 service as outlined in the report for a period of twelve months, commencing in March 2021;

(2) It be noted and support be given to the governance arrangements which are designed to allow the respective project teams to take all necessary decisions to successfully deliver the trial within the framework outlined in the report; and

(3) Approval be given to the necessary drawing down of funding from West Sussex County Council and expenditure associated with Arun’s delivery of the trial as outlined in the report.

REASON FOR THE DECISION: To provide agreement for the roll out of a Food Waste and AHP ‘123’collection service trial to commence in March 2021 for approximately 1,150 properties. OPTIONS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED: To not agree the recommendations as outlined in the report. CABINET MEMBER(S):

DECLARATION OF INTEREST BY CABINET MEMBER(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISION: None DISPENSATIONS GRANTED : N/A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS DECLARED BY A CABINET MEMBER CONSULTED IN RESPECT OF THIS DECISION: None

Page 138

REFERENCE NO: C/031/16112020

URGENT DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 14.11 OF THE NO SCRUTINY PROCEDURE RULES SUBJECT: BEACH ACCESS, BOGNOR REGIS OFFICER CONTACT: Roger Spencer – Engineering Services Manager Tel: 01903 737812 Email: [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: To consider the options available to achieve access to the beach for those with limited mobility. DECISION: The Cabinet

RESOLVED – That

(1) The report be noted;

(2) Agreement be given to not pursue Options 1, 2, 3, 6 or 8; and

(3) Endorsement be given to further investigate and potential viability of Options 4, 5 and 7 as a means of improving access to the lower beach at Bognor Regis with findings and further recommendations being reported back to the relevant Committee.

REASON FOR THE DECISION: To provide the Council with a way forward in terms of Member ambitions to improve public/disabled beach access in Bognor Regis. OPTIONS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED: 1 Progression of one of the other options accepting that would not be Equalities compliant and likely not achieve the aims of the project 2 Not to progress any option at this stage

CABINET MEMBER(S):

DECLARATION OF INTEREST BY CABINET MEMBER(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISION: None DISPENSATIONS GRANTED : N/A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS DECLARED BY A CABINET MEMBER CONSULTED IN RESPECT OF THIS DECISION: None

Page 139

REFERENCE NO: C/032/16112020

URGENT DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 14.11 OF THE NO SCRUTINY PROCEDURE RULES SUBJECT: PLACE ST MAUR - BOGNOR REGIS OFFICER CONTACT: Rachel Alderson – Principal Landscape and Project Officer Tel: 01903 737946 Email: [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report provides an update on the Place St Maur scheme, and seeks approval for the delivery plan and project funding. DECISION: The Cabinet

RESOLVED – That

(1) The Project Proposal (set out in Appendix1) be approved; and

(2) The designs will be presented at future Cabinet meetings

The Cabinet also

RECOMMEDN TO FULL COUNCIL – That

(1) A supplementary estimate of £370k be approved for the Place St Maur project, funded from the unallocated capital/project earmarked reserve; and

(2) Authority be given for the Council to enter into a funding agreement with Coast to Capital and approve the drawdown and expenditure of external funding, and that the terms and conditions of the funding agreement are to be reviewed and agreed by Legal Services in consultation with the Monitoring Officer.

REASON FOR THE DECISION: OPTIONS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED: CABINET MEMBER(S):

DECLARATION OF INTEREST BY CABINET MEMBER(S) Cllr Coster RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISION: declared a Personal Interest and outlined his Open-minded Declaration – as detailed in the minutes

DISPENSATIONS GRANTED : None

Page 140 CONFLICT OF INTERESTS DECLARED BY A CABINET MEMBER CONSULTED IN RESPECT OF THIS DECISION: N/A

Page 141

REFERENCE NO: C/033/16112020

URGENT DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 14.11 OF THE NO SCRUTINY PROCEDURE RULES SUBJECT: SUNKEN GARDENS , BOGNOR REGIS OFFICER CONTACT: Rachel Alderson – Principal Landscape and Project Officer Tel: 01903 737946 Email: [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: To seek approval to progress the Sunken Gardens scheme, including its scope, delivery and project funding. DECISION: The Cabinet

RESOLVED

That the scope of the Sunken Gardens project is approved and that the project team progresses its delivery, subject to Full Council approval of the Recommendation below.

The Cabinet also

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL

That a supplementary estimate of £500k be approved for the Sunken Gardens project funded from the £316 balance of the earmarked reserve identified for unallocated project funding and essential capital maintenance and the balance of £184k which equates to a Band D equivalent Council Tax of £2.97. REASON FOR THE DECISION: To progress enhancement plans for the Sunken Gardens in accordance with the project programme. OPTIONS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED: To not approve the recommendations as outlined in the report. CABINET MEMBER(S):

DECLARATION OF INTEREST BY CABINET MEMBER(S) Cllr Coster RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISION: Declared a Personal Interest and an Open Minded Declaration as set out in the Minutes

DISPENSATIONS GRANTED : N/A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS DECLARED BY A CABINET MEMBER CONSULTED IN RESPECT OF THIS DECISION: None

Page 142

Page 143

REFERENCE NO: C/034/16112020

URGENT DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 14.11 OF THE NO SCRUTINY PROCEDURE RULES SUBJECT: KINGLEY GATE DEVELOPMENT, LITTLEHAMPTON - COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SECTION 106 FUNDING OFFICER CONTACT: Joe Russell-Wells – Group Head of Neighbourhood Services Tel: 01903 737914 Email: [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: To receive authority to draw down Section 106 contributions from the Kingley Gate development – ref LU/355/10.

These sums are provided for the management and maintenance of the community facilities including changing facilities, sports pitches, play areas and public open space provided on site and as a contribution for a community building to be delivered by Littlehampton Town Council at Eldon Way, Wick, Littlehampton. DECISION: The Cabinet RESOLVED - That 1. Subject to the various Section 106 sums being received, approval be given to the drawing down of the following sums to fund the Council’s ongoing maintenance commitments on receipt of the sums on transfer of the facilities:  Public open space sum £ 334,798 - plus indexation  Play areas sums £ 24,000 - plus indexation  Playing fields sum £ 24,144.00 – plus indexation  Changing facilities sum £16,324 - plus indexation Total - £399,266 plus indexation 2. Additional annual revenue expenditure of up to £30,000 be approved plus indexation in respect of the Council’s maintenance commitments for the public open space areas, play area and changing facilities as outlined in 1 above. This to include the extension of an existing temporary post in the Greenspace service to use the 5% management sum; and 3. Approval be given to the transfer of the Community Facilities commuted sum of £263,464.37 (held by ADC) to Littlehampton Town Council by way of a Deed of Agreement toward construction of the replacement community facility building known as the Keystone building at Eldon Way, Littlehampton.

REASON FOR THE DECISION: To approve the transfer of funding into revenue budgets and reserve budgets. In addition to enable the transfer of the Community Facilities sum contributing to a partnership project meeting several of the objectives set out as the Council’s Corporate Plan and Vision 2020 with the aim of providing for a facility for use of residents in one of the districts most deprived wards. Page 144 OPTIONS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED: Not to approve the recommendations as set out in the report. CABINET MEMBER(S):

DECLARATION OF INTEREST BY CABINET MEMBER(S) Cllr Dr Walsh RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISION: declared a Personal Interest as a Member of Littlehampton Town Council

DISPENSATIONS GRANTED : N/A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS DECLARED BY A CABINET MEMBER CONSULTED IN RESPECT OF THIS DECISION: None

Page 145

REFERENCE NO: C/035/16112020

URGENT DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 14.11 OF THE NO SCRUTINY PROCEDURE RULES SUBJECT: ESTABLISHMENT OF A PLANNING REVIEW WORKING PARTY OFFICER CONTACT: Nigel Lynn – Chief Executive Tel: 01903 737600 Email: [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: To seek Cabinet’s permission to establish a cross-party Working Party to consider the recommendations from the forthcoming presentation on the Planning Review by Sean Hannaby (of Hannaby Planning Solutions Ltd) which will take place shortly. DECISION: The Cabinet

RESOLVED – That

(1) the establishment of a Planning Review Working Party based on the following terms be supported:

(a) Terms of Reference – to consider the findings and examine the recommendations from the Planning Review (when presented) so that the Council can agree which recommendations it wants to accept and establish a monitoring process to ensure that recommendations are followed through. The Working Party will report to Cabinet, who will report to Full Council; (b) Size of the Working Party – the seats on this Working Party will be politically balanced and 8 in size (3/LD, 3/Cons, 1/Ind, 1 G). (c) Nominations to the seats – to be confirmed by the relevant Group Leaders immediately if the proposal is accepted by Cabinet; (d) Proposals for the allocation of seats if vacancies occur – to be for the relevant Group Leader to fill the vacant seat and report this information to the next Full Council meeting; (e) Timescale for the work to be undertaken – over the next few months following receipt of the forthcoming presentation and publication of the report (establishing the Working Party now means that the Council will be ready to conduct this work speedily); and (f) To report back to Cabinet as soon as possible to enable the Council to progress with any recommendations it supports.

(2) If established, the Working Party can then:

(a) Review its terms of reference at its first meeting and recommend any change back to Cabinet; (b) Make any recommendations to Cabinet based on the terms of reference – it will have no decision-making authority; and (c) Meet in private unless it agrees that it will work to the Meeting Procedure Rules at Part 5 of the Council’s Constitution.

REASON FOR THE DECISION: To ask Cabinet to support the establishmentPage 146 of a Working Party which will review the recommendations contained within the Planning Review report shortly to be published. OPTIONS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED: Not to support the action proposed. CABINET MEMBER(S):

DECLARATION OF INTEREST BY CABINET MEMBER(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISION: None DISPENSATIONS GRANTED : N/A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS DECLARED BY A CABINET MEMBER CONSULTED IN RESPECT OF THIS DECISION: None

Page 147

Page 148 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 20 Subject to approval at the next Audit & Governance Committee meeting

267

AUDIT & GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE

19 November 2020 at 6.00 pm

Present: Councillors Mrs Erskine (Chairman), Mrs Haywood (Vice-Chair), Bennett, Bower, Brooks, Clayden, Roberts, Ms Thurston and Tilbrook

Councillors Charles, Coster, Gunner, were also in attendance for all or part of the meeting.

Apologies: None.

309. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest made.

310. MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 30 July were approved by the Committee with the agreement for the Chairman to sign them as soon as practicably possible.

311. INDEPENDENT MEMBERS' REMUNERATION PANEL - REVIEW OF SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY ALLOWANCES FOR 2021

The Chairman offered her congratulations to Mr John Thompson on his MBE he received this year. She then invited the CEO to introduced his report where he drew Members attention to 1.8 of his report that detailed the new six Service Committees that would be implemented from May 2021 under the Committee Structure he also highlighted that the Panel had made a request that the report would be reviewed within the next 12 months for any changes that may be needed.

The Chairman of the Panel expressed his thanks for the support from Members and Officers. He also extended thanks to Sarah Miles for her additional efforts she contributed during the review. He advised that main items are linked and that wider research proved difficult due to the fact that there are not many other authorities operating under a Committee System and that given the pandemic many authorities were also not prepared to complete research on their behalf which was understandable. He explained that the Panel decided the best way forward was to share the current Cabinet Members allowances equally between the six new Service Committees with the Chairman in receipt of 70% and the Vice Chairman in receipt of 30% of the allowance. In summary he also echoed the CEO and stated that the need for a review to be undertaken in early 2020 was required in order to assess the impact of the new arrangements in operation.

Page 149 Subject to approval at the next Audit & Governance Committee meeting

268

Audit & Governance Committee - 19.11.20

Members then took part in a full debate where the following comments were made. Concern was raised in terms of acceptance of no difference between current Cabinet Members and the new Chairman of each Service Committee, due to the removal of executive decision making. It was also raised that a request for a seminar was denied and therefore was felt that Members were largely in the dark with the regards to the new operation of the new structure. The Chairman drew members attention to sections 3.1 and 3.4 of the Panel’s report where these points had been covered and she invited the Chairman of the Panel to provide a more substantive answer. Mr Thompson then advised it was felt that it the Committees would be challenging to Chair as well as ensuring that decisions made were moved forward. He the reiterate the importance of an early review on the new arrangements. Other opinions expressed were that it was predicted that the workload for backbenchers would increase significantly and that the basic allowance for these Members should also have been reviewed. It was explained that the remit of the Panel’s review was to look at the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the new Service Committees only. It was also stated that all Members were and would continue to be in receipt of a basic allowance which covers participation at any meeting attended.

It was then proposed by Councillor Bennett and seconded by Councillor Clayden that;

Each Service Committee Chairman receives £5004.00 and each of the Vice Chairman receives £1,651.00

During the debate on the proposal there were a broad range of views expressed but overall agreement on the reduction to the allowance for the Service Committee Chairman and Vice Chairman was clear. Advice was sought from the CEO and the Financial Services Manager who both supported the views that were being expressed by Members.

The Committee then took the vote on the proposal put forward and this was declared CARRIED

In returning to the substantive recommendations the Chairman invited non- committee members to ask any questions. It was again queried why the recommendations were only focused on the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the six new Service Committees and not the allowance for the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council at this time. The Chairman of the Panel reiterated that the terms of reference for the review were agreed by the Audit & Governance Committee in July 2020 and reminded Councillors that the Panel were tightly bound to those terms. With reference to the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council had been recorded in the report for clarity and should either of those individuals subsequently become a Chairman or Vice-Chairman of one of the six new Service Committees then they would take the new Committee allowance that had just been agreed by the Committee.

The Chairman then drew the debate to a close, she extended a special thanks to the Panel for their hard work in getting the report together in a very short amount of time. Page 150 Subject to approval at the next Audit & Governance Committee meeting

269

Audit & Governance Committee - 19.11.20

The Committee

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL that;

(1) each Service Committee Chairman receives an allowance of £5004.00 and each of the Vice Chairman receives an allowance of £1,651.00; and (2) the recommendations set out in the Independent Panels Report at Appendix 1 be approved.

312. ERNST & YOUNG - AUDIT RESULTS REPORT

Kevin Suter from Ernst and Young, Associate Partner introduced the audit results report to Members. Jason Jones, Account Manager from Ernst and Young provided Members with an overview of key points from the Audit that had been completed.

The Chairman thanked Ernst and Young and the Finance team for all their work during what had been a difficult year.

Following a short discussion, where Members of the Committee echoed the Chairman’s comments and expressed thanks to both teams. It was stated that an unqualified audit statement was great news and showed that the Council was working well.

The Committee then noted the audit results report.

313. STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS 2019/20

(Councillor Tilbrook left the meeting prior to discussion of this item)

The Financial Services Manager confirmed to Members that an unqualified audit opinion on the Financial Statements was an excellent outcome especially in a year where Covid-19 provided very challenging working conditions with increased uncertainty particularly in areas like valuation techniques. She then explained that the management letter of representation on page 203 of the agenda, point 5, provided the reason for not adjusting for the Audit Difference identified during the audit was because the amounts were not material and the extra work would have far outweighed any benefit to the users of the accounts. She then reiterated to Members that the valuation issue was just a disagreement between two sets of valuers. Further work would only have resulted in increased fees which were no real cost to the Council and could have delayed the audit further. And that this and the other audit difference (£152k) made no difference to the Council’s available balances overall. As stated in the Audit Results Report these differences were not material to the Accounts which were unqualified.

Page 151 Subject to approval at the next Audit & Governance Committee meeting

270

Audit & Governance Committee - 19.11.20

Turning to the Statement of Accounts she referred Members to the narrative of the report which put the Accounts in to more context as it dealt with the real performance against the original budget. The variation analysis on page 94 of the agenda was in a similar format to the Outturn Report for 2019/20 which had been considered at Cabinet on 20 July 2020. She advised that it showed a very positive outturn due to items like strict monitoring of the establishment, that allows a further transfer of £844 to the Council’s funding resilience reserve, which now stood at £5.826m, which was essential for the Council’s financial strategy. The outturn report had the advantage of being in the same format as the budget, this was because the financial statements followed accounting standards (International Financial Reporting Standards) rather than local government legislation.

Following discussion,

The Committee

RESOLVED that:

1) they noted the findings of the EY Audit Results Report (previous item on the agenda);

2) approved the Letter of Representation on behalf of the Council in appendix 1; and

3) approved the Statement of Accounts for the financial year ended 31 March 2020 (Appendix 2).

314. ANNUAL GOVERNANCE STATEMENT 2019/20

The Internal Audit Manager advised Members that the Annual Governance Statement was a mandatory document that is required to be published alongside the Accounts and covered the period of April 2020 to March 2021. The Committee had already reviewed the Annual Governance Statement at the 30 July 2020 meeting where they noted the contents, however it was agreed at that meeting that this item would be brought back to the Committee alongside the Statement of Accounts. He then went on to advise Members that since the draft was noted in July, there had been 3 minor changes made, of which he highlighted the detail of too Members.

Following discussion,

The Committee

RESOLVED

that the Annual Governance Statement 2019/20 be approved.

Page 152 Subject to approval at the next Audit & Governance Committee meeting

271

Audit & Governance Committee - 19.11.20

315. TREASURY MANAGEMENT MID-YEAR REPORT

The Senior Accountant provided an overview of the mid-year report to Members where she highlighted point 3 on pages 237 – 241 of the agenda is the economic updated, that had last been updated on 9 November 2020, however she explained that in light of the current economic circumstances that these figures do become out of date very quickly. Point 4 on page 241, she requested that Members note that the CCLA property fund where £5million had been invested was still providing a return of around 4.3% despite Covid-19. She also explained that £1million had been invested in the diversified fund with CCLA and that this was achieving a 3% return. The returns are very challenging as reported on page 242 of the agenda. She explained that the Council was getting now between 0.1% and 0.7% versus previously seeing a return of over 1%. Although the rate of return for this year 20/21 is currently at 0.92% as at September 2020, against the budget of 1.26% this was considerably lower however, the interest received should be in line with the budget.

Following discussion, and thanks from Members for the work completed by the Senior Accountant and her team.

The Committee

RECOMMEND to FULL COUNCIL that:

1) the actual prudential and treasury indicators for 2020/21 contained in the report be approved; 2) the treasury management mid-year review for 2020/21 be noted; 3) the treasury mid-year activity for the period ended 30 September 2020, which has generated interest receipts of £331,00 (0.92%) year to date, against a budget of £550,00 (1.26%) for the full year be noted.

316. DATA PROTECTION BREACH OVERVIEW

The Interim Monitoring Officer provided Members with a full explanation on the seriousness of the breach and the damage that could have been caused reputationally and financially to the Council. He explained that the breach was in relation to an incident that took place after a meeting of the Development Control meeting on 26 May 2020. He confirmed that the Chief Executive sent a confidential email to all Members and information contained within that email had been leaked. He explained that Members were expected to treat emails from Officers in the manner of which they had been sent, specifically in this case, the trust that had been broken due to the confidential matter within the content of the email. He then advised Members that the breach was reported properly to the ICO (Information Commissioner Office) and because of this it was dealt with in a comparatively light way. He also confirmed to members that an investigation had taken place for Officers and Members who had been in receipt of the email. The investigation provided evidence that two Members had forwarded the email outside of the Council, which he explained was very disappointing.

Page 153 Subject to approval at the next Audit & Governance Committee meeting

272

Audit & Governance Committee - 19.11.20

He confirmed that the ICO had made a number of recommendations, that detailed exactly what the Council was required to do in order to rectify the issue and referred Members to section 1.4 of the report where these actions had been set out. He was pleased to confirm that all Officers had completed all the required training. However he found that there was a lack of Members that had signed up the to the I.T Security Policies at the start of his investigations, however he was now pleased to report that all member’s had now signed up to these. He reported that in future should these policies not be signed up to when required I.T access would be removed until these had been satisfactorily completed and signed. In summing up he reiterated that the impact of this case had been set out clearly within the report, but highlighted that the financial penalties for breaches could be huge and that any policies and protection measures put in place were only as good as the Members and Officers that uphold them. He also highlighted that to, recklessly disclose personal data is a criminal offense and the breach should be seen by the Committee as a very near miss and therefore taken very seriously. He stated that the Council had managed the situation very well and that whilst the investigation had revealed that two Members had not followed protocol, he stated it would remain unknown if those two Members were indeed who leaked the information to the Press. The ICO did take into account the work that was done to protect the Council and the fact that, the breach was reported early went in the Council’s favour. What the Council does with its data, matters, and the disregard for the protocol’s in place was not acceptable, and an aggravating criminal factor, a further aggravating factor was that all Members were asked if they had caused the breach and no one came forward.

The Chairman then confirmed to Members that the recommendations were split into two, the second part were forward looking. She reminded Members that they should avoid discussing personal matters at this time.

During discussion it was commented that it was disappointing to learn that two Members may have been responsible and had not followed protocol. It was asked by several Members if the names of the two Members could and would be released as it was felt that the public had a right to know who they were. It was advised by the Interim Monitoring Officer that due to this being a criminal matter he could not provide names at the meeting, but he was happy to have separate conversations outside of the meeting. It was also asked why the Chief Executive had not referred the two members to the Standards Committee as it was a clear breach of the Councils code of conduct. It was explained that this situation was one that could potentially have more than one legal route to take and it can cause problems when carrying out investigations with the Police for example. It is standard procedure to separate out each option and it was important that the Council not be seen to prejudice or impede any other ongoing investigation.

The Chief Executive advised that he saw the report as part of rounding off the whole investigation internally. He also advised that there was still a possibility that this situation could go to the Standards Committee.

Following further discussion, the Chairman drew the debate to a close by reconfirming that the recommendations in front of the Committee were split in to two Page 154 Subject to approval at the next Audit & Governance Committee meeting

273

Audit & Governance Committee - 19.11.20

parts. She advised that she did not feel there was enough satisfaction in the summary of findings section and confirmed that the Committee were expected to receive a further update along with an additional report to be provided to the Standards Committee.

The Committee

RECOMMEND to FULL COUNCIL that;

1) the summary of findings from the data protect breach be noted by Full Council and the Standards Committee; 2) recognise, engage and fully endorse the importance of all Members and Officers completing mandatory training and adhering to policies, in order to minimise the risk of future data protection breaches; 3) recognise that the Council is responsible and accountable for breaches of data protection, and as such can face large fines, be liable to pay compensation, and suffer adverse reputational damage; and 4) Council IT equipment should not be issued until the relevant security policies have been signed. In the case of re-elected Members who already have equipment, their accounts should be disabled until policies are signed.

317. PROGRESS AGAINST THE AUDIT PLAN

The Internal Audit Manager explained that an audit plan comes to the Committee every February, and as explained at 30 July 2020 meeting, the planned work to the audit plan has been significantly disrupted due to the Pandemic. The team had however been supporting the work on distributing grants. There was a significant overhead on the vast amount of money that was given by the Government. A second lockdown had been put in place and further grants had been distributed. All of these needed to be checked and verified to ensure that any fraudulent cases were highlighted. He explained that the aim was to move back to more normal planned work and a new report would be provided to the Members at the meeting on 25 February 2021.

The Group Head of Corporate Support advised Members that a tremendous amount of work had been completed by the team and it had been invaluable.

Members thanked the Internal Audit Manager and his team for their support and work completed during this year.

The Committee noted the update.

318. INFORMATION / ADVISORY DOCUMENTS RECEIVED

The Committee noted the Cabinet Office report provided.

Page 155 Subject to approval at the next Audit & Governance Committee meeting

274

Audit & Governance Committee - 19.11.20

319. WORK PLAN REVIEW 2020/21

The Work Plan was reviewed and updated in October 2020, however due to the pandemic a further to review and potential changes to timescales for the remaining items would be required.

The Committee noted the update from the Internal Audit Manager

(The meeting concluded at 8.32 pm)

Page 156 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 21 Subject to approval at the next Development Control Committee meeting

275

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

25 November 2020 at 2.30 pm

Present: Councillors Bennett (Chairman), Ms Thurston (Vice-Chair), B Blanchard-Cooper, Bower, Clayden (Reserve) (Substitute for Edwards), Charles, Coster, Mrs Hamilton, Kelly, Lury, Mrs Pendleton, Roberts, Tilbrook, Mrs Warr and Mrs Yeates

Councillors Huntley (observing) was also in attendance for all or part of the meeting.

Apologies: Councillor Edwards

320. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Planning Application WA/48/19/RES - Councillor Ms Thurston declared a prejudicial interest on the basis of predetermination as she had previously made statements in relation to this application.

321. MINUTES

The Minutes of the Development Control Meeting that was held on the 28 October 2020 were approved by the Committee and agreement was sought to sign the minutes as soon as practicably possible.

322. WA/48/19/RES - LAND TO THE EAST OF FONTWELL AVENUE, FONTWELL AVENUE, FONTWELL

(Prior to the consideration of this application, Councillor Ms Thurston had declared a prejudicial interest and was placed in the virtual waiting room and so took no part in the debate or vote.)

WA/48/19/RES - Approval for Reserved Matters following outline permission WA/22/15/OUT comprising 400 new homes (incl. affordable), 360sqm of retail space (A1 to A3), 152sqm of community space (D1 to D2 & including retention & refurbishment of 12sqm 'old smithy'), demolition of remaining buildings to Arundel Road along with public open space, LEAP, MUGA, allotments, car & cycle parking, drainage & associated works - This site also lies within the parish of Barnham & Eastergate.

At its meeting on Wednesday 24 June 2020 the committee was presented with this application and it was resolved to DEFER a decision to enable more work to be undertaken by the applicant on the design of the scheme. Following discussions with officers, the applicants submitted a large number of revised plans, drawings and documents. The application was then subject to a further period of consultation and publicity, which ended on 8 October 2020. The Principal Planning Officer presented the report update to the committee and advised Members that the revised plans were prepared in the context of a new design

Page 157 Subject to approval at the next Development Control Committee meeting

276

Development Control Committee - 25.11.20

code that increased the number of character areas from 5 to 6. Each area now adopted a more distinctive design approach.

In the course of discussion, overall support for the proposals was clear. Some reservations were expressed with regard to the phasing of the development and the need for the public sewer network to be improved by Southern Water. It was explained that whilst the Council did not have the exact details of the required network reinforcement at the current time, it would be something that the Council would expect to be completed by Southern Water over a two-year timeframe.

The Committee

RESOLVED

That authority be delegated to the Director of Place or Group Head of Planning to approve the application subject to conditions as detailed in the report update following the expiry of 21 days from 18 November or a date that both Parish Councils have confirmed whether they propose to make any representations to the District Council, whichever is the sooner.

323. AL/64/20/PL - SPRINGFIELD, HOOK LANE, ALDINGBOURNE, PO20 3TE

(Councillor Ms Thurston was readmitted to the meeting prior to the presentation for this item)

Two Public Speakers

Mr John Gridley – Objector Ms Kerry Simmonds – Agent

AL/64/20/PL - Land at Springfield, Hook Lane, Aldingbourne, demolition of the existing dwelling & construction of 2 no. 2-bed. 3 no. 3-bed, 4 no. 4-bed houses including access, landscaping & associated works. Resubmission following AL/51/19/PL & AL/27/20/PL

The Planning Officer presented the application and the report update to Members. He advised that the previous applications had been REFUSED on the basis of the trees in situ. The report update confirmed that the application now supplied the Tree schedule which had been omitted from the original report in the agenda. He further advised that there were a couple of minor conflicts with two policies, highlighting that there was no drainage impact assessment or no archaeological desk-based assessment but that these were outweighed by the benefit that would be made to the housing supply shortfall.

During the course of the debate Members stated that the application was much improved, they did voice their concern regarding the application in specific reference to road and traffic concerns for the site, however there was no legitimate planning reason for refusal. Page 158 Subject to approval at the next Development Control Committee meeting

277

Development Control Committee - 25.11.20

The Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be approved subject to conditions as detailed in the agenda.

324. BN/50/20/PL - LAND WEST OF FONTWELL AVENUE, FONTWELL AVENUE, FONTWELL PO20 3RX

Two Public Speakers

Mr Andrew Munton – Applicant Ms Maddi Simpson – Agent

BN/50/20/PL - Land West of Fontwell Avenue demolition of existing structures on-site & erection of 42 No. dwellings with access, parking, landscaping & associated works. This application is a Departure from the Development Plan.

The Planning Officer presented the application for 42 new dwellings and the report update to Members. From the presentation it was highlighted that there would be some loss of trees and hedging to ensure good visibility for the new entrance access point. He advised that the application was contrary to the development plan policies, however it is believed that it is sustainably located and would assist greatly with the housing land supply shortage. He went on to advise Members that the drainage concerns had been resolved and were now acceptable to both Portsmouth Water and Environment Agency. Drawing Members attention to the update report that had been circulated prior to the meeting that highlights an error in the s106 on page 105 and proposes changes to conditions 2 and 31 as well as providing analysis of the impact of the emerging Barnham and Eastergate neighbourhood plan policies.

Throughout the debate Members were generally pleased to see an application with good green credentials, that had been well planned and thought through. Concerns were raised that the application was in conflict with the Barnham and Eastergate neighbourhood plan. The Planning Officer explained that there was a conflict with policy EE8, which supports retention of Equestrian businesses and conflict with the built up area boundary policy however the emerging neighbourhood plan also allocates this sites for residential development which he believed outweighed the two conflicts highlighted.

Page 159 Subject to approval at the next Development Control Committee meeting

278

Development Control Committee - 25.11.20

The Committee

RESOLVED

That authority be delegated to the Director of Place to approve the application subject to conditions, as detailed in the report update, once the s106 has been completed

325. APPEALS

The Committee received a verbal update on three appeals from the Director of Place and then noted the remainder of the report.

326. BARNHAM EASTERGATE WESTERGATE (BEW) - SUBMISSION OF MASTERPLAN & FRAMEWORK FOR ENDORSEMENT

(Prior to the consideration of this application, Councillor Mrs Yeates had declared a prejudicial interest and was placed in the virtual waiting room and so took no part in the debate or vote.)

The Chairman reminded members that this was a high level framework masterplan for a site that is allocated within the Local Plan, the purpose of the master plan tis to provide a vision and broad design principals for the site rather than details of how the infrastructure will be delivered it is not an opportunity to revisit the principals of the BEW allocation or the route of the A29 realignment. The recommendation included the submission of a phasing and delivery plan. Discussion should remain around the overarching principals set out in the framework masterplan.

The Senior Planning Officer advised Members that the masterplan would see a development of 4,300 homes whilst this was an increase the report did make clear previously that the originally reported 3000 homes was a minimum number. He gave a clear update on where the development was at in its process. He confirmed that the site would deliver a number of community facilities from nurseries to two schools, he confirmed that a mix of housing densities would be required across the site. The Northern portion of the A29 would be delivered by West Sussex County Council. The southern portion would be the first part of the substantive application for the site delivered. Due to the area around the Lidsey Rife being at higher risk of flooding, housing had been directed away from this area and drainage of the site works on the basis of a series of attenuation basins which would store water and result in a controlled discharge. Linear Park area had been planned to provide not only a defined feature for the site but also hydrological and ecological benefits to the district. Officers are satisfied that the framework masterplan would provide a flexibility for all eventualities and would allow a robust package towards infrastructure to be secured. In summary he stated that the framework masterplan had come from extensive discussions with developers and officers. Developers had made appropriate concessions throughout the process to

Page 160 Subject to approval at the next Development Control Committee meeting

279

Development Control Committee - 25.11.20

ensure alignment with the adopted Local Plan. It also established the principals against which planning applications would be submitted and when.

Members were complimentary to the “high quality” framework and had agreement that it would deliver the objective of the Local Plan. Concern was highlighted on the following;

 Traffic build up during the build  Public Transport improvement needed  Increase in number of homes  Area for Bat habitat  Clarity for the development of a footpath along the canal into the current bridleway

The Senior Planning Officer addressed some of the concerns discussed and advised Members that one of the reasons for phasing of the development was to ensure good management of the number of houses built but was a matter to be determined at a later time. In terms of biodiversity throughout the lifetime of the development the environmental bill would come into effect and as part of that it would net gains would be achieved, the aim was for at least 10% but the indicative surveys suggest that, that will be exceeded. He also confirmed the footpath that was raised was located at Chichester Canal and while he couldn’t discuss in too much detail at this time as a future application would be submitted in relation to this, he confirmed more detail would be provided to Members at a later time.

The Committee

RESOLVED

that the ‘Barnham, Eastergate and Westergate Framework Masterplan Version for Endorsement November 2020’ be endorsed subject to the submission of a satisfactory Phasing and Delivery Plan being submitted to Officers for consideration and to be appended to the endorsed Framework Masterplan.

327. OPTIONS FOR INTRODUCING FURTHER CONTROLS ON THE DEFINITION, NUMBER AND QUALITY OF HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION

The Director of Place provided members with an update on the report and explained that the restrictions were two-fold and split by the Licensing and Planning restrictions. He advised that the Housing & Customer Services Working Group had completed their review of the licensing restrictions and that what was being suggested to the Committee was that they should utilise the same research that was being undertaken by the Licensing team.

Page 161 Subject to approval at the next Development Control Committee meeting

280

Development Control Committee - 25.11.20

Early in the debate the cost of the research was queried to ensure that value for money was achieved given that the report suggested the problem was a fairly small one. It was explained that the cost associated with the researched would be difficult to establish prior to the research being completed, the Planning Service and Private Sector had utilised as much information they could up to this point. The report sets out £30,000 and it was confirmed that costs were not currently expected to be more than that, however this could change. Members were reminded at this point that is was the view of Full Council that matters needed to be investigated further with decisions to be presented at Full Council in January 2021 for further discussion.

Concern was also raised in relation to the time that Officers would be able to commit to the work that needed to be done in light of ongoing workload. It was confirmed that whilst the focus currently was on reviewing the Local Plan that would present a challenge, however that was also a good reason to consider a Consultant to help complete the research. If further requests come forward, then the priority would be to complete core business.

It was also raised that the report was asking to look at Bognor Regis only and to keep Littlehampton under review and would it not be more cost effective to review both areas at the same time. It was confirmed that currently the data that had been reviewed had suggested that the work is likely to be centred around the Bognor Regis area. However, if further research showed that Littlehampton was also needed then this would be done.

Concerns regarding people being housed in clusters had demonstrated problems in specific areas and would the research completed be a further opportunity to address these issues that were ongoing. If the research was undertaken it was explained that it would be able to provide additional information that would help with this concern moving forward.

The Committee

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL that;

The Council undertake further research with Housing Services in order to establish evidence to determine the justification and role for designating Article 4 Direction(s) in Bognor Regis as a priority and to keep the matter under review for Littlehampton, unless the work also confirms that there is sufficient justification to bring a further Article 4 Direction(s) forward at the same time.

(The meeting concluded at 4.32 pm)

Page 162 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 22 Subject to approval at the next Constitution Working Party meeting

1

CONSTITUTION WORKING PARTY

30 November 2020 at 4.30 pm

Present: Councillors Mrs Yeates (Chairman), Mrs Gregory (Vice-Chairman), Bennett, Bower, Mrs Catterson, Cooper, Mrs Haywood and Roberts.

Councillor Coster was also in attendance for all or part of the meeting.

27. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no Declarations of Interest made.

28. MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Working Party held on 12 October 2020 were approved by the Working Party as a correct record with the Chairman confirming that these would be signed at the first opportunity available to her.

29. COMMITTEE RESPONSIBILITY FOR LAND PROPERTY AND ASSET MANAGEMENT

The Locum Lawyer presented this report on behalf of the Chief Executive and he reminded Members that at previous meetings of the Working Party when looking at the allocation of responsibilities for Committees there had been some confusion in terms of which Committee should be responsible for property, land and asset management. Officers had therefore been asked to review this again and report findings to the Working Party.

The report set out the current proposals in that Property and Asset Management formed the terms of reference of two Committees, being the Corporate Support Committee and the Economic Committee. In view of the confusion expressed by Councillors over the distinction or rationale for this division, the report provided additional background information including how terminology had been used and it set out options for the Working Party to consider.

It was confirmed that housing properties under the HRA did not form part of this report other than for noting purposes. HR Assets and Property were service areas that sat under the responsibility and functions of the Residential and Wellbeing Committee.

Following the research undertaken by Officers, involving consultation with the Section 151 Officer and Group Head of Corporate Support, the Director of Place and the Group Head of Technical Services, the conclusion reached was that all non HRA land, General Fund assets and property should be delegated to the Economic Committee for one simple reason and this was because the Council did not yet have a

Page 163 Subject to approval at the next Constitution Working Party meeting

2

Constitution Working Party - 30.11.20

Commercial Strategy which would have responsibility for all Non HRA items. It was proposed that this Strategy, once developed, would provide the Council with a co- ordinated Council wide approach to commerciality including the approach to land and other assets.

In discussing the report, a concern was raised in that this area of Council property, before the Cabinet system had been introduced, had always reported to the Policy and Resources Committee because there was a need to deal with the actual maintenance of properties and these had been considered to be finance matters that had to be dealt with, so was it not sensible for the maintenance of these properties to fall under the Corporate Policy and Performance Committee rather than the Economic Committee?

The Locum Lawyer explained that the Council had an Asset Management Strategy which had been summarised in the report. This prioritised how the Council maintained its assets and this was currently developed by Cabinet, as part of budget making and it was proposed that this be allocated to the Corporate Services Committee. It would not make sense for the Economic Committee to have responsibility for this function. The Asset Management Strategy would still be approved by Full Council.

The Working Party

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL – That

(1) To note that Residential and Wellbeing Service Committee is delegated all functions (acquisition, disposal, declaring as surplus to requirements, repair and maintenance) relating to HRA land assets and property both residential and commercial (this includes the small number of residential properties held for accounting purposes in the General Fund but let and managed by Residential Services);

(2) The Economic Committee be delegated responsibility for all functions (acquisition, disposal, declare as surplus to requirements, repair and maintenance) relating to General Fund land assets and property both residential and commercial; responsibility for the General Fund Property Investment Strategy and the Development of a Commercial Strategy;

(3) The threshold values for delegation to Officers remain as they are but Corporate Policy and Performance Committee be delegated responsibility for reviewing the thresholds in consultation with the Chief Executive and Section 151 Officer; and

(4) The Monitoring Officer make consequential changes to the wording of the Committee’s terms of reference to reflect the outcome of the above recommendations.

Page 164 Subject to approval at the next Constitution Working Party meeting

3

Constitution Working Party - 30.11.20

30. CONSOLIDATED REPORT ON OUTSTANDING PLANNING ISSUES

The Locum Lawyer presented this report on behalf of the Chief Executive, reminding Members that this had been discussed at the last meeting of the Working Party but deferred to this meeting.

The purpose of this report was to pull together many of the substantive issues that related to planning which currently were in different parts of the Constitution. The issues for the Working Party to consider were (1) to confirm the name of the Committee; (2) approve public speaking rules and the Planning Local Code which were currently set out in two different places so that in the future they be consolidated as one document; (3) that the proposed terms of reference for the Committee which had also previously been set out in the Constitution in a different place be approved to make it easier to see what the Committee was responsible for and what Officers were responsible for. The purpose of this exercise was to put the two together so that Members could see how they synchronised. There had also been some questions raised about some wording relating to Section 106 and so the fourth recommendation dealt with this final query.

The Chief Executive confirmed that this report had originally been delayed due to the forthcoming Planning Review and the recommendations which were imminently due. It was felt that there were two main issues that could arise from that review which could impact what the Working Party was being asked to consider today, being the size and the name of the Committee. Despite this, he was of the view that this Working Party should continue in considering these recommendations which would be agreed by Full Council in any case. He felt that it was likely that the suggested size of the Development Control Committee in the future, if the Working Party agreed that this should be 10 Members might conflict with recommendations from the Planning Review but this would be dealt with at Full Council.

Debate on this item commenced with what the name of the Development Control Committee should be in the future. There was a strong view that that it should be called the Planning Committee which was the approach taken by many other Councils and was a name that allowed the public to easily understand what the role and functions of the Committee were. In looking at the size of the Committee there were points made that it should be reduced from 15 to 10 Councillors and that this could assist in reducing the length of meetings.

Other Councillors spoke confirming that they could not agree with the name ‘Planning Committee’ as this would be confusing for the public as the Council would have, in the future, a Planning Policy Committee. It was also felt that the name Development Management Committee was also not appropriate as the Council were not developers and so was not involved in managing development. The name Development Committee was supported. Arguments were also put forward to keep the existing name of the Committee. Some Members confirmed that they were torn in terms of what the size of the Committee should be and that it was vital that the Committee had representation from all parts of the District in terms of its membership.

Page 165 Subject to approval at the next Constitution Working Party meeting

4

Constitution Working Party - 30.11.20

Discussion then turned to the draft planning protocol as set out in Appendix 1 to the report in terms of the speaking rules. It was felt that public speakers should have the opportunity to speak again on an application when that application had been deferred to another meeting as it was argued that there could be new matters relating to it and so the public or a Ward Member should then have the right to speak again on any new elements of that application or if further updates were presented. It was felt that this should become permissible at the discretion of the Chairman where necessary.

The draft protocol for Members on dealing with Planning matters had been based on Sherwood and Newark District Council’s Constitution which the Working Party was happy with, though it stated that all of the points being discussed were in the document ‘Probity in Planning’ from the Local Government Association which some Members saw as the model to abide by in terms of the functions of the Development Control Committee.

Another issue raised was the unresolved process for DC raised some time ago with the previous Monitoring Officer with regard to cut-off on deferred items. It was explained that when Members started the debate on a particular planning application, if they then wanted further information it was the view that the Committee should not then take the officer’s recommendation at that point when asking for further information and this was the interpretation put in the Planning Code of Conduct in the existing Constitution. It was felt that to cut off debate by taking the officer recommendation before requesting further information was premature as that missing information was needed before a Councillor could consider the officer recommendation. A request was made to have this reviewed.

Following further discussion, Councillor Bennett proposed that the name of the Committee be the ‘Planning Committee’ and this was seconded by Councillor Mrs Gregory.

Debate then commenced on this proposal with one Councillor suggesting the name Planning Applications Committee. It was strongly felt that the name of the Committee needed to have the word Planning in it. Other suggestions made were Planning Development Committee; Planning Development Control; and Planning Regulation Committee.

Following further discussion, a named vote was undertaken on the amendment to call the Development Control Committee the Planning Committee and on this putting to the vote it was declared CARRIED.

The Working Party then moved on to consider other issues. The first point related to Section 11.8 which read “A speaker can only speak once in respect of an application; in the case of applications returning to the Committee where there has been public speaking previously, a speaker cannot speak at more than one meeting”. Based on the debate that had taken place earlier in the meeting, a request was made that this be at the Chairman’s discretion and that this be added to the Constitution so as to allow a speaker to speak again when there had been a material change to an application. The Working Party was in complete agreement with this suggestion made Page 166 Subject to approval at the next Constitution Working Party meeting

5

Constitution Working Party - 30.11.20 by Councillor Bower and having discussed it further agreed that the words “at the Chairman’s discretion and in conjunction with the Group Head of Planning” be added to this Section of the Constitution.

A second point raised was that when the new Planning Local Code was eventually adopted, should it also contain the RTPI Code of Conduct as it was felt important for Councillors to see this document. It was explained by the Locum Lawyer that as not all Planning Officers were members of the RTPI, the code did not necessarily apply to all Planning Officers. The Locum Lawyer then examined the Member/Officer relations section of the Constitution and confirmed that Paragraph 3.3 of Appendix 1 did adequately cover this but that it could be beneficial to add a link to the RTPI code at this part of the Constitution.

Debate then returned to what the size of the Committee should be. There were arguments presented that this should be reduced to 10 based on research undertaken with other Councils. Other suggestions made were for 11 in line with the membership of the Service Committees. It was acknowledged that it was the responsibility of Group Leaders’ to ensure, when confirming their memberships, that these reflected the wards within the District. Another suggestion made was that the membership remain at 15 until the work of the Planning Review Working Party had been concluded, then the size of the Committee could be reviewed again at a more appropriate time. It was felt that a membership of 10 would not fit in with the political balance of the Council.

Following further discussion, the Working Party conducted a poll in terms of what it felt the membership number should be. The results were that 4 Members voted for a size 15 and 4 Members voted for a size of 11.

Following further debate, the Chairman confirmed that as this decision was split, she would use her casting vote and she confirmed her support for a size of 11. She also confirmed that this would form a new recommendation (5).

Having undertaken separate votes for Recommendations (1) and (2) to (4) and then (5),

The Working Party

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL – That

(1) The Development Control Committee be renamed the Planning Committee;

(2) The Planning Local Code and the Pubic Speaking Rules be consolidated as one document renamed ‘Planning Local Protocol’ as set out in Appendix 1 of the report and referred to the Standards Committee for consideration at the same time as the proposed new Model Member Code of Conduct, with the amendment being made at Paragraph 11.8 being taken forward;

Page 167 Subject to approval at the next Constitution Working Party meeting

6

Constitution Working Party - 30.11.20

(3) The proposed terms of reference of the Planning Committee be approved and that accordingly Council agrees to amend Part 3, Responsibility for Functions, Paragraph 5.2 (Development control Committee) of the Constitution as set out in Appendix 2;

(4) Having regard to the Financial Procedure Rules to agree to amend Part 3, Paragraph 11 and 16 (Responsibility for Functions) the terms of reference of the Planning Policy Committee as set out in Appendix 3; and

(5) The size of the Planning Committee be a membership of 11 Councillors.

31. REFERRAL OF MOTION 4 FROM FULL COUNCIL ON 18 NOVEMBER 2020 TO THIS WORKING PARTY ON CALL-IN

The Working Party received an update from the Chief Executive in terms of the existing requirements in the Constitution covering call-in requests. He confirmed that this matter had been discussed with Group Leaders and that there was agreement with most that this issue needed to be addressed to overcome the issue of Individual Independent Members as when the Constitution had been written, no thought had been given to individual independent Members as there had not been this scenario within the Council at that time, the Constitution only referred to Groups and Parties which was causing confusion. Councillor Bower had then presented his Motion and following long debate at Full Council on 18 November 2020, it had been agreed to refer this matter to this meeting. To assist in the debate, the Locum Lawyer had drafted a report which had been circulated to Members on 27 November 2020 setting out proposals to achieve agreement on this matter.

The report set out four Options for the Working Party to consider which were explained fully at the meeting. It was highlighted that Option 3 [be supported by at least any five Members of the Council who do not have related pecuniary interests with regards to the subject of the call-in] presented the simplest solution to this problem and was based on what Chichester District Council had in its Constitution and was in accordance with the Model Code.

The Chief Executive confirmed that when this had been discussed with Group Leaders major support had been expressed for 5 Councillors. The Working Party was also reminded that whatever option was agreed, this would only be in place until May 2021.

In discussing the report and options available, points were made that this was an urgent matter that needed to be resolved now to allow Call-Ins to take place, the intention was never to reorganise the call-in procedure. Councillor Bower then referred to his Motion put to Council confirming that the Interim Monitoring Officer at the time had had considerable input into defining the wording of the Motion. Councillor Bower confirmed that the regulations did not define an individual Councillor as being a Group, which was wrong and currently precluded Councillors from being able to sign up to taking part in a Call-In request. Page 168 Subject to approval at the next Constitution Working Party meeting

7

Constitution Working Party - 30.11.20

The Working Party agreed that it was very important that every Member of the Council had the ability to sign up to a Call-In and so based on this consensus agreement, Option 2 seemed to be the option that the Working Party could support, the Working Party had difficulty with Option 4 as this required more than just majority group members singing the call-in. It was felt that Option 3 was too.

The Working Party then discussed in detail Option 2 and some slight amendments were suggested – which are set out below:

Council agrees to amend the Council’s Constitution at Part 6, Section 2, Scrutiny Rule 13.4 as follows with immediate effect

Adopt the option which recognises the existence of Individual Members and Independent Groups which are not political groups as well as Independent Political Groups as follows “13.4. If a request for a call-in is received by the Group Head of Policy within the period between the publication of the decision and the effective date, he/she shall call-in the decision for scrutiny by the Committee. For it to be valid, the request must be: a) in writing and identify the lead Member of the call-in, b) specify the relevant decision, which is to be the subject of the call-in, c) satisfy at least one of the criteria set out in paragraph 13.8, and d) be supported by any five Members of the Council who do not have related pecuniary interests with regards to the subject of the call-in e) the group submitting the call-in request comprises EITHER Members from more than one political group as defined by Section 8 of The Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990 OR individual members from one or more political Groups as defined, along with individual independent members who are not part of any political party or group.”

This had been amended to allow Individual Independent Members to have the right to request a call-in.

Full discussion then took place around Groups and Parties and the need to ensure that whatever wording was eventually agreed should not exclude any Members of the Council. Although the Working Party had difficulty in agreeing the wording for the call-in what it did agree on was that it should adopt the option which recognised the existence of Individual Members and Independent Groups which were not political groups as well as Independent Political Groups as follows:

Page 169 Subject to approval at the next Constitution Working Party meeting

8

Constitution Working Party - 30.11.20

Option 2 - “13.4. If a request for a call-in is received by the Group Head of Policy within the period between the publication of the decision and the effective date, he/she shall call-in the decision for scrutiny by the Committee. For it to be valid, the request must be: a) in writing and identify the lead Member of the call-in, b) specify the relevant decision, which is to be the subject of the call-in, c) satisfy at least one of the criteria set out in paragraph 13.8, and d) be supported by any five Members of the Council who do not have related pecuniary interests with regards to the subject of the call-in e) the group submitting the call-in request comprises EITHER Members from more than one political group as defined by Section 8 of The Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990 OR individual members from one or more political groups as defined along with independent members who are not part of any political party or group.”

Following much debate and having looked at all Options and scenarios, Councillor Bower then proposed that the amended version of option 2 be approved and this was seconded by Councillor Bennett. This is set out below:

Option 2

Council agrees to amend the Council’s Constitution at Part 6, Section 2, Scrutiny Rule 13.4 as follows with immediate effect

Adopt the option which recognises the existence of Individual Members and Independent Groups which are not political groups as well as Independent Political Groups as follows “13.4. If a request for a call-in is received by the Group Head of Policy within the period between the publication of the decision and the effective date, he/she shall call-in the decision for scrutiny by the Committee. For it to be valid, the request must be: a) in writing and identify the lead Member of the call-in, b) specify the relevant decision, which is to be the subject of the call-in, c) satisfy at least one of the criteria set out in paragraph 13.8, and d) be supported by any five Members of the Council who do not have related pecuniary interests with regards to the subject of the call-in e) the group submitting the call-in request comprises EITHER Members from more than one political group as defined by Section 8 of The Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990 OR individual members from one or more political Groups as defined, along with individual independent members who are not part of any political party or group.”

Page 170 Subject to approval at the next Constitution Working Party meeting

9

Constitution Working Party - 30.11.20

The Working Party therefore

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL

That the following amendment is made to Part 6, Section 2, of the Scrutiny Procedure Rule 13.4 to allow a broader range of Members to initiate call-in requests:

13.4. If a request for a call-in is received by the Group Head of Policy within the period between the publication of the decision and the effective date, he/she shall call-in the decision for scrutiny by the Committee. For it to be valid, the request must be:

a) in writing and identify the lead Member of the call-in, b) specify the relevant decision, which is to be the subject of the call-in, c) satisfy at least one of the criteria set out in paragraph 13.8, and d) be supported by any five Members of the Council who do not have related pecuniary interests with regards to the subject of the call-in e) the group submitting the call-in request comprises EITHER Members from more than one political group as defined by Section 8 of The Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990 OR individual members from one or more political Groups as defined, along with individual independent members who are not part of any political party or group.”

Before concluding the meeting, the Working Party briefly discussed other items that it wished to review. These were:

 the length of Motions presented to Full Council  agreeing on a Work Programme

(The meeting concluded at 18.47)

Page 171 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 172

ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL

REPORT TO AND DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTION WORKING PARTY ON 30 NOVEMBER 2020

SUBJECT: Committee Responsibility for Land Property and Asset Management.

REPORT AUTHOR: Nigel Lynn, Chief Executive DATE: November 2020 EXTN: 37600 PORTFOLIO AREA: Corporate Support, Economic, Residential and Community Wellbeing

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report proposes the allocation of responsibilities for land property and asset management to the Economic Committee, notes the allocation of HRA land assets and property to Residential and Wellbeing Committee and confirms the financial thresholds for delegation to officers

RECOMMENDATIONS: The Woking Party is requested to recommend to Full Council: 1. To note that Residential and Well Being Services Committee is delegated all functions (acquisition, disposal, declaring as surplus to requirements, repair and maintenance) relating to HRA land assets and property both residential and commercial(this includes the small number of residential properties held for accounting purposes in the General Fund but let and managed by Residential Services); 2. To resolve that Economic Committee be delegated responsibility for all functions is delegated all functions (acquisition, disposal, declaring as surplus to requirements, repair and maintenance) relating to General Fund land assets and property both residential and commercial; responsibility for the General Fund Property Investment Strategy and the Development of a Commercial Strategy; 3. To resolve that the threshold values for delegation to officers remain as they are but Corporate Policy and Performance Committee be delegated responsibility for reviewing the thresholds in consultation with the Chief Executive and the Section 151 Officer; and 4. The Monitoring Officer make consequential changes to the wording of the Committee terms of reference to reflect the outcome of the above recommendations.

Page 173

1.BACKGROUND: The Working Party has asked for an understanding of the property land and asset terminology used in the delegation of functions to Committees and to officers. This is in order for it to best understand how to allocate functions between the new Committees proposed for 2021/22 Municipal year when the new Committee style constitution comes into effect. The current proposal is that Property and Asset Management is within the terms of reference of two Committees, Corporate Services Committee and Economic Committee. When this was originally tabled the distinction or rationale for this division was not clear and led to discussions over a number of meetings of the Working Party. This report provides additional background information including how terminology has been used.. As initially proposed the Corporate Services Committee would have responsibility for the Asset Management Strategy and for the Property Investment Strategy. In particular it would “determine matters relating to the acquisition of or disposal of land and assets where the value exceeds £750,001 considered under the Property Investment Strategy” As initially proposed The Economic Committee is to have responsibility for “Property and Estates” would lead on the “Commercial Strategy” and would have responsibility for matters “relating to the disposal of land and assets where the value exceeds £250,001(other than the commercial properties dealt with through the Property Investment Strategy by the Corporate Policy and Performance Committee)”[ this is a typo] The Council does not currently have a Commercial Strategy. The Working Party has proposed that the Asset Management Strategy and the Property Investment Strategy be the responsibility of the Economic Committee. A further iteration has been proposed that the Corporate Committee be responsible for operational properties and that commercial properties be the responsibility of the Economic Committee. However, investigations have revealed that it is not possible to categorise properties and land in this manner. This is because the Council has a Property Investment Strategy where assets are categorised as 1. Full Operational (corporate) properties from which services are delivered 2. Part Operational properties (partly let out on a commercial basis) 3. Commercial properties leased out on a commercial basis 4. Properties leased out in a non -commercial basis to community organisations 5. Concessions In the absence of a coordinated council wide commercial strategy the allocation of these land assets and properties by way of a constitutional settlement is a reversal of the proposition that form should follows function. The form of the constitution is not the place to determine the operation of the Council’s commercial function. Housing Properties come under the HRA and are not part of this report other than for noting purposes. For clarity and avoidance of doubt HRA Assets and Property come under the auspices of the Residential and Wellbeing Services Committee. This Committee will decide on the acquisition, disposal and repairs, maintenance and improvement of HRA Land and Property, whether residential or commercial. (This includes the small number of residential

Page 174

properties held for accounting purposes in the General Fund but let and managed by Residential Services). The following considerations are relevant to the allocation of property functions: - Commercial Strategy - there is no commercial strategy yet in existence, but it is proposed that a strategy be developed so that there is a coordinated Council wide approach to commerciality including the approach to land and other assets. Asset Management Strategy The Council has a core annual programme comprising asset management of all non HRA assets. This involves capitalised repairs and improvements for all the Council’s non HRA assets. The Asset Management Strategy establishes the priorities for this programme having regard to the condition of the various assets and their respective priorities in terms of delivering council services or generating income. In other words, it informs which properties are to be repaired improved or disposed of in any given year. The Strategy is currently developed by Cabinet and proposed to be allocated to Corporate Services Committee Capital Strategy (Corporate Policy and Performance Committee) The Capital Strategy is a strategy for capital investment decisions over the next three years and informs the detailed annual capital budgets over that time period. The strategy aims to balance capital expenditure needs and expectations with the available resources. The capital strategy is supported by the capital programme. Capital Programme The Capital programme for the HRA and the General Fund are completely separate entities each having their own budget and financial model and for these reasons the HRA capital programme and General Fund capital programme are treated separately. HRA Capital Programme (Residential and Wellbeing Services Committee) The HRA capital programme 2020 to 2022 proposes the acquisition 250 new dwellings over the 10-year life of the plan. The acquisition will be funded from RTB receipts subject to availability and borrowing. The General Fund Capital programme The General Fund capital programme is currently funded by (1) Grants (2) Section 106 contributions (3) capital receipts (4) Direct Revenue contributions and (5) Borrowing (6) and in future CIL. Property Investment Strategy and Fund (Economic Committee) The Property Investment Strategy sets the framework for property investment decisions funded from the sale of Council assets (General Fund capital receipts) in order to generate revenue income to support services. Council policy is to use non HRA Capital receipts in support of the General Fund capital programme The Property Investment Fund has been established with the aim of acquiring properties to generate a return for the Council. Property acquisitions are funded by earmarking a proportion of the Council capital receipts from land and property disposals. Acquisitions can only be made once a full business case has been completed and the risks fully understood and evaluated.

Page 175

The Economic Strategy when developed will be broader than just using a proportion of general fund capital receipts to make property investments decisions. Financial Delegation Thresholds Officers consider that the proposed financial thresholds for both committees (which reflect current practice) should ideally be increased but some CWP Members wanted the thresholds to be reduced further. It was decided to leave this as proposed for the time being.

3. OPTIONS: Members have five options to consider Option 1 Do nothing. This is not an option as the transition to committee governance requires a decision Option 2 All land and property assets except HRA to be responsibility of the Economic Committee Option 3 All land and property assets except HRA land and assets to be responsibility of the Corporate Services Committee. Option 4 All land and property assets except HRA to be responsibility of the Economic Committee pending the development of a Commercial strategy. Option 5 - a combination of the other options as follows:

Type of asset Committee 1. Full operational (corporate) properties from Corporate which services are delivered 2. mostly operational properties (partly let out Corporate on a commercial basis) 3. mostly commercial (partly occupied for Economic operational purposes 4 Commercial properties leased out on a Economic commercial basis 5 Properties leased out in a non -commercial Corporate basis to community organisations 6 Concessions Economic 7 Car Parks, Leisure Centres, Play areas, Relevant toilets, cemeteries, parks and similar Service assets committee

Page 176

4. CONSULTATION:

Has consultation been undertaken with: YES NO Relevant Town/Parish Council NA Relevant District Ward Councillors NA Other groups/persons (please specify) NA 5. ARE THERE ANY IMPLICATIONS IN RELATION TO YES NO THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL POLICIES: (Explain in more detail at 6 below) Financial NO Legal NO Human Rights/Equality Impact Assessment NO Community Safety including Section 17 of Crime & NO Disorder Act Sustainability NO Asset Management/Property/Land NO Technology NO Other (please explain) NO 6. IMPLICATIONS: The Council needs to have included its review of the new Constitution ready for the new Committee structure which will come into force in May 2021.

7. REASON FOR THE DECISION: Option 2 is considered to be the best practicable option. The Council is inching towards developing a co-ordinated commercial approach to General Fund land asset and property management. As “form follows function” it is inappropriate to decide the constitutional form for property management before the function has been developed. Therefore in order to allow the Economic Committee to develop a Commercial Strategy all land and property assets except HRA land assets and property are to be responsibility of the Economic Committee. The development of the Commercial Strategy will determine the subsequent committee allocation of these responsibilities.

8. BACKGROUND PAPERS: Previous reports to the Working Part – 17 and 24 August 2020 and 12 October 2020

Page 177

Page 178 Appendix 1 Committee Structure – including suggested amendments made by Constitution Working Party – 30.11.20 (Deletions struck through – additions highlighted

Committee Corporate Policy and Corporate Support Planning Policy Residential and Environment and Economic Full Council Name Performance Wellbeing Services Neighbourhood Services

Service  Corporate Policy  Finance  Planning Policy  Housing Strategy  Green Spaces  Economic Policy  Oversee all Council areas  Corporate  Legal Services  Infrastructure and Enabling  Cemeteries and Research decisions Performance  Human Resources  HRA(including HRA  Waste and  Economic  Scrutiny of decision  Partnership and  Communications land property and Recycling Partnerships making (“call-in” Liaison (excluding  Design, print and assets)  Car Parks  Commercial principles) where this falls within postal services  Homelessness  Engineering Investment  Legal advice/ another Service  ICT and Digital  Revenues and  Environmental  Commercial Monitoring Officer Committee) Agenda Benefits Health Activities  Statutory functions  Climate Change  Information  Leisure and Culture  Building Control  Town Centre revival as set out in Article Action Plan Management  Community Safety  Emergency  Business 4 (Budget and Policy  Public Engagement  Customer Services  Wellbeing Planning Development Framework)  Committee Services  Foreshores  Foreshores  Tourism  Elections and  Safeguarding  Property and electoral reviews  Lifeline Estates  Land Charges

Page 179 Page Committee  Corporate Plan  Digital Agenda Project  Local Plan  HRA Business Plan  Waste and Recycling  Commercial Strategy  Constitution (through to lead on:  Budget preparation  Service Performance  Community  Leisure Strategy Strategy  Service Performance Constitution Working and monitoring Infrastructure Levy  Crime and Disorder  Service Performance  Property Investment Party)  Medium Term (CIL) Reduction Strategy Strategy Financial Strategy  Service  Service Performance  Asset Management  Capital Strategy Performance Plan  Major emergency response  Climate Change Strategy SMT Nigel Lynn, Karl Roberts, Alan Peach, Jackie Follis, Karl Roberts and Neil Philippa Dart, Satnam Philippa Dart, Karl Karl Roberts, Nat Slade Nigel Lynn, Karl Roberts, Leads Philippa Dart, Alan Peach Joe Russell-Wells, Crowther Kaur and Robin Roberts, Joe Russell- and Denise Vine Philippa Dart, Alan and Jackie Follis Monitoring Officer Wickham Wells and Nat Slade Peach and Monitoring Officer

Regulatory Committees

Committee Name Audit and Governance Development Control Licensing Standards (Name still to be reviewed)

Service areas  Constitution  Planning applications  Licensing functions  Members’ Code of Conduct  Corporate Complaints  Service performance  Code of Conduct Complaint  Internal Audit Reviews  External Audit  Members Allowances  External Scrutiny of partners

SMT Leads Nigel Lynn, Alan Peach, Jackie Follis and Karl Roberts and Neil Crowther Nat Slade Monitoring Officer Monitoring Officer

Page 180 Page

ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL REPORT TO AND DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTION WORKING PARTY ON 12 OCTOBER 2020

SUBJECT: Consolidated Report on Outstanding Planning Issues

REPORT AUTHOR: Nigel Lynn – Chief Executive DATE: 2020 EXTN: 37600 PORTFOLIO AREA: Corporate Support

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is a consolidated issues paper dealing with Planning matters which are necessarily spread out across different parts and sections of the Constitution. The section by section approach adopted by the Working Party to review of the Constitution increases the risk of conflict of planning provisions in different parts of the Constitution.

RECOMMENDATIONS: The Working Party recommends Full Council to agree: (1) That the Development Control Committee be renamed “Development Committee”; (2) The Planning Local Code and the Public Speaking Rules be consolidated as one document be renamed “Planning Local Protocol” as set out in Appendix 1 and referred to Standard s Committee for consideration at the same time as the proposed new Model Member Code of Conduct. (3) The proposed terms of reference of the Development Committee and that accordingly Council agree to amend Part 3 Responsibility for Functions paragraph 5.2 (Development Control Committee) of the constitution as set out in Appendix 2; and (4) Having regard to the Financial Procedure Rules to agree to amend Part 3 Paragraph 11 and 16 (Responsibility for Functions) the terms of reference of the Planning Policy Committee as set out in Appendix 3

1.BACKGROUND: One of the key purposes of the planning system is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest. Matters relating to Planning are out of necessity spread across different parts of the Constitution. This increases the risk of conflict of planning provisions in different parts of the Constitution. This consolidated approach to the review of all the planning provisions in the Constitution is intended to allow the planning provisions to be dealt with in a coordinated manner as a whole.

Page 181

. Planning decisions are based on balancing competing interests and making an informed judgement against a local and national policy framework. Planning necessarily affects land and property interests and decisions are often highly contentious. In many instances legal challenges are mounted and these can be on substantive grounds as well as on procedural and governance grounds. The following planning issues call for discussion and decision.

Name of the Committee dealing with Planning applications. Currently this is called the “Development Control Committee”. The proposal is to change the name to “Development Committee”. As the Committee dealing with planning policy is named “Planning Policy Committee”, the alternative is to name it “Planning Applications Committee” The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 signalled a shift of LPA planning role from a reactive “control function” to a more proactive Development Management function. This was tied to the plan making functions where the role of the LPA in plan making and determining applications was to be proactive in developing the area. Thus “control” is now considered an anachronistic way of referring to the functions of the LPA when determining planning applications. Local Code and Public speaking The public speaking rules have been moved from the Procedure Rules (Part 5) into a Part 8 (Codes and Protocols). Key changes include clarifying who can speak and the time limits. Clearer guidance on Site Visits and the removal of reference to the Site Visit Panel and similarly the removal of reference to the Briefing Panel. Paragraph 2 of the draft Protocol indicates the close relationship between the Member Code of conduct (currently under review) and this local code - This protocol is intended to supplement the Members Code of Conduct where members are involved in the planning process. As the Member Code of Conduct is under review it is felt appropriate that the local planning protocol being supplementary to the code is dealt with by Standards Committee Delegation to officers and delegation to Development Committee. In the new Constitution it is proposed that Full Council will delegate all operational matters relating to determinations and enforcement to the Development Committee and delegate strategic policy matters to the Planning Policy committee. These two Committees will then reserve certain matters to themselves and delegate the rest to Officers through the Group Head of Planning. The proposals are set out in Appendix 2 Section 106 moneys There is also a question on the role of the Planning Policy committee in relation to section 106 moneys and the way the proposed constitution is worded (see extract para 11 below and also extract paragraph 16). In previous meetings CWP was particularly unhappy with the third bullet point in para 11 and asked that officers come back with proposals to explain why the bullet points need to remain. 11. Approving the repayment of money paid to the Council under Planning Obligations in these circumstances:  Where the money is unallocated for any project

Page 182

 Where the money cannot be spent on the previously identified project because the project falls or fails  Where the money is paid subject to a condition that it be spent on a specified project within a specified time. Such clauses are usually avoided by the Council but some developers insist that they be included in Planning Obligations And 16. In line with the limits listed in the Financial Procedure Rules set out in Part 6 of this Constitution approval of: • the virement of monies received in accordance with the terms of any agreement made under Section 106 Town Country Planning Act 1990; • virements of expenditure within relevant service area budgets; • the drawing down of funds; and • the award of grants to organisations, including discretionary rate relief

2. PROPOSAL(S): Please refer to the recommendations at the start of the report. 3. OPTIONS: 1. Do nothing 2. Refer all matters to DCC in January 2021 - this will compromise the timetable for agreeing the new constitution 3. Agree the proposals as recommended 4. Agree the proposals as recommended but with amendments 4. CONSULTATION:

Has consultation been undertaken with: YES NO Relevant Town/Parish Council x Relevant District Ward Councillors x Other groups/persons (please specify) x 5. ARE THERE ANY IMPLICATIONS IN RELATION TO YES NO THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL POLICIES: (Explain in more detail at 6 below)

Financial x Legal x Human Rights/Equality Impact Assessment x Community Safety including Section 17 of Crime & x Disorder Act

Page 183

Sustainability x Asset Management/Property/Land x Technology x Other (please explain) x

6. IMPLICATIONS:

This is a policy decision and there are no other implications

7. REASON FOR THE DECISION: To amend the Constitution in line with the change of governance structure.

8. BACKGROUND PAPERS: The Council’s Constitution

Page 184

APPENDIX 1

Based on Sherwood and Newark District Council Model with Arun Customisation

DRAFT PROTOCOL FOR MEMBERS ON DEALING WITH PLANNING MATTERS

1.0 Introduction

1 One of the key purposes of the planning system is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest.

1.2 Planning decisions are based on balancing competing interests and making an informed judgement against a local and national policy framework. Planning necessarily affects land and property interests and as a consequence decision can often be highly contentious.

1.3 The risk of controversy and conflict are heightened by the openness of a system which invites public opinion before taking decisions and the legal nature of the development plan and decision notices. Nevertheless it is important that the decision making process is open and transparent.

1.4 The aim of this protocol is to ensure that in the planning process there are no grounds for suggesting that a decision has been biased, partial or not well founded in any way.

1.5 This protocol applies at all times when Members are involved in the planning process. This includes meetings of the Development Committee, meetings of the Council when exercising the functions of the Planning Authority and less formal occasions, such as meetings with officers or the public and consultative meetings. It applies to planning enforcement matters, to site specific policy issues and to the making of compulsory purchase orders on planning grounds.

If you have any queries or concerns about the application of this protocol to your own circumstances you should seek advice early from the monitoring officer or deputy monitoring officer and preferably well before any meeting takes place

2.0 Relationship to the Members Code of Conduct

2.1 The Council has adopted a local code of conduct which reflects the principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.

2.2 This protocol is intended to supplement the Members Code of Conduct where members are involved in the planning process.

2.3 The rules set out in the Members Code of Conduct must be applied first and must always be complied with.

Page 185

2.4 Where a member does not abide by the Members Code of Conduct and/or this protocol when involved in the planning process it may put the Council at risk of challenge on the legality of any decision made or at risk of a finding of maladministration.

2.5 The failure is also likely to be a breach of the Members Code of Conduct and may be the subject of a complaint to the Standards Committee. Members should apply common sense in the interpretation of this protocol.

3.0 The General Role and Conduct of Councillors and Officers

3.1 Councillors and officers have different but complementary roles. Both serve the public but Councillors are responsible to the electorate whilst officers are responsible to the Council as a whole. Officers advise Councillors and the Council and carry out the Council’s work. They are employed by the Council, not by individual Councillors. A successful relationship between councillors and officers will be based upon mutual trust, understanding and respect of each other’s position. The Council has a protocol giving guidance on relationships between officers and members.

3.2 Both Councillors and Officers are guided by codes of conduct. The Members Code of Conduct and its relationship to this protocol are set out in Part 8, Section 6 of the Constitution.

3.3 Planning Officers who are chartered town planners are subject to the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) Code of Professional Conduct breaches of which may be subject to disciplinary action by the Institute. In addition, the Council has a Code of Conduct for Employees.

3.4 In addition to these Codes, the Council’s Procedure Rules govern the conduct of Council business.

3.5 Councillors and officers should view with extreme caution any offer of gifts or hospitality. The Council has adopted separate protocols for Officers and for Members giving guidance on gifts and hospitality.

3.6 Serving councillors who act as agents for people pursuing planning matters within their authority should not be members of the Development Committee.

3.7 Councillors and particularly those serving on the Development Committee must receive training on planning when first appointed to the Development Committee and regularly thereafter.

4.0 Registration and Disclosure of Interests

4.1 The Member Code of Conduct sets out detailed requirements for the registration and disclosure of disclosable pecuniary interests. Members should not participate in any decision and should leave the meeting where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest unless they have first obtained a dispensation.

In addition, unless they have obtained a dispensation they should:-

Page 186

• NOT participate or give the appearance of trying to participate in the making of any decision on the matter by the Council

• NOT get involved in the processing of the application

• NOT use their position to discuss the proposal with officers or members when other members of the public would not have the opportunity to do so or in any other way seek or accept any preferential treatment or give the appearance of so doing.

4.2 In addition, the Member Code of Conduct requires members to consider whether they have a non-disclosable interest or personal interest in any item. Such an interest will arise where the matter may reasonably be regarded as affecting the wellbeing or financial standing of the member concerned, a member of their family or a person with whom they have a close association to a greater extent than the majority of people in their ward. Such an interest will also arise where it would be a disclosable pecuniary interest but relates to a member of the councillor’s family or to a close associate rather than to the member themselves or to their spouse or partner.

4.3 In the event that a member considers that they have a non-disclosable pecuniary interest or personal interest in any matter they should disclose the existence and nature of the interest at or before the consideration of that item of business or as soon as the interest becomes apparent.

4.4 The member then needs to consider very carefully whether it would be appropriate to participate in discussion and voting on the matter. They should think about how a reasonable member of the public, with full knowledge of all the relevant facts would view the matter when considering whether their participation would be appropriate.

5.0 Predisposition, Predetermination or Bias

5.1 To preserve the integrity of committee decisions, it is vital that members do not make up their minds before they have all relevant materials and arguments before them at the Development Committee meeting. Members must retain an open mind at the time the decision is made and not make up their minds or appear to have made up their minds until they have heard the officer’s presentation and evidence at the Development Committee when the matter is considered. This is particularly important if a member is contacted by an external interest or lobby group. If a member has made up their mind prior to the meeting and is not able to reconsider their previously held view, they will not be able to participate in the determination of the matter by the because if they did take part in the discussion or vote it would put the Council at risk in a number of ways. Firstly, it would probably, in the view of the Local Government Ombudsman, constitute maladministration. Secondly, the Authority could be at risk of legal proceedings on a number of possible grounds:-

• That there was a danger of bias on the part of the member; and/or

• Predetermination; and/or

Page 187

• A failure to take into account all of the factors which would enable the proposal to be considered on its merits

5.2 Members are entitled to feel predisposed towards a particular decision but must still be able to consider and weigh relevant factors before reaching their final decision. Predetermination arises when members’ minds are closed, or reasonably perceived to be closed, to the consideration and evaluation of the relevant factors. This risks making the whole decision vulnerable to legal challenge. Section 25 of the Localism Act 2011 provides that a councillor should not be regarded as having a closed mind simply because they previously did or said something that, directly or indirectly, indicated what view they might take in relation to any particular matter. For example, a councillor who states “wind farms are blots on the landscape and I will oppose each and every wind farm application that comes before committee” has a closed mind. A councillor who states “many people find wind farms ugly and noisy and I will need a lot of persuading that any more wind farms should be allowed in our area” does not have a closed mind although they are predisposed towards opposing such applications.

5.3 Members may take part in the debate on a proposal when acting as part of a consultee body (ie where they are also a member of the county or parish council as well as being a member of the Authority) provided that: they make clear during discussion at the consultee body that-

(i) Their views are expressed on the limited information before them only; and

(ii) They will reserve judgement and the independence to make up their own mind

on each separate proposal when it comes before the District Council’s Development Committee and they have heard all the relevant information and

(iii) They will not in any way commit themselves as to how they or others may vote when the proposal comes before the District Council’s Development Committee. In the interests of transparency, the member should, in such circumstances, disclose the personal interest regarding their membership of the consultee body when the District Council’s Development Committee comes to consider the proposal.

5.4 Where a member has already made up their mind and therefore declines to speak or vote on a proposal, they do not also have to withdraw (unless they have a disclosable pecuniary interest and have not obtained a dispensation) but they may prefer to do so for the sake of appearances.

5.5 If a member decides to stay in the meeting they should explain that they do not intend to speak and vote because they have (or could reasonable be perceived as having) judged the matter elsewhere, so that this may be recorded in the minutes.

Page 188

5.6 Members who have participated in the development of planning policies and proposals need not and should not normally exclude themselves from decision making on individual applications for that reason.

6.0 Development Proposals Submitted by Councillors and Officers and Council Development

6.1 Proposals submitted by serving and former councillors, officers and their close associates and relatives can easily give rise to suspicions of impropriety. Proposals could be planning applications or local plan proposals.

6.2 Such proposals must be handled in a way that gives no grounds for accusations of favouritism. In particular:-

• If a member or officer submits their own proposal to the Authority, they should play no part in its consideration

• The Council’s Monitoring Officer should be informed of any proposal submitted by any member or any officer employed by the Authority on the grade of Business Manager or above or any officer who would otherwise have been involved in processing or determining the application

• Such proposals should be reported to the Development Committee and not dealt with by officers under delegated powers

6.3 A member will have a disclosable pecuniary interest in their own application and should not participate in its consideration. They have the same rights as any applicant in seeking to explain their proposal to an officer but the councillor, as applicant, should also not seek to improperly influence the decision.

6.4 Proposals for the Council’s own development should be treated with the same transparency and impartiality as those of private developers.

7.0 Lobbying of and by Councillors

7.1 Lobbying is a normal part of the planning process. Those who may be affected by a planning decision, whether through an application, a site allocation in a development plan or an emerging policy, will often seek to influence it through an approach to their ward member or to a member of the Development Committee. The Nolan Committee’s 1997 report stated: “it is essential for the proper operation of the planning system that local concerns are adequately ventilated. The most effective and suitable way that this can be done is through the local elected representatives, the councillors themselves”.

7.2 Lobbying can, however, lead to the impartiality and integrity of a councillor being called into question, unless care and common sense is exercised by all the parties involved.

7.3 When being lobbied, councillors and members of the Development Committee in particular, should take care about expressing an opinion that may be taken as indicating that they have already made up their mind on the issue before they have been exposed to all the evidence and arguments.

Page 189

7.4 In such circumstances, members should consider restricting themselves to giving advice about the process and what can and cannot be taken into account.

7.5 Members can raise issues which have been raised by their constituents with officers.

7.6 If a member does express an opinion to objectors or supporters, it is good practice to make it clear that they will only be in a position to make a final decision after having heard all the relevant arguments and having taken into account all relevant material and planning considerations at committee.

7.7 If any councillor, whether or not a committee member, speaks on behalf of a lobby group at the Development Committee, they should withdraw from the meeting once the opportunity to make representations has been completed in order to counter any suggestions that members of the Committee may have been influenced by their continuing presence.

7.8 In no circumstances should planning decisions be made on a party political basis in response to lobbying. The use of political whips to seek to influence the outcome of a planning application is likely to be regarded as maladministration.

7.9 Development Committee members should in general avoid organising support for or against a planning application and should not lobby other councillors.

7.10 Members should not put pressure on officers for a particular recommendation or decision and should not do anything which compromises, or is likely to compromise, the officer’s impartiality or professional integrity.

7.11 Members should pass any lobbying correspondence received by them to the Group Head of Planning at the earliest opportunity.

7.12 Any offers made of planning gain or restraint of development, through a proposed S106 Agreement or otherwise should be referred to the Group Head of Planning.

7.13 Members should not accept gifts or hospitality from any person involved in or affected by a planning proposal.

7.14 Members should inform the Monitoring Officer where they feel that they have been exposed to undue or excessive lobbying or approaches, including inappropriate offers of gifts or hospitality, who will in turn advise the appropriate officers to follow the matter up.

8.0 Requests to Refer Items to Committee

8.1 A request to refer a matter to Committee must be made in accordance with the Scheme of delegation then in operation. If a Member requests that a matter be referred to committee for determination, where it would otherwise be dealt with by officers acting under delegated powers, they should give written reasons for that request and those reasons should relate solely to matters of material planning concern. The member should also observe any additional rules and requirements set out in the Council’s Constitution.

Page 190

9.0 Pre-Application Discussions

9.1 Pre-application discussions between a potential applicant and the Council can benefit both parties and are therefore encouraged. However, it would be easy for such discussions to become, or be seen by objectors to become, part of a lobbying process on the part of the applicant.

9.2 Councillors have an important role to play in pre-application discussions, bringing their local knowledge and expertise, along with an understanding of community views. Involving councillors can help identify issues early on, helps councillors to lead on community issues and helps to ensure that issues do not come to light for the first time at committee. Officers should therefore consider involving the local ward Member(s) particularly in relation to major applications. However, in order to avoid perceptions that councillors might have fettered their discretions, such discussions should take place in accordance with the following guidelines:-

(i) It should be made clear at the outset that the discussions will not bind the Council to making a particular decision and that any views expressed are personal and provisional. By the very nature of such meetings not all relevant information may be at hand, nor will formal consultations with interested parties have taken place.

(ii) It should be acknowledged that consistent advice should be given by officers based upon the development plan and material planning considerations.

(iii) Officers should be present with councillors in pre-application meetings. Councillors should avoid giving separate advice on the development plan or material considerations as they may not be aware of all the issues at an early stage.

(iv) Members should not become drawn into any negotiations which should be done by officers (keeping interested members up to date) to ensure that the Authority’s position is co-ordinated.

(v) A written note should be made of all meetings. An officer should make the arrangements for such meetings, attend and write notes. A note should also be taken of any phone conversations, and relevant emails recorded for the file. Notes should record issues raised and advice given. The note(s) should be placed on the file as a public record. If there is a legitimate reason for confidentiality regarding a proposal, a note of the non-confidential issues raised or advice given can still normally be placed on the file to reassure others who are not party to the discussion.

(vi) Care should be taken to ensure that advice is impartial, otherwise the subsequent report or recommendation to Committee could appear to be advocacy.

Page 191

9.3 Although the term “pre-application discussions” has been used, the same consideration should apply to any discussions which occur before a decision is taken.

9.4 Common sense should be used by members in determining the scale of the proposals to which paragraph 9.2 above will apply. Councillors talk regularly to constituents to gauge their views on matters of local concern. Keeping a register of such conversations would be neither practical nor necessary. If for example a member is approached by an applicant or an objector in respect of what could reasonably be considered to be a minor application it would be more appropriate for the member concerned to give advice on process only and what can and cannot be taken into account (see paragraph 7.4) and to refer the constituent to a planning officer if they need planning or technical advice.

10.0 Officer Reports to Committee

10.1 Officer reports to Committee should be comprehensive and should include the substance of any objections and other responses received to the consultation. Relevant information should include a clear assessment against the relevant development plan policies, relevant parts of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), any local finance considerations and any other material planning considerations.

10.2 Reports should have a written recommendation for a decision to be made.

10.3 Reports should contain technical appraisals which clearly justify the recommendation.

10.4 If the report’s recommendation is contrary to the provisions of the development plan, the material considerations which justify the departure must be clearly stated. This is not only good practice, but also failure to do so may constitute maladministration or give rise to a Judicial Review challenge on the grounds that the decision was not taken in accordance with the provisions of the development plan and the Council’s statutory duty under S38A of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004 and S70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

10.5 Any oral updates or changes to the report should be recorded.

11.0 Public Speaking at Development Committees

11.1 Members of the public, including any applicant or objector, are not entitled as of right to speak at meetings of the Development Committee and are encouraged to submit any representations in writing during the consultation period.

11.2 All representations received will be reported to committee. Where they are received late, and after publication of the agenda for the Development Committee they will be reported to the Committee by means of a late paper summarising any late representations received in respect of items on the agenda for the Development Committee.

Page 192

11.3 Any person who has made a written representation on an application and wishes to speak must register their request by 5pm on the Monday before the meeting, by phoning 01903 737512 or by email. It is the responsibility of the individual to check whether the application is to be considered by Development Committee. [ one should be able to register to be automatically notified when the agenda for the committee is published]

11.4There is a time limit of 3 minutes for each group of speakers i.e. Ward Members, Parish Councils, objectors, applicants/agents or supporters. Objectors & supporters include residents groups, community groups or interest groups. A supporter must be an independent third party such as a local resident, not a relative of the applicant or the applicant themselves if their appointed agent is already speaking.

11.5 A lead speaker can be nominated or agreement reached between speakers about splitting up the 3 minutes between them, otherwise the 3 minutes will be equally divided between all the registered speakers in each group. The order of speaking will be as follows:

Number/Order of Speakers Table

Order SPEAKER TIME ALLOWED

1. Planning Officer to present and if necessary, update the report, particularly regarding further written representations received.

2. Town or Parish Council/Meeting which the 3 minutes application is sited within or which the application site immediately adjoins

Maximum of two representatives (one per Parish/Town)

3. Objectors to the Application 3 minutes

Two Representatives only

4. Applicants/Agents/Supporters 3 minutes

Two Representatives only

5. Ward Councillors (Councillors representing In the interest of the Ward in which the application is sited) fairness the Chairman will request Ward Councillors to limit

Page 193

their presentation to 3 minutes.

6. Planning Officer to deal with any errors of fact which have arisen or any necessary clarification of policy or other issues

7. Committee to debate and determine the application, involving officers as necessary

8. No Further Right for Public Speaking

11.6 Non-Ward Councillors are also able to speak at meetings of the Development Control Committee with the permission of the Committee, in line with the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 12 (Attendance by other Members of the Council) as set out in Part 5 of this Constitution.

11.7 In the event that more than two speakers have registered to speak in categories 2, 3, or 4, the first two registered persons appearing on the register only will be allowed to speak. If one or both of the persons entitled to speak does not attend or confirms that they agree to the next registered person speaking in their place, then the next registered person will be allowed to speak in their place. Prior to the commencement of the meeting, attendance of those who have registered to speak will be listed. The Chairman’s discretion shall apply in the event of any dispute in the matter of which persons may speak.

11.8 A speaker can only speak once in respect of an application; in the case applications returning to committee where there has been public speaking previously. a speaker cannot speak at more than one meeting.

11.9 Exceptionally, the Chair may decide during the meeting to increase the time available, for example if an application straddles a parish boundary or if a large number of people wish to speak. In such cases the time will be increased equally for each of the groups.

11.10 New documents should not be circulated to the Committee. Councillors may not be able to give proper consideration to the new information and officers may not be able to check for accuracy or provide considered advice on any material considerations arising. This should be made clear to those who intend to speak. If, in exceptional circumstances and at the Chairman’s discretion, new documents are accepted, the meeting may be adjourned for them to be properly considered.

11.11 Messages should never be passed to individual committee members, either from other councillors or from the public. This could be seen as seeking to influence that member improperly and will create a perception of bias that will be difficult to overcome.

Page 194

12.0 Decisions Which Differ From an Officer Recommendation

12.1 The law requires that decisions should be taken in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations (which specifically include the NPPF) indicate otherwise (S38A Planning and Compensation Act 2004 and S70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

12.2 This applies to all planning decisions. Any reasons for refusal must be justified against the development plan and other material considerations.

12.3 The courts have expressed the view that the Committee’s reasons should be clear and convincing. The personal circumstances of an applicant or any other material or nonmaterial planning considerations which might cause local controversy will rarely satisfy the relevant tests.

12.4 Development Committees can, and often do, make a decision which is different from the officer recommendation. Sometimes this will relate to conditions or terms of a S106 obligation.

Sometimes it will change the outcome from an approval to a refusal or vice versa. This will usually reflect a difference in the assessment of how a policy has been complied with, or different weight ascribed to material considerations.

12.5 The Development Committee should take the following steps before taking a decision which differs from an officer recommendation:-

(i) Record the detailed reasons as part of the mover’s motion

(ii) If necessary, adjourn for a few minutes for those reasons to be discussed and then agreed by the Committee

(iii) Where there is concern about the validity of reasons and/or officer concern about a potential award of costs on appeal, consider deferring to another meeting to have the putative reasons tested and discussed.

(iv) Ensure that a recorded vote is taken, recording the individual names of those present and how they voted

12.6 If the Development Committee makes a decision contrary to the officer’s recommendation (whether for approval or refusal or changes to conditions or S106 obligations), minutes of the Committee’s reasons should be made and a copy placed on the application file. Councillors should be prepared to explain in full their planning reasons for not agreeing with the officer’s recommendation.

12.7 The officer(s) should also be given an opportunity to explain the implications of the contrary decision should one be made.

12.8 All applications that are clearly contrary to the development plan and constitute notifiable departures must be advertised as such and are known as “departure” applications. If it is intended to approve such an application, the material considerations leading to this conclusion must be clearly identified, and

Page 195

how these considerations justify overriding the development plan must be clearly demonstrated.

12.9 The application may then have to be referred to the relevant Secretary of State, depending upon the type and scale of the development proposed (S77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990). If the officer’s report recommends approval of such a departure, the justification for this should be included, in full, in that report.

13.0 Committee Site Visits

13.1 Committee site visits do not constitute formal meetings of the Council but rather their purpose is to enable members to observe the site and to gain a better understanding of the issues. Non-attendance of a site visit will not preclude a member from discussing and voting on the relevant matter at the Development Committee meeting. Notwithstanding this, members should make every effort to attend where it is considered that a site visit is necessary and appropriate. In addition, any relevant information which members have gained from the site visit will if necessary, be reported back to the Committee so that all members have the same information.

13.2 Site visits should only be conducted where the benefit is clear and substantial. Officers will have visited the site and assessed the scheme against policies and material considerations already. A site visit should not take place unless:

(i) There are particular site factors which are significant in terms of the weight attached to them relative to other factors if they would be difficult to assess in the absence of a site inspection; or

(ii) There are specific site factors and/or significant policy or precedent implications that need to be carefully addressed; or

(iii) The impact of the proposed development is difficult to visualise; or

(iv) The comments of the applicant and/or objectors cannot be expressed adequately in writing; or

(v) The proposal is particularly contentious

13.3 A record should be kept of the reasons why a site visit is called.

13.4 Only Members of the Development Committee, the local ward member(s) and officers should participate in site meetings. A Member who is not the local ward member but is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Group Head Planning in consultation with the Chairman of the Development Committee prior to the site meeting taking place that the application will have a significant impact on their ward may be permitted to attend the site meeting.

13.5 The applicant may be present on site but should be kept a discreet distance away from the Development Committee members and officers so that they cannot be a party to any comments or questions raised. Upon the refusal of the applicant to respect this requirement, the Committee shall leave the site immediately.

Page 196

13.6 Members should not express opinions or views at the site meeting but may ask officers present questions or seek clarification from them on matters which are relevant to the site investigation.

13.7 Under no circumstances should the site visit members hear representations from any party other than the local ward member. Observations of the ward member(s) should be confined to site factors and site issues. If any member present at a site visit is approached by the applicant or a third party, they should advise them that they should make representations in writing to the Authority and should direct them to or inform the officer present.

13.8 Once a councillor becomes aware of a proposal they may wish to visit the site alone. In such a situation, a councillor is only entitled to view the site from public vantage points and they have no individual rights to enter private property.

14.0 Voting at Committee

14.1 Any member who is not present throughout the whole of the presentation and debate on any item shall not be entitled to vote on the matter. A site visit is not a presentation or debate.

15.0 Deferral

15.1 Members should not seek to defer consideration of any item put before the Development Committee unless there are clear and demonstrable reasons for doing so such as a relevant planning issue arising for the first time not having been previously considered and needing further investigation.

15.2 Where a Member might otherwise be minded to seek deferral of an item by reason that they wish to seek clarification on a particular issue, consider that further material information is required on a particular matter or for any other substantial reason, they should seek to obtain such clarification or additional information from the relevant Case Officer at least two hours prior to the commencement of the Development Committee meeting.

16.0 Annual Review of Decisions

16.1 It is good practice for councillors to visit a sample of implemented planning permissions to assess the quality of the decisions and the development. This should improve the quality and consistency of decision making, strengthen public confidence in the planning system, and can help with reviews of planning policy.

16.2 Reviews should include visits to a range of developments such as major and minor schemes; upheld appeals; listed building works and enforcement cases. Briefing notes should be prepared on each case. The Development Committee should formally consider the review and decide whether it gives rise to the need to reconsider any policies or practices.

Page 197

17.0 Complaints

17.1 Complaints relating to planning matters will be dealt with in accordance with the Council’s complaints procedures.

17.2 So that complaints may be fully investigated and as general good practice, record keeping should be complete and accurate. Every planning application file should contain an accurate account of events throughout its life. It should be possible for someone not involved in that application to understand what the decision was, and why and how it had been reached. This applies to decisions taken by Committee and under delegated powers, and to applications, enforcement and development plan matters

Page 198

Page 199

APPENDIX 2

PART 3 - RESPONSIBILITY FOR FUNCTIONS

5.2 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Membership TBC 15 Members

No Member can serve on this Committee in any capacity unless all of the required training determined to be necessary by the Director of Place in consultation with the Chairman has been undertaken.

Purpose The Committee has delegated authority to exercise the following functions of the Council:  Planning applications  Service performance

Specific Functions The Committee shall also exercise the following specific functions by or on behalf of the Council:

1. Functions relating to Town and Country Planning and Development Control as specified in Schedule 1 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and the Planning (Listed Building & Buildings in Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) including but not limited to:-

1.1 Power to determine applications for planning permission. 1.2 Power to determine applications to develop land without compliance with conditions previously attached. 1.3 Power to grant planning permission for development already carried out. 1.4 Power to decline to determine any application for planning permission. 1.5 Duties relating to the making of determinations of planning applications. 1.6 Power to determine applications for planning permission made by a local authority, alone or jointly with another person. 1.7 Power to respond to consultation by neighbouring local planning authorities, other consultees or the Secretary of State. 1.8 Power to make determinations, give approvals and agree certain other matters relating to the exercise of permitted development rights. 1.9 Power to determine applications for Non-Material Amendments to a planning permission. 1.10 Power to discharge or refuse to discharge planning conditions attached to a planning permission or any other relevant consents. 1.11 Power to enter into, vary or modify agreements regulating development or use of land.

Page 200

1.12 Power to issue a certificate of existing or proposed lawful use or development, including those under Listed Building powers. 1.13 Power to serve a completion notice. 1.14 Power to grant consent for the display of advertisements. 1.15 Power to authorise entry onto land. 1.16 Power to require the discontinuance of a use of land. 1.17 Power to determine whether it is expedient to take enforcement action in instances where there has been a breach of planning control. 1.18 Power to serve a planning contravention notice, breach of condition notice, temporary stop notice or a requisition for information or stop notice. 1.19 Power to issue an enforcement notice and/or community protection notice. 1.20 Power to apply for an injunction restraining a breach of planning control. 1.21 Power to determine applications for hazardous substances consent and related powers. 1.22 Duty to determine conditions to which old mining permissions, relevant planning permissions relating to dormant sites or active Phase I or II sites, or mineral permissions relating to mining sites, as the case may be, are to be subject. 1.23 Power to require proper maintenance of land. 1.24 Power to determine applications for listed building consent and related powers granted to local authorities pursuant to the Listed Building and Conservation Areas Act 1990. 1.25 Power to determine applications for Permissions in Principle and the related Technical Details Consent. 1.26 Duties relating to applications for listed building consent, conservation areas, Listed Building Heritage Partnership Agreements, and Local Listed Building Consent Orders. 1.27 Power to serve a building preservation notice and related powers. 1.28 Power to issue enforcement notices and related powers. 1.29 Power to take action under Sections 224 and 225 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 - enforcement of control over advertisements, and regulations made under section 220 thereof. 1.30 Powers to acquire a listed building in need of repair and to serve a repair notice. 1.31 Power to apply for an injunction in relation to a listed building. 1.32 Power to execute urgent works and recover costs by any appropriate means. 1.33 Rights of way functions for which the Council is responsible. 1.34 Protection and preservation of trees and hedgerows, including as necessary the making, confirmation, modification and revocation of Tree Preservation Orders. 1.35 Power to determine applications for works and felling of trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order. 1.36 Power to determine notifications for works to Trees in Conservation Areas. 1.37 To exercise the Council’s powers with regard to the Hedgerows Regulations 1997 1.38 To exercise the Council’s powers with regard to the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended).

Page 201

1.39 Power to determine prior approval notifications and consents. 1.40 Power to make screening and scoping opinions under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (as amended). 1.41 Power to pursue those convicted through the courts of a planning breach under The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (or as amended). 1.42 Power to issue Community Protection Notices. 1.43 Power to withdraw enforcement and other notices. 1.44 Power to issue Tree Replacement Notices. 1.45 Power to make minor alterations to the Planning Application Validation Checklist. 1.46 Power to determine Section 73 applications under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 19 applications under the Town and Country (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (subject to the caveat set out below in relation to major applications).

2. Considering and making changes to the Officer Scheme of Delegation for development control services which are the responsibility of the Director of Place and Group Head of Planning.

Reserved Matters The functions set out above are delegated to officers with the exception of the following functions, which are expressly reserved to Committee for determination and cannot be discharged by an Officer:

i Any Major or minor application for planning permission which prior to its determination is subject to a written representation from the Parish Council, Town Council or formal Parish Meeting that the application site is within or one that immediately adjoins the application site, which is in conflict with the recommendation of Officers

ii Any application for Full or Outline planning permission by or on behalf of the Council

iii Any Major or Minor application as defined by the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government which would be recommended for approval and would create a new access or egress via the A27, A29, A284, A259 and A280

iv Any household application recommended for approval where the ward member has submitted a written request to the Chairman and/or Vice Chairman of the Development Committee before the end of the statutory consultation period shall be referred to the Development Committee where it is on sound planning grounds

Extract from Part 4- section 3

Page 202

3.1 Group Head of Planning

3.1.1 Except for matters reserved to Full Council and to any Committee of the Council to act on behalf of the Council in all matters related to the discharge of the Council’s functions and responsibilities relating to:

 Development Control  Local Plan and Policy  Strategic Development  Technical Administration Support

3.1.2 Where an application is received from a Member or officer, such application is to be determined in consultation with the Chairman of the Development Committee.

Page 203

APPENDIX 3

PART 3 SECTION 1 OF COUNCIL CONSTITUTION AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED

RESPONSIBILITY FOR FUNCTIONS

4.3 PLANNING POLICY COMMITTEE PARA 11

11. Approving the repayment of money paid to the Council under Planning Obligations in these circumstances:  Where the money is unallocated for any project  Where the money cannot be spent on the previously identified project because the project falls or fails  Where the money is paid subject to a condition that it be spent on a specified project within a specified time. Such clauses are usually avoided by the Council but some developers insist that they be included in Planning Obligations And

4.3 PLANNING POLICY COMMITTEE PARA 16 16. In line with the limits listed in the Financial Procedure Rules set out in Part 6 of this Constitution approval of: • the virement of monies (within service area budget) received in accordance with the terms of any agreement made under Section 106 Town Country Planning Act 1990; • virements of expenditure within relevant service area budgets; • the drawing down of funds; and • the award of grants to organisations, including discretionary rate relief

Page 204

ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL

REPORT TO THE CONSTITUTION WORKING PARTY ON 30 NOVEMBER 2020

SUBJECT: REQUESTS FOR CALL-INS

REPORT AUTHOR: Nigel Lynn Chief Executive DATE: 30 November 2020 EXTN: 37600 PORTFOLIO AREA: Corporate Support

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report proposes an amendment to Part 6 Section 2 of the Scrutiny Procedure Rule 13.4 to allow a broader range of Members to initiate in call-in requests.

RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended to Full Council that: Council agrees to amend the Council’s Constitution at Part 6, Section 2, Scrutiny Rule 13.4 as follows with immediate effect

“13.4. If a request for a call-in is received by the Group Head of Policy within the period between the publication of the decision and the effective date, he/she shall call-in the decision for scrutiny by the Committee. For it to be valid, the request must be: a) in writing and identify the lead Member of the call-in, b) specify the relevant decision, which is to be the subject of the call-in, c) satisfy at least one of the criteria set out in paragraph 13.8, and d) be supported by at least any five Members of the Council “

2. BACKGROUND The purpose of the Cabinet (Executive) Model of Government was that the political management systems of councils were to encourage strong leadership from a small group of Councillors held to account by strong Overview and Scrutiny committee practised by a wider group of Councillors. The Arun Constitution has translated this purpose in relation to calls in’s by requiring that call-in are initiated by Members from more than one political group in the following words:

Page 205

CONSTITUTION v9.6, PART 6, SECTION 2 13.4. If a request for a call-in is received by the Group Head of Policy within the period between the publication of the decision and the effective date, he/she shall call-in the decision for scrutiny by the Committee. For it to be valid, the request must be: • in writing and identify the lead Member of the call-in, • specify the relevant decision which is to be the subject of the call-in, • satisfy at least one of the criteria set out in paragraph 13.8, and • be supported by any five Members of the Council who do not have pecuniary interests with regards to the subject of the call-in PROVIDED that the Members represent more than one political party.

Recent events have drawn attention to the possibility that the underlined part of the Arun Constitution has not kept pace with political composition of the Council which now comprises Members who have chosen not to be treated as a part of a political grouping or political party. These events have triggered the need for amending this provision in order to make Scrutiny procedures accessible to all members. Officers have carried out a rapid review of how other Councils operate call-in procedures. Many Councils broadly follow the national model constitutions template which simply provides for a specified number of councillors’ to sign a call in. However a study by the Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS) (2014) on “calls- ins” has shown that some local authorities for their own local reasons have diverged from the model. The study states:

“Who can exercise call-in powers? The English “New council constitutions” guidance, and the Welsh guidance, suggest that two councillors on a given overview and scrutiny committee might be required to submit a request for a call-in, or that multiple scrutiny chairs may need to be involved in certain circumstances. Different councils have different requirements, however. Basildon and Derby requires three members of the Council to request a call-in for it to be valid. In Bracknell Forest, the Chairman and two additional members of an overview and scrutiny committee, or any five other members of the Council, are required for a valid call-in. In Wigan, six committee members are required to agree for there to be a call-in. There is no trend relating to these requirements when compared across urban or rural, district, county or unitary, Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat authorities. However, in some authorities, the requirements on who can and cannot exercise a call-in acts as a “de facto” bar to call-in being exercised at all. For example, a council’s constitution may require that three councillors on a given committee must request a call-in where the maximum number of opposition councillors on any committee is two, or may require that the chair of a committee “sign off” a call-in request, when all of those chairs are members of the majority party.

Following the rapid review and having regard to the views of Leading Members officers have now produced four options for consideration. These are set out in the next paragraph.

Page 206

3. OPTIONS: Members have four options to consider Option 1 Do nothing as the Scrutiny Procedure Rules cease to be part of the constitution in May 2021. Option 2

Council agrees to amend the Council’s Constitution at Part 6, Section 2, Scrutiny Rule 13.4 as follows with immediate effect

Adopt the option which recognises the existence of Individual Members and Independent Groups which are not political groups as well as Independent Political Groups as follows “13.4. If a request for a call-in is received by the Group Head of Policy within the period between the publication of the decision and the effective date, he/she shall call-in the decision for scrutiny by the Committee. For it to be valid, the request must be: a) in writing and identify the lead Member of the call-in, b) specify the relevant decision, which is to be the subject of the call-in, c) satisfy at least one of the criteria set out in paragraph 13.8, and d) be supported by any five Members of the Council who do not have related pecuniary interests with regards to the subject of the call-in e) the group submitting the call-in request comprises EITHER Members from more than one political group as defined by Section 8 of The Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990 OR individual members from one or more political Groups as defined, along with individual independent members who are not part of any political party or group.”

Option 3 Adopt the option which is closer to the Model Constitution promoted by central government as follows: “13.4. If a request for a call-in is received by the Group Head of Policy within the period between the publication of the decision and the effective date, he/she shall call-in the decision for scrutiny by the Committee. For it to be valid, the request must be: a) in writing and identify the lead Member of the call-in, b) specify the relevant decision, which is to be the subject of the call-in, c) satisfy at least one of the criteria set out in paragraph 13.8, and f) be supported by at least any five Members of the Council who do not have related pecuniary interests with regards to the subject of the call-in and not excluding Cabinet Members”

Option 4 Adopt the option which ensures that call-ins are not solely from members of groups represented in the Cabinet as the aim of the legislation was to ensure Scrutiny of Executive decisions.

Page 207

“13.4. If a request for a call-in is received by the Group Head of Policy within the period between the publication of the decision and the effective date, he/she shall call-in the decision for scrutiny by the Committee. For it to be valid, the request must be: a) in writing and identify the lead Member of the call-in, b) specify the relevant decision, which is to be the subject of the call-in, c) satisfy at least one of the criteria set out in paragraph 13.8, and d) be supported by at least any five Members of the Council e) the Members supporting the call-in request are not all grouped in the political group or groups with seats in the cabinet.

4. CONSULTATION: Consultation has taken place with Leading Members and option 3 appears to be the preferred option.

Has consultation been undertaken with: YES NO Relevant Town/Parish Council NA Relevant District Ward Councillors NA Other groups/persons (please specify) NA 5. ARE THERE ANY IMPLICATIONS IN RELATION TO YES NO THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL POLICIES: (Explain in more detail at 6 below) Financial NO Legal NO Human Rights/Equality Impact Assessment Community Safety including Section 17 of Crime & NO Disorder Act Sustainability NO Asset Management/Property/Land NO Technology Other (please explain) 6. IMPLICATIONS: None beyond those appearing in the recommendation

7. REASON FOR THE DECISION: The Council has a duty of continuous improvement and the recommended amendment improves the ability of all Councillors to initiate scrutiny call ins. It has immediate effect which means that members can get the benefit immediately even though a decision has been taken to not have a scrutiny function from May 2021.

Page 208

8. BACKGROUND PAPERS: The Council’s Constitution and the Full Council agenda of 11 November 2020.

Page 209

Page 210 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 23 Subject to approval at the next Overview Select Committee meeting

281

OVERVIEW SELECT COMMITTEE

1 December 2020 at 6.00 pm

Present: Councillors Northeast (Chairman), English (Vice-Chair), Bennett, Bicknell, B Blanchard-Cooper, Mrs Catterson, Mrs Cooper, Dendle, Dixon, Elkins, Gunner, Huntley, Miss Needs, Miss Seex and Tilbrook

Councillors Cooper, Coster, Mrs Gregory, Lury, Mrs Staniforth, Stanley, Dr Walsh and Mrs Yeates were also in attendance for all or part of the meeting.

Apologies: None.

328. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Elkins declared a personal interest in item 7 [Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme 2021/2022] as a Member of West Sussex County Council.

Councillor Miss Seex declared a Pecuniary interest in item 7 [Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme 2021/2022] as she has applied for a reduction in her Council Tax bill. Councillor Northeast declared a personal interest in item 7 [Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme 2021/2022] as a member of his family is in receipt of Council Tax benefit

329. MINUTES

The Chairman invited Councillor Huntly to make a statement prior to the minutes being approved by the Committee. His statement requested it be noted that he did not want to be identified with Minute 244 [Proposed correction of OSC minutes from 10 March].

The Committee Manager alerted the Committee to an inaccuracy to the resolution of Minute 244 [Proposed correction of OSC minutes from 10 March] where it was stated that the Committee made a recommendation to Full Council. This was incorrect as the Committee RESOLVED this item.

Then the minutes of the Overview Select Committee meeting held on 6 October were then approved by the Committee and they would be signed as soon as practicably possible.

Page 211 Subject to approval at the next Overview Select Committee meeting

282

Overview Select Committee - 1.12.20

330. CORPORATE PLAN AND SERVICE DELIVERY PLAN QUARTER 2 PERFORMANCE OUTTURN

The Group Head of Policy introduced her report and advised the Committee that the performance of the Council was measured against high level Corporate Plan indicators and then against more detailed Service Delivery Plan indicators.

Performance reports are made quarterly to the Corporate Management Team and the Overview Select Committee and every 6 months and at the year end to Cabinet.

Corporate Plan Performance set out in Appendix A

 11 Corporate Plan Indicators, 6 of which are measured at Q2.

 Of these 3 were achieving their target and 3 were not.

 Those not achieving their target were:

. CP3 – Council Tax Collected

. CP7 – Homelessness applications where homelessness is prevented

. CP11 – Household waste sent for reuse, recycling and composting

 Reasons for being behind target were outlined in Appendix A. Whilst no action was required at present on these, they were all being monitored closely by the Director of Services.

Service Delivery Plan (SDP)Performance set out in Appendix B

 23 SDP indicators, 13 of which are measured at Q2

Of these . 2 not achieving target . 2 behind target . 2 achieving . 6 overachieving

 Those not achieving were:

. SDP17 – Housing Benefit overpayments recovered

. SDP 18 – Cost of emergency accommodation

There was no action to be taken for these indicators and they were being monitored by the Director of Services Page 212 Subject to approval at the next Overview Select Committee meeting

283

Overview Select Committee - 1.12.20

Those behind Target were:

. SDP4 – Occupied retail units in Littlehampton

. SDP5 – Occupied retail units in Bognor Regis

Currently no action to be taken as these were only just behind target and not something the Council could directly control

In summary she advised that she had focused on the targets that were not being achieved at Q2, mainly because of reasons relating to Covid-19, but members could also see that many of the targets were being achieved or are indeed overachieving.

The Chairman raised his concern due to the lack of Council tax that had been collected, whilst these numbers were concerning, he hoped that the Council would have a sympathetic approach for those people who had been furloughed and or had lost their jobs during the pandemic.

Discussion on SDP 17 and 18 was had with Members making the following comments;

 SDP17 housing benefit overpayment recovered whilst the report provided a percentage figure it was requested for the actual figure to be provided to Members. It was advised by the Revenues & Benefits Manager that while he did not have the actual figures to hand, he could confirm that all Housing Benefit recovery had stopped during the pandemic. He advised that he would, circulate the actual figures to Members after the meeting.  Concern in relation to business rates collected was raised and it was stated that this area had been underperforming prior to the pandemic and that previous suggestions of incentivising larger businesses with a business rates holiday should be considered by the Council. It was advised that the majority of small business in the district do have business rate exemption. The Chairman was in support of this suggestion and made a request that this suggestion was referred to the regeneration team for further consideration.  It was commented that the pandemic had clearly had an impact on many of the performance results, but what was unknown was if the Council had forecast how much it believed it would be able to collect and recover. It was confirmed that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) had frozen the route to collect monies until 2021.  It was also suggested that with the number of current empty business units across the district had it been considered reaching out to business to offer use of these units with only small maintenance costs and a reduced or zero rent rate.  It was felt that the Council needed a retail strategy that was twofold, comprising of incentives for business to move into the town centres as well as a considered approach to downsizing our town centres with a focus on making smaller more vibrant hubs.

Page 213 Subject to approval at the next Overview Select Committee meeting

284

Overview Select Committee - 1.12.20

Further discussion was had on these service delivery plan results and Members felt a change in the measures may be needed. The Group Head of Planning and the Chief Executive advised and reminded Members that these measures were measures that Members had all agreed previously and they had been set for 4 years. He also confirmed that each of these measures would feed into the relevant Committee under the new structure that would be implemented in May 2021.

Following further discussion by Members on the following performance indicators;

 SDP 2 & 3, where it was asked how the Council was ‘not’ overachieving on these areas. The Chief Executive advised that these indicators had been picked up and referred to in the Shaun Hanerby Planning review, which was to be reviewed in the new year. There was also a request for these performance figures to be provided with a clear separation of the performance results minus any time extension added as this was felt to be the true figure.

The Committee then noted the report.

331. COVID 19 REPORT TO CABINET ON 16 NOVEMBER 2020 & VERBAL UPDATE

The Chief Executive introduced his report and provided Members with an update on the following;

 The District was now under tier 2 national restrictions as of 2 December 2020  The Wave was re-opening at midnight tonight  Most deprived areas are the most effected in terms of jobs lost  Additional funding of £75k received to deal with the ongoing requirement so of the pandemic

The Chairman asked that as the District was now entering into tier 2 and there had been the guidance from central Government that should you go to the pub, you would be required to be seated, his concern was who was actually going to police this guidance. The Chief Executive explained that initially it would come down to the Environmental Health Team however, it was also the responsibility of members of the public to follow the guidelines put in place to ensure public safety.

It was stated that in light of the comments that had been made in reference to the economic recovery, what was the CEO’s view on reconvening the Covid-19 Working Party again in the new year. The Chief Executive responded to Members that he thought this was a good idea as things do change daily and weekly in response to the pandemic. He also advised Members that the Council was running out of dates available to hold meetings in January, so this would need to be considered in line with

Page 214 Subject to approval at the next Overview Select Committee meeting

285

Overview Select Committee - 1.12.20

the capacity to do so and maybe it would be an idea to consider meeting in February instead. Further questions were raised in relation to Members not having had updates on the recommendations put forward by the Covid-19 Working Party. The Chief Executive advised Members that it came back to capacity to get the work completed. The same officers that would work on these recommendations are also the ones who are completing the reactive work in relation to the pandemic. There had been no let up for Officers for 9 months and time needed to be given for Officers to be able to get to this work. He advised he expected an update in the new year.

In reference to the number of job losses across the District a Member of the Committee advised that the Coast to Capital Skills Strategy and Action Plan was a plan to identify the skills that would be required to help and enable people to attend courses so that they could re-train and re skill to obtain new jobs. The Chief Executive advised that the skills audit would provide some more local information to help with this. He further advised that the Council had been in discussion with Chichester College and the University of Chichester is bringing forward a nursing course to start next year (2021) in order to help assist with the need for people to re-skill. We were also working with Arun Business Partnership to see what local training could be made available for people.

The Chairman queried the usage of the community hub as he was unsure if it was being used at the moment. The Chief Executive advised that the community hubs had been used and had been widely promoted on Social Media and the Council’s website, he also stated that West Sussex County Council were continuing to lead on that situation currently.

The Committee then noted the report and update.

332. LOCAL COUNCIL TAX REDUCTION SCHEME 2021/2022

[Cllr Miss Seex – redeclared her interest and was moved to the waiting room, Cllr Bennett declared a personal interest due to family Member being in receipt of Council Tax Benefit.]

The Chairman presented the minutes of the Council Tax Support Task & Finish Working Party meeting held on 17 November 2020, and asked members to endorse the recommendation made by the Working Party by recommending to Cabinet that option 2 be approved.

During the discussion Members asked for clarity on the number of residents that would be impacted. It was advised by the Revenues and Benefits Manager that a few households may be adversely affected and that there was a discretionary hardship fund that these households may apply for, should they qualify for additional assistance. It was also confirmed that until changes were made an exact number was unknown at this time.

Page 215 Subject to approval at the next Overview Select Committee meeting

286

Overview Select Committee - 1.12.20

The Overview Select Committee agreed to;

RECOMMEND to CABINET that

Option 2. To retain the current scheme for 2021/2022 but allow for an increase in the income banding.

333. FEEDBACK FROM MEETINGS OF THE HEALTH AND ADULT SOCIAL CARE SELECT COMMITTEE HELD ON 11 NOVEMBER 2020

Councillor Bennett advised the Committee that an excellent presentation was provided to the Members at the meeting held on 11 November 2020. He advised that it was expected that vaccinations for flu would be difficult this year in managing and reacting to the pandemic.

334. CABINET MEMBER QUESTIONS AND UPDATES

Councillor Mrs Yeates, Cabinet Member for Wellbeing, confirmed to the Committee that The Wave was re-opening from midnight tonight and that she and the Group Head of Community Wellbeing would be in attendance. She also advised that she had attended the hand over for the new digital shop in Littlehampton.

Councillor Gregory, Cabinet Member for Residential Services advised that her November updated had been circulated in advance of the meeting to all Members and that she was happy to take any questions.

Councillor Mrs Staniforth, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhood Services advised the Committee that her November update would be circulated after the meeting to all Members. She confirmed after a short period of absence that she was now back and getting caught up with all updates.

Councillor Lury, Cabinet Member for Planning reminded Members about the series of workshops coming up for Planning and urged Members to attend and watch the video that had also been circulated to all Members. He advised that Supplementary Planning Design Guide (SPD) would be presented to Full Council at the 13 January 2021 meeting for adoption.

Councillor Dr Walsh, Cabinet Member for Economy and Leader of the Council advised Members it had been confirmed today that, a Covid testing centre was being constructed at St Martins Car Park in Littlehampton. Attendance would be by appointment only.

Councillor Stanley, Cabinet Member for Technical Services advised that Environmental Health Officers were regularly meeting with the stakeholder board to ensure management of restrictions across the District continue well. Recruitment of two new Environmental Health Officers would help with balancing the reactive work in

Page 216 Subject to approval at the next Overview Select Committee meeting

287

Overview Select Committee - 1.12.20

relation the pandemic as well as a more proactive approach moving forward. He also advised that in the next few weeks he would be attending a meeting that focuses on coastal communities and suicide prevention, he would be able to update the Committee at the next meeting.

Following the updates from Cabinet members there were then a series of questions asked some of which have been briefly summarised below;

 Reasons to be provided on the logic for the Council having not purchased the upstairs of the Bognor Regis Arcade. A written answer was promised.  Confirmation was sought as to what the Council could do in instances where members of the public were not following guidelines by wearing masks when shopping. It was advised there would be a number of people who fall into the exemption category and that also it was down to the retailers to challenge those who were not wearing masks. The Council and Members can help with education and advice on this matter only as shop are private premises.  Confirmation of a private Members briefing regarding the London Road, Lorry Car Park was made.  Request for further meetings of the Bognor Regeneration Sub-Committee was made as there were currently no more meetings planned for the rest of the municipal year.  A request for Cabinet members to consider completing updates on their portfolios via social media was made.

335. WORK PROGRAMME 2020/2021

The Chairman requested an informal briefing for the Committee before the next Committee meeting on 26 January 2021.

The Group Head of Policy alerted Members to the fact that a Residents Satisfaction Survey Working Party had been set up and there would need to be a formal meeting of the Working Party held with enough time for the minutes of the that meeting to feed into the next Committee meeting on 26 January 2021. She advised that timescale was very tight and would really depend on capacity and availability in order to be held.

Further requests from Members of the Committee were made for additional items to be considered for the Work Programme these included;

 A request that a letter be written to invite members of the Arundel Chord now that individual contacts had been made with Members of the Committee. The Chairman agreed to draft a letter to be sent.  A request that Southern Water was invited to speak with the Committee in relation to their performance. Concerns were raised about the quality and safety of the water. An agreement that as time was tight on the existing Work

Page 217 Subject to approval at the next Overview Select Committee meeting

288

Overview Select Committee - 1.12.20

Programme, that this would be a focus for the relevant Committee under the new structure.

The Group Head of Policy advised the Committee that the meeting due to be held on 23 March 2021 was planned to be a substantial meeting, due to update on Equalities and Diversity Policy, then the Greenspace Management Contract and Combined Cleansing Contract all in the same meeting. She proposed that the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) item should therefore be moved to the next municipal year. It was also advised that this would work better for the CAB given their own response and workload during the pandemic. The Chairman advised he was in agreement and that moving it to the new municipal year was a good idea. Other Members felt that is was vitally important that the CAB item stayed on the Agenda for the March meeting, a vote was taken, and it was agreed to remain on the agenda for the March meeting. There were some further suggestions made by Members of the Committee to ensure the swift movement of agenda items during meetings, these were;

 The Health and Adult Social Care and the Police and Crime Panel updates to become reports that would be taken as read by the Committee  A Potential split of the meeting into two parts, it was then advised by the Committee Manager that this would be an unlikely option due to the high number of meetings already confirmed for January 2021, the Calendar was full.

The Chairman was confident that with some more work between himself and the Officers that he could slim down the agendas for the remaining meetings of this municipal year.

The Chairman thanked the Committee and Officers for their support over the last year and wished everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

The Committee noted the update.

(The meeting concluded at 8.14 pm)

Page 218 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 24 Subject to approval at the next Development Control Committee meeting

289

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

2 December 2020 at 2.30 pm

Present: Councillors Bennett (Chairman), Ms Thurston (Vice-Chair), B Blanchard-Cooper, Bower, Charles, Edwards, Mrs Hamilton, Huntley (Reserve) (Substitute for Coster), Kelly, Lury, Mrs Pendleton, Roberts, Tilbrook, Mrs Warr and Mrs Yeates

Apologies: None.

336. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Cllr Mrs Yeates made a declaration of predetermination for item 10 [Phase 1, A29 Realignment - ADC Response to WSCC Planning Application WSCC/052/20 (ADC Ref bn/126/20/WS] based on comments she had made previously.

Cllr Ms Thurston declared a personal interest in item 10 [Phase 1, A29 Realignment - ADC Response to WSCC Planning Application WSCC/052/20 (ADC Ref bn/126/20/WS] as a member of Barnham and Eastergate Parish Council.

Cllr Edwards declared a personal interest in item 10 [Phase 1, A29 Realignment - ADC Response to WSCC Planning Application WSCC/052/20 (ADC Ref bn/126/20/WS] as a member of West Sussex of County Council.

337. M/68/20/PL - POULTRY FARM, 87 YAPTON ROAD, MIDDLETON ON SEA PO22 6DY

5 PUBLIC SPEAKERS

Ms Christine Johnson Mr Tim Kerss Mr Timothy Bell Mr Nik Smith – Agent Councillor Hayward – Ward Member

DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURES & REDEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE A NEW 66-BEDROOM CARE HOME ARRANGED OVER TWO STOREYS TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS, CAR & CYCLE PARKING, STRUCTURAL LANDSCAPING & AMENITY SPACE PROVISION (RESUBMISSION FOLLOWING M/80/19/PL). THIS APPLICATION IS IN CIL ZONE 4 (ZERO RATED) AS 'OTHER DEVELOPMENT’. POULTRY FARM, 87 YAPTON ROAD, MIDDLETON-ON-SEA

Councillor Edwards was invited by the Chairman to ask his question prior to the presentation of the item. He asked based on the report update why were the Committee being asked to review this today, given that West Sussex County Council contributions were still being sought and he was unsure how the Committee would be able to come

Page 219 Subject to approval at the next Development Control Committee meeting

290

Development Control Committee - 2.12.20

to a decision while this was still outstanding. The Director of Place advised that his understanding was the unilaterally undertaking that the Council would normally seek is yet to be finalised. So, his advice was depending on the decision made by Members on this item, it may be a case to include in the recommendation that this unilaterally undertaking is completed before the decision notice was issued. Councillor Edwards was unhappy with this answer as he felt that the Committee should be presented with all the facts prior to making a decision.

The Planning Officer then presented his report to Members where he advised that further information had been received from the Agent in relation to the basement element of the application where he confirmed that the Ground Floor around the site would remain the same and there would be no area dug into, meaning that the overall height of the building would be reduced by lowering the ridge lines. He went on to explain that this application followed application M/80/19 that had been REFUSED and was now under the appeal procedure. He specified that in terms of this application the footprint, layout and number of bedrooms was the same as the previous refused application, the difference was on the north-western corner of the site where a basement was proposed to accommodate a plant room, laundry room, changing room, training room, kitchen and other ancillary rooms. This would allow the roof to be lowered sufficiently so that now the building would be similar to a previously approved application M/45/16PL. In terms of the Ash Trees, like the previously refused application, there is a suitable condition included in the application that meant that the trees would now be protected.

The Chairman then invited the Planning Officer to respond to the comments made by the public speakers. The Chairman then invited the Director of Place back to respond to Councillor Edwards earlier concerns. He referred Members to page 13 of the agenda that detailed the s106 agreement, the update that Councillor Edwards was referring too states simply that should Members decide to support the application, that it would be normal practice for this action to be delegated to the Director of Place to complete.

Members then took part in a full debate on the application where the following concerns were raised. The first statement made by Councillor Mrs Pendleton who reminded the Committee that each planning application should be reviewed in its own right, and she was concerned at the references made to passed applications. It was also felt that the density was not sympathetic and would compromise the local setting. The 1.8-meter fence with locked gates were felt to be an eyesore. Lighting was believed to contribute to light pollution. Vehicles that would have to wait for a gate to be opened and the risks that would come with this. The detail of the 27 parking spaces that was included in the application as unsuitable. Concern was raised that the application was being built on a flood plain area, however this was confirmed by the Engineering Services Manager to be incorrect. He stated that the Environment Agencies flood risk map and it was not listed as being within flood zone 2 or 3. He also advised that while the ground water was high, the investigations that had been completed and now it was evident that a basement could be suitably constructed so it was water tight.

Page 220 Subject to approval at the next Development Control Committee meeting

291

Development Control Committee - 2.12.20

The Planning Officer then addressed the comment made by Councillor Mrs Pendleton regarding reviewing the application as a standalone. He explained that usually this would be normal practice and she was correct. However, 9 months ago a very similar application was refused by this Committee for specific reasons that had been detailed within the report and he reminded members that consideration should be given to the reasons for refusal should that be the decision made today and that it wouldn’t be advisable to consider refusal for any additional reasons other than detailed on the previous application.

In turning back to the debate, the following questions were asked;

 What statistical info has been used in order for them to declare that the project is needed?  Numerous non compliances with the local plan and the new NPPF  If the Committee approve this app, what happens to the previous applications at appeal?

The Director of Place was then invited by the Chairman to respond to the questions asked. He firstly reiterated the Planning Officers advice that while Members were correct that usual practice is for applications to be considered in its own right, he agreed with the advice the Officer had given stating again that a similar application was rejected with only two grounds of refusal being sighted. That application had now been considered at appeal and the Council has presented its case only the previous week based on these 2 reasons only. He further stated that at this meeting Members were sighting a larger number of other issues that ultimately were not reasons for refusal when the previous application was in front of the Committee. He advised that as a Committee, members were responsible for the decisions they made, and he urged them to carefully consider if the issues being raised now would justify a refusal. The Planning Officer then referred members to page 9 of the agenda where it set out the need for this proposal.

The Debate resumed and discussion moved to a concern over recommendation no.22. where Members were of the opinion this should state prior to commencement of the works and not prior to occupation of the building. The Planning Officer advised that in relation to the basement and the need for air extraction as the Council was requesting that this work was to be completed prior to occupation, he believed that requesting this to be changed to state prior to commencement of works was not needed. As discussion progressed it was clear that Members were in support of changing the wording to recommendation no.22. As this was largely supported by the Committee the Planning Officer made this update to the recommendation during discussion, prior to the vote being taken.

In addressing final comments that had been raised during the debate the Director of Place stated that if Members were of the view that the changes in the application in front of them had not satisfied their previous reasons for refusal on the previous application then these could be reasons for refusal but they would still need to be justified. Responding to a question raised regarding the costs associated with an application going to appeal and being overturned he explained that costs could be

Page 221 Subject to approval at the next Development Control Committee meeting

292

Development Control Committee - 2.12.20

awarded against the Council on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour e.g. unable to justify the decision that had been made. He stated that he believed that the costs would be very significant and reminded Members that they needed to act reasonably and consistently.

The Committee

RESOLVED

that the application be approved subject to conditions

338. LU/214/20/PL - EMPTY SUPERMARKET PREMISES, AVON ROAD, LITTLEHAMPTON BN17 6AT

1 Public Speaker

Susie Stephen - Agent

Demolition of existing buildings & redevelopment comprising 37 No. residential units (Class C3) & flexible commercial floorspace (Class A1, A2, A3 and/or D1) together with the provision of car & cycle parking, landscaping & associated works (resubmission following LU/3/19/PL). This application affects the setting of listed buildings & may affect the character & appearance of the East Street, Littlehampton Conservation Area. This application is in CIL Zone 4 (Zero Rated) as 'flats & other development’. Empty Supermarket Premises, Avon Road, Littlehampton

The Planning Officer updated members on the report update that had been circulated prior to the meeting. He first referred Members to recommendation no.22. that had been added relating to submission for fencing and walling details to ensure that the open space is retained as public space. There was also additional illustrative street scene detailing added to be shown to Members later on. A further change to the north-western corner of block one in relation to the concerns made by the Tree Officer, who is now satisfied with the application. A late representation had also been submitted in an attempt to overcome the reasons of refusal for a previous application. The proposal is for the current building to be demolished and replaced with 3 blocks of flats which amounts to a significant reduction in terms of footprint and height. These two changes alone were felt to be more in keeping with the surrounding area. There were some drainage issues with this area being prone to flooding, it was felt that whilst a sequential test had not be submitted and therefore was in breach of the flood risk policy, the opinion was that there were enough mitigating reasons given as to why flooding of the residential units won’t take place. The area is located in the heart of Littlehampton Town Centre, an area of economic growth.

Members had a full debate on the application where the following comments were made. Would flint be used on both sides of the development and would it be real flint? It was confirmed by the planning officer that it would be real flint used and both sides of the development were planned for. The parking provision for the number of Page 222 Subject to approval at the next Development Control Committee meeting

293

Development Control Committee - 2.12.20

flats was believed to be insufficient by some Members, however others made reference to local transport links being in close proximity to the development. Another Member referenced that electric charging points should be considered within the parking provision as it would be mandatory by 2030 that all vehicles are electric. There were also some concerns raised over the use and location of the flexible retail units within the development, however overall Members were supportive of the application.

The Planning Officer advised that the applicants are still working on the legal agreement so Members should consider delegating approval to the Director of Place once this agreement had been received.

The Committee

RESOLVED

that delegated authority be given to the Director of Place to:

a. Authorise the execution and completion of the Section 106 Agreement; b. Grant planning permission subject to conditions and the Section 106 Agreement

The Chairman then called for an adjournment of the meeting at 16:42pm. The meeting was resumed at 16:52pm.

339. A/76/20/PL - LAND AT DAPPERS LANE, ANGMERING

4 Public Speakers

John Oldfield Susan Bickell – statement read out by a member of the officer team Rob Clarke – Applicant Councillor Mike Clayden – Ward Member

Planning application for 84 No. dwellings, public open space, play areas, associated infrastructure & landscaping. This application affects a Right of Way. Land at Dappers Lane, Angmering.

The Planning Officer presented his report to Members where he advised that this application was the third site in the Angmering North strategic allocation. He explained that they had been working very closely with the Angmering Advisory Group over the last few months. He confirmed that the development complied with the Arun Design Guide. In terms of drainage for the development he explained that there had been a lot of objections from local residents regarding flooding, so a lot of work had been put in to the drainage plans for the area with proposed options including clearing out the ditch on the southern side, a whole new piped link to be fitted through St Margret’s primary

Page 223 Subject to approval at the next Development Control Committee meeting

294

Development Control Committee - 2.12.20

school to Arundel Road. He highlighted to members the 3 possible walking routes for students to get to school safely, he also confirmed that improvements would be made to the footway along Dappers lane to reduce safety risks. He further highlighted that the improvements to the current state of Dappers lane were much needed and made reference to a letter the Chairman had sent to West Sussex County Council on 01/12/2020, raising concerns about the condition of this lane.

The Planning Officer was invited by the chairman to address any comments made by the public speakers. He stated that in terms of the community land trust he confirmed they are on the list, but they do not want all the units they have been offered. In terms of affordable housing 30% provision had been allocated for this. In terms of drainage the conditions are outlined very clearly throughout the report and have been discussed at great length throughout meetings with the advisory groups. The West Sussex County Council, Principal Transport Planner was invited to comment regarding the footway. He stated the reason it was not requested that the application provides the whole length of the foot way was because there is another right of way route and this had been detail within the conditions of the application. He also advised that the main foot way link fell within the land north of Water Lane and therefore until that had been submitted and was available it was not a significant concern for this application.

Members then took part in the debate on the application where there was overall agreement that the improvements that had been made to the application were positive. However, there were concerns still regarding the pedestrian footways for public access. The Planning Officer confirmed that in terms of the footways there was one on the western side that was actually blocked up due to the A27. However, there was an underpass that could be used by pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, so would not impair access. He explained that he had consulted Highways on this matter, and they had confirmed there were no issues with access. The West Sussex County Council, Principal Transport Planner confirmed that existing surveys showed that approximate 60 vehicles a day ignore the Highway Code in this area, and this had been reported and handed over to the Police for further monitoring and enforcement. This development would increase vehicles by 56 a day which was not considered as a severe increase. A further concern was raised regarding the drainage pipe as it was believed that most of the water from the area was heading west towards the black ditch, there were concerns that as the village had flooded in the past so if it was being directed towards the black ditch that would be ideal to minimise any future flooding. This was confirmed as correct by the Engineering Services Manager.

Page 224 Subject to approval at the next Development Control Committee meeting

295

Development Control Committee - 2.12.20

The Committee

RESOLVED

that delegated authority be given to the Director of Place (in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman) to:

a. Authorise the execution and completion of the Section 106 Agreement; b. Grant planning permission subject to conditions and the Section 106 Agreement

340. BR/213/20/PL - FORMER ROYAL BAY CARE HOME, 86 ALDWICK ROAD, BOGNOR REGIS PO21 2PE

2 Public Speakers

Ms Sharples – Councillor for Bognor Town Council Ms Ruth Harding – Agent

Temporary change of use from Care Home (C2) to temporary accommodation for seasonal agricultural workers for 12-month period (re-submission following BR/138/20/PL). This application is in CIL Zone 4 (Zero Rated) as 'other development’. Former Royal Bay Care Home, 86 Aldwick Road, Bognor Regis.

The Planning Officer presented the application to Members he advised that the proposal was for the change of use from a care home to a temporary accommodation for seasonal staff. He referred members to a previous application that had been refused previously advising that the refusal reasons where detailed in the report. He requested that on page 100 of the agenda that this application was for temporary use only. Furthermore, he advised that the need for this proposal was that recently a temporary accommodation site in Chichester, Bracklesham bay had closed increasing the need for accommodation for seasonal workers within the area. He confirmed that transport for the workers would be via the communal bus provided for by the employer, the pickup times are from 6:30am in the mornings and employees have been requested to wait at the inside pickup point so as not to cause any disturbance to neighbours.

The Planning Officer was invited to comment on the points raised by the public speakers, he advised that health can be a material planning consideration, however the pandemic is clearly dealt with by other legislation and therefore should be considered appropriately by Members.

The Members then took part in the debate where the following comments were made:  The growing need for C2 level care facilities had already been discussed earlier on in the meeting and based on that the discussion how can the Committee approve this application?

Page 225 Subject to approval at the next Development Control Committee meeting

296

Development Control Committee - 2.12.20

 If the permission was given to approve this temporary license, when it comes up again, would the Committee not be able to reject it on the basis that it had been approved today?  How would any Complaints be dealt with and if a breach was found who would Police it?

The Planning Officer advised that if any complaints were received, they would be dealt with and investigated. If a breach was found to have be made the Council could issues a breach of conditions. However, he also stated that it would be in the applicant’s favour to ensure that their first 12 months were perfect with no issues reported.

The Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be approved subject to conditions

341. PHASE 1 A29 REALIGNMENT - ADC RESPONSE TO WSCC PLANNING APPLICATION WSCC/052/20 (ADC REF BN/126/20/WS)

(Councillor Mrs Yeates left the meeting prior to this item commencing at 17:48)

Land to the North of Eastergate and North-West of Barnham Arun District Council consultation response to WSCC planning application (WSCC/052/20) for Phase 1 A29 re-alignment scheme.

The Senior Planning Officer provided members with a presentation and advised that West Sussex County Council (WSCC) had now submitted their planning applications for the phase 1 of the A29 realignment. The route of phase 1 was agreed when the Local Plan was adopted. He confirmed that the road network would support around 11,400 new homes and 104,000 square meters of commercial development in the Arun District. Once delivered in full the road will provide the much-needed alleviation to congestion in the local road network. The layout of the scheme comprises two access points, one off Fontwell Avenue and the other off Barnham road with the implementation of a new roundabout with 3 access points. It is anticipated that the application for phase two would be received in mid Spring 2021.

The Committee

RESOLVED

That they endorse the Councils response to West Sussex County Council planning application WSCC/052/20 (ADC REF BN/126/20WS)

Page 226 Subject to approval at the next Development Control Committee meeting

297

Development Control Committee - 2.12.20

342. APPEALS

(Councillor Mrs Pendleton left the meeting prior to this item commencing at 17:58)

The Director of Place advised Members that the Council had received one further appeal in relation to land to east of the royal Norfolk hotel a proposal for the erection of 3 terraced buildings. Ultimately the inspector took the view that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the historic assets and therefore granted the appeal.

The Chairman then thanks the Committee and Officers and wished them a Happy Christmas before bringing the meeting to an end.

(The meeting concluded at 6.05 pm)

Page 227 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 228 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 25 Subject to approval at the next Standards meeting

309

STANDARDS COMMITTEE

3 December 2020 at 6.00 pm

Present: Councillors Bennett (Vice-Chairman, in the Chair), Bower, English, Huntley (Substitute for Coster), Kelly, Stanley (Substitute for Blanchard-Cooper), and Tilbrook.

Independent Persons: Mr J. Thompson, MBE, Mr B. Green, Mrs S. Prail and Mr J. Cooke

[Note: The following Councillors were absent from the meeting during the consideration of the following matters set out in Minutes 362 – Councillors Bower and English.]

352. WELCOME

The Chairman welcomed Members, Independent Persons of the Committee and Officers to what was the second virtual meeting of the Standards Committee.

Having explained, the virtual meeting procedure rules in place, the following introductions were made by the Committee Services Manager:

Mr N Bennett – Previous Acting Monitoring Officer Mr S Agutu – Interim Monitoring Officer Mr P Hoey – Hoey Ainscough Associates Ltd

353. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Edwards (Chairman), Blanchard-Cooper, and Coster.

354. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no Declarations of Interest made.

355. MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 24 September 2020 were approved by the Committee as a correct record and would be signed by the Chairman as soon as possible following the Council’s resumption of normal working.

Page 229 Subject to approval at the next Standards meeting

310

Standards - 3.12.20

356. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION - MODEL MEMBER CODE OF CONDUCT

Mr Hoey explained his connection with the Council in terms of being responsible for managing Code of Conduct complaints and his work being commissioned by the Local Government Association (LGA) to draw up a new Model Code of Conduct.

The Committee was advised by Mr Hoey that further work had progressed on the LGA’s Model Code and that a final submission had been presented to the LGA Board earlier in the day meaning that a final Code would be published imminently.

Mr Hoey suggested that the Code, when published, be presented to the Committee at its next meeting in February 2021 so that the Committee could consider whether to recommend it onto Full Council for adoption in March 2021.

Following some discussion,

The Committee

RESOLVED - That

1) To note progress with the Draft Model Code; and 2) Instruct the Monitoring Officer to bring a further report to the Standards Committee once the final version of the Model Code is published.

357. STANDARDS RECOMMENDATIONS PENDING NEW MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT

The Committee was advised that the Council had received a request from the Local Government Association (LGA) to advise on its progress against the 15 recommendations that emerged from the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s (CSPL) recent review of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards. It was recognised that some of these recommendations would need some legislative changes, which the CSPL were working on.

The majority of the 15 recommendations of best practice were mostly being complied with, and some were awaiting issue of new Model Code or needed the Committee to decide whether current reporting arrangements were sufficient at this Council. Mr Hoey advised the Committee that most of the recommendations would be incorporated into the anticipated Model Code of Conduct.

In discussing the 15 recommendations, some points of clarification were raised with regard to Recommendations 1 and 15. In relation to Recommendation 1, it was felt that a clear definition of bullying and harassment was required otherwise this could be confused with vigorous debate. Mr Bennett reminded Members of information recently issued to all Councillors following behaviour at recent Full Council meetings and stated Page 230 Subject to approval at the next Standards meeting

311

Standards - 3.12.20 that he understood that there would be further defining of the terms. Mr Hoey explained that consideration had been given to the length and detail of a Model Code, looking at other examples across the country. In considering this, the decision was to keep to a shorter version to make it easier to manage and using the ACAS definition of ‘bullying’. The LGA was looking to provide some supporting guidance to be issued alongside of the Code which would provide further detail – this was anticipated to be released in March 2021.

Clarification was sought on the Council’s process and the reporting of concerns about conduct as suggested at Recommendation 15 regarding senior officers discussing complaints with Group Leaders. Mr Bennett advised that his understanding, from a discussion with the Chief Executive, was that there would be some reporting mechanism in place in the future.

Returning to the concerns raised with regard to the definition of bullying at Recommendation 1, as this was recognised as an issue currently present within the Council, there was concern expressed that, potentially, there could be a large time delay between the Model Code being published and subsequently being adopted. Mr Bennett responded that there was commonly gaps between publication and adoption, and also decisions had to feed into agreed calendars of meetings. This, however, would not prevent continued oversight of complaints. The Committee Services Manager provided reassurance to Members by confirming that the Minutes and any recommendations from 18 February meeting of the Committee would be presented to the Full Council meeting on 17 March 2021 and so would be addressed quickly.

Returning to the concerns raised in relation to Recommendation 15, Mr Agutu commented that the Council already had a strong mechanism in place reporting concerns via its Standards Committee, attended by Senior Officers and Independent Persons, and so did not see the need for a further tier of reporting complaints. Mr Bennett explained that this was not intended to replace the Standards Committee process, but to ensure that there was an opportunity for Political Group Leaders to be involved in supporting and dealing with conduct matters outside of the formal complaint investigation process. This would act as a ‘filtering’ process and any serious complaints would still be referred to the Standards Committee for consideration.

A concern was expressed about the quality of Code of Conduct training provided to Members following their election, and that recent Council meetings had demonstrated a lack of understanding and so he requested further training to be provided.

Following further debate, Councillor English proposed that the CSPL Recommendation 15 be removed from the suite of recommendations included at Recommendation 2 of the report. This was seconded by Councillor Bower.

On this amendment being put to the vote it was declared LOST.

Page 231 Subject to approval at the next Standards meeting

312

Standards - 3.12.20

The Committee then

RESOLVED - That

(1) To note the report from the Committee for Standards in Public Life and this Council’s responses to the recommendations made within the report be noted; and

(2) It be agreed to incorporate the recommendations into the review of the Local Assessment Procedure.

358. REVIEW OF LOCAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE

At its meeting held on 24 September 2020, the Committee asked Hoey Ainscough Associates Ltd to return to this meeting with a review of the Local Assessment Procedure to enable the Committee to fully consider any recommendations for amendments, following the identification of some anomalies within the existing Procedure.

Mr Hoey explained that the Council’s existing Procedure was broadly in line with that of other local authorities, but that the work of Hoey Ainscough Associates Ltd was to improve the process and address any legal compliance.

Mr Hoey was asked to address the recommendations in his report, for the benefit of the Committee. Most recommendations related to best practice, but some were necessary to bring the Procedure in line with current legislation.

In discussing the recommendations (a) to (l) set out in the appendix to the report, a steer was required from the Committee in relation to the following recommendations as set out below:

(h) That the Committee consider whether political proportionality should apply to a Hearings Panel; and (k) That the Committee consider whether it wishes to retain an appeals mechanism on a Panel’s decision

Most Members of the Committee agreed that the right for Panels to have political proportionality should be waived. It was explained further by Mr Hoey that, by law, Committees were required to adhere to political proportionality, but if the Committee wished to abandon this requirement for a Hearings Panel, it should be formally written into the process. Mr Hoey also added that Independent Persons were legally forbidden to cast votes and take part in decisions, only to offer independence advice, therefore should not be included in a Panel’s private deliberations when deciding on the outcome of a complaint Hearing. This was accepted.

Page 232 Subject to approval at the next Standards meeting

313

Standards - 3.12.20

Turning debate to Recommendation (K), the majority of Councillors agreed that the Local Assessment Procedure should not retain an appeals mechanism on Panel’s decisions and that this, if approved, by the Committee should be written into the revised procedures to be considered at the Committee’s next meeting.

The Chairman confirmed that he wished to take a separate vote on each of the Recommendations (h) and (k) – which were:

For Recommendation (h) that political balance be waived for Hearings Panels. On this being put to the vote it was declared CARRIED.

For Recommendation (k) that an appeals mechanism be removed from the Procedure. On this being put to the vote it was declared CARRIED.

Having had both recommendations approved, it was explained that these would be implemented into a new Arun Local Assessment Procedure for new complaints coming forward and still needed to be approved when the whole procedure would be presented to the next meeting of the Committee.

The Chairman then returned to the substantive recommendations and the Committee

RESOLVED – That

(1) The proposed amendments to the Local Assessment Procedure, as reported by Hoey Ainscough Associates Ltd and as amended at the meeting in respect of Recommendations (h) and (k) be approved; and

(2) Hoey Ainscough Associates be instructed to finalise a revised Local Assessment Procedure to be presented to the next meeting of the Standards Committee for final approval.

359. SOCIAL MEDIA GUIDANCE FOR COUNCILLORS

A draft Guidance document had been considered at the last meeting of the Committee on 24 September 2020 and recommendations to adopt a revised Social Media Guidance for Councillors had been made to Cabinet on 19 October 2020, replacing the previous version endorsed by Cabinet on 31 May 2016.

Although Cabinet had broadly supported the guidance, non-Cabinet Councillors raised some concerns about the content of the document. Cabinet then resolved to refer the Guidance back to this meeting of the Standards Committee for further discussion.

Page 233 Subject to approval at the next Standards meeting

314

Standards - 3.12.20

Mr Hoey referred to the list of “do’s and don’ts” in the draft Guidance document, which had been lifted from the existing Guidance document. This was the element that had been mostly challenged at Cabinet. It was the view of some Councillors that this may lead to debate being disadvantaged and would prefer not to have this entire list included in the document.

Committee questioned the item relating to criticism of Councillors and Officers. Mr Hoey referred to a definition supported by the LGA, as follows “Do not misquote, misrepresent or make personal criticisms of Councillors and Officers” which could be incorporated into the Guidance, which was then broadly supported by the Committee.

With regard to the ‘do not’ point regarding securing a benefit, Mr Hoey suggested replicating the words used in the Code of Conduct so that this line would now read “do not try to secure an improper benefit for yourself or disadvantage others improperly”.

Further discussion took place as to whether another ‘Do Not’ item should be added to cover ‘matters that had not been concluded at meetings, in view of the current situation with the recent Full Council meeting having taken place over three separate dates and as it had still not concluded all of its business. Comments were then made regarding inflammatory comments and concerns expressed that this could be subjective. Mr Hoey emphasised that this document was only guidance and had no legal weight.

Following further debate, the Committee agreed to have the wording altered to the penultimate Do Not item to read as follows “do not try to secure an improper benefit for yourself or disadvantage others improperly”.

The Committee then, as it was content with all other parts of the guidance,

RECOMMEND TO CABINET – that

1) The new Social Media Guidance for Councillors, as amended at the meeting, be endorsed, replacing the previous version endorsed by Cabinet on 31 May 2016; and

2) To authorise the Acting Monitoring Officer to make any consequential changes arising from the adoption of a new Members Code of Conduct.

360. REGISTER OF COMPLAINTS

In presenting this report, the Committee were advised of any updates on Code of Conduct complaints received or completed since the last meeting.

Page 234 Subject to approval at the next Standards meeting

315

Standards - 3.12.20

The Committee then

RESOLVED

That the Register of Complaints against Councillors and progress of any outstanding complaints be noted.

361. EXEMPT INFORMATION

The Committee

RESOLVED

That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and accredited representatives of newspapers be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it may involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act by virtue of the paragraph specified against the item.

362. REGISTER OF ASSESSMENTS OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST COUNCILLORS [EXEMPT - PARAGRAPH 1 - INFORMATION RELATING TO ANY INDIVIDUAL]

Councillors English and Bower declared Personal Interests at the commencement of this item due to them both being complainants involved in complaint cases.

Councillor English briefed the Committee on his experience with a request for a review of an Assessment Panel decision. Having made his statement, Councillor English then left the meeting for the remainder of this item and did not take part in any debate or vote on this item. Councillor Bower then left the meeting having declared his interest in this item.

Mr Bennett presented this report and also provided verbal updates on a number of the cases included in the register.

Following a brief discussion, the Committee

RESOLVED

That the Register of Complaints against Councillors be noted

(The meeting concluded at 9.00 pm)

Page 235 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 236 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 26 Subject to approval at the next Chief Executive's Remuneration Committee meeting

317

CHIEF EXECUTIVE'S REMUNERATION COMMITTEE

8 December 2020 at 6.00 pm

Present: Councillors Mrs Gregory (Chairman), Charles, Clayden, Dixon and Tilbrook (Substitute for Bennett)

363. WELCOME

The Chairman welcomed Members and Officers to the first virtual meeting of the Chief Executive’s Remuneration Committee and she provided a brief summary of how the meeting would be conducted and the protocol that would be followed and how any break in the proceedings due to technical difficulties would be managed.

364. APOLOGY FOR ABSENCE

An Apology for Absence had been received from Councillor Bennett.

365. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no Declarations of Interest made.

366. MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 18 December 2019 were approved by the Committee as a correct record and the Chairman confirmed that she would sign these at her earliest opportunity when normal business resumed.

367. CHIEF EXECUTIVE REMUNERATION - 2020/21

The Chairman invited the Group Head of Corporate Support to present this item. The Committee therefore received a report summarising the information that it needed to consider in order to make recommendations on the remuneration of the Chief Executive for 2020/21 to Full Council.

The report provided information on current remuneration; the pay formula; salary comparisons; and an update on national pay negotiations.

The Group Head of Corporate Support confirmed that following the Chief Executive’s Appraisal Panel held on 2 November 2020, the Leader of the Council had written to the Chief Executive confirming that the Appraisal Panel had agreed that his performance over the last year had achieved an appraisal score. This letter along with the performance bands agreed by the Appraisal Panel and the Chief Executive’s targets set for 2019/20 had been provided to the Committee as Exempt items as they were

Page 237 Subject to approval at the next Chief Executive's Remuneration Committee meeting

318

Chief Executive's Remuneration Committee - 8.12.20

personal to the individual [the Chief Executive] and so confidential to Members of the Committee only.

It was explained to the Committee that a further paper from the Chief Executive outlining some points for the Committee to take into consideration would be shared but that this particular item and the letter from the Leader of the Council confirming the appraisal scores would need to be discussed in Exempt business as both items contained information that was confidential.

The Committee then asked questions about the pay award received by staff in 2020 and proposals for 2021.

The Committee then agreed that it needed to move into Exempt business so that it could discuss the results of the Chief Executive’s appraisal and scoring so that it could come to a view and agree upon a suitable recommendation for Full Council.

368. EXEMPT INFORMATION

The Committee

RESOLVED

That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and accredited representatives of newspapers be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it may involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act by virtue of the paragraph specified against the item.

369. CHIEF EXECUTIVE'S REMUNERATION - 2020-21 - CONFIDENTIAL BACKGROUND PAPERS [PARAGRAPH 1 - INFORMATION RELATING TO ANY INDIVIDUAL}

The Committee received a further paper from the Chief Executive outlining some points for the Committee to take into consideration and a letter from the Leader of the council confirming that the Appraisal Panel had agreed that the Chief Executive’s performance over the last year had achieved an average appraisal score of 3, this equated to a percentage increase in salary of 2 per cent.

The Committee then turned its attention to the performance bands set by the Appraisal Panel and the outcome of the Chief Executive’s Appraisal so that it could understand what this might mean in terms of setting a percentage pay award for the Chief Executive.

Page 238 Subject to approval at the next Chief Executive's Remuneration Committee meeting

319

Chief Executive's Remuneration Committee - 8.12.20

Following some further discussion, Councillor Clayden stated that based on past deliberations and the outcome of the Appraisal he could see that the Chief Executive had achieved good performance for 2019/20 resulting in him being awarded a scoring of 3 – this equated to a 2% pay award. Councillor Clayden therefore proposed that this be the level of remuneration set and put forward to Full Council for approval and this was seconded by Councillor Charles.

The Committee unanimously agreed that the performance related pay should be 2% and that in line with what had been resolved at Full Council on 10 January 2018, this be paid from 3 October 2020.

The Committee therefore

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL

That following the Chief Executive’s Appraisal held on 2 November 2020, the level of performance related pay for 2020/21 be 2%, with this being paid from 3 October 2020.

370. COMPLIMENTS OF THE SEASON

The Chairman wished everyone present a very Merry Christmas and an easier New Year.

(The meeting concluded at 6.32 pm)

Page 239 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 240 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 27 Subject to approval at the next Environment & Leisure Working Group meeting

9

ENVIRONMENT & LEISURE WORKING GROUP

10 December 2020 at 6.00 pm

Present: Councillors Mrs Warr (Chairman), Brooks (Vice-Chair), Bicknell, Mrs Catterson, Clayden, Dixon, Gunner, Huntley and Ms Thurston

Councillors Mrs Staniforth and Mrs Yeates were also in attendance for all or part of the meeting.

Apologies: Councillors Jones and Kelly

17. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest made.

18. MINUTES

The Minutes of the Environment and Leisure Working Group meeting held on 3 September 2020 were approved and agreement was given to allow the Chairman to sign the minutes as soon as practicably possible.

19. ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA THAT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MEETING IS OF THE OPINION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A MATTER OF URGENCY BY REASON OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

The Chairman advised the Members of the Working Group that there was to be a change of order to the agenda. Agenda Item 7 – Safer Arun Partnership review would now be heard first tonight as we have Chief Inspector Carter in attendance for this item. So, this item will now become Agenda Item number 5 and the Place St Maur update will move to Agenda Item number 7.

20. SAFER ARUN PARTNERSHIP REVIEW

The Community Safety Officer introduced her report to the Working Group. She referred members to the strategic priorities and explained that the partnership existed with the object to reduce crime across the district and involved working closely with many other partnership groups from external organisations. She advised that Members had been provided with the full report at Appendix B and it covered how the partnership had performed against those targets. Furthermore, Appendix C covered case studies that demonstrated the wide working variety across the partnerships. She explained that the strategic intelligence was a statutory requirement and helped to decide the priorities for the partnership for the following year. She then drew members attention to section 1. 4 of the report, the crime statistics, she explained that there had been a 10% total increase in crime for 2019/20 vs 2018/19. In section 1.4.2 of the report it outlined the different ways that crime was measured. She did confirm to members that the risk and likelihood of becoming a victim of crime in Arun did remain low.

Page 241 Subject to approval at the next Environment & Leisure Working Group meeting

10

Environment & Leisure Working Group - 10.12.20

There were a number of questions then asked by Members and these have been summarised below;

 Cllr Dixon raised his concerns that overall crime had gone up significantly in the year to 31 March 2020 Pre-Corona virus. It was asked as how do we compare with other Districts in West Sussex, were we average, had we got bigger problems than other Districts or lesser problems? Chief Inspector (CI) Carter advised that the headline figures across the Sussex area including Brighton & Hove Unitary authority crime rose by just under 9%, the increase seen in Arun was slightly higher but not disproportionate. There were issues around social deprivation and probably behaviour driven by addiction i.e. stealing to feed a ‘habit’. Together with the rest of the partnership we are tackling these individuals, but the challenge is what happens to the after care of these people after sentence or prison time.  Cllr Gunner queried the figures in the report under 1.4.2 - an increase from 67 crimes to 76 was not a 10% increase it was actually a 13.5% increase. In terms of the actual strategic intelligence assessment I noted with interest it said that the five objectives for the year for 2019/2020 were serious violence, serious organised crime, community resilience, improving public confidence and tackling anti-social behaviour. How successful do you believe you have been in achieving all five of those priorities? The Community Safety Officer explained that these were very difficult areas to have sustained reductions in although it is our intention, they are very complex areas. Serious violence is made up of several different crime types some are to do with County Lines, some associated with domestic abuse. Serious violence feeds into serious & organised crime that feeds into community resilience so for a longer-term approach we need to work with the community to help educate them, so they are able to resist and defend themselves from exploitation. Crime statistics are only one way to measure what the Partnership does and can be highly variable and fluctuate in part on people’s willingness to report.  Cllr Gunner stated that reply did not answer his question. He went onto say that when you look at the reports, serious violence and serious crime have increased. Anti-social behaviour, he accepted there had been a decline in referrals from housing providers but what he did not understand was why the report and recommendations were not tougher based on the results of these statistics? What is the yard stick, measures of success? CI Carter responded that what we were talking about with the Arun Safer Partnership is how the partnership is working to tackle those issues. The reporting is down to a number of influencing factors, if we take the drug offences, the way the crime is recorded is set within rules from the Home Office. Drug offences are only recorded at the point of detection so the more active we are as a police service, in proactively targeting people who are using or dealing drugs the higher the number that will be. If we don’t deal with it then it will be a lower number. Similarly, in sexual offences there had been a massive drive over the last 3 years to really support and encourage the reporting of offences many of which are historic. Cllr Gunner stated that he felt the last response showed that the Partnership had limited powers.

Page 242 Subject to approval at the next Environment & Leisure Working Group meeting

11

Environment & Leisure Working Group - 10.12.20

 Cllr Bicknell raised concerns about theft from shops and asked if more detailed information regarding the 50% increase in Arun was available? He also made comment that theft of motor vehicles was up by 30% and were any of these vehicles showing up for use in raids? CI Carter responded that a lot of shoplifting is driven by substance addiction, some was down to people who could not afford food and social deprivation. In respect of the theft of motor vehicles, a high number of these were motorbikes and scooters which were easy to steal and require minimal ‘fencing’ activity.  Cllr Ms Thurston asked what connections could be made for funding for you as you had been working a lot on drug issues in Bognor? Do you think if you had more resources you could do more? And in terms of County Lines, I realise this must be a national priority, but do you think you are having enough help from Central Government to stop drugs coming into our area? The community Safety Officer responded if we had more resources our capacity to respond would be greater. One of things we were looking at doing was to provide more support for those who are vulnerable and victims of cuckooing. In respect to county lines, this had been linked to child exploitation. We get very good support from the Home Office. There is a reinvigoration of looking at a serious violence duty for safety community partnerships. We received additional funding to assist with serious violence within Arun.  Cllr Clayden stated that the main thing that worried him was violent crime. Could our Cabinet Member for Community Wellbeing, who was also a member of the Police and Crime Panel give us feedback from the panel, what was happening to get these figures down? Cllr Yeates responded there had been a drive towards higher funding in the last year and the continuing recruitment of police officers. The figures relate to the year when this was only just beginning. We had just funded the digital shop radios in Littlehampton. The BID in Bognor run a similar thing. This year had been a hard one to judge how things were progressing. Cllr Clayden responded to say this didn’t answer the question and although it was good to see the shop support radio system, the main worry was violent crime. We need to send a message back to the police commissioner that this was pre Covid and if these figures stay the same, we have a problem. CI Carter explained that violent crime included 9 different offence categories including dog bites and malicious communications. When we look at what people might commonly think of violent crime, 1368 offences were assault without injury because the legal definition of assault is an apprehension without violence you don’t actually need to have any physical contact to be assaulted, legally speaking that is a battering. My starting point is that we shouldn’t have any crime and we should always be challenging ourselves to find out as to why there is criminality at any level. One statistic around violent crime was the number that relates to domestic abuse, if we are talking about physical assault 41% of assaults in Arun happen behind closed doors, they are domestic abuse and if we take the bigger definition of violent crimes its drops to 36% but 36% of 5302 crimes is an awful lot and this is where a partnership has a clear role to play. The partnership and the Council as a whole, need to think about how we get in front of this abuse and reduce it. During the first lockdown we set up

Page 243 Subject to approval at the next Environment & Leisure Working Group meeting

12

Environment & Leisure Working Group - 10.12.20

surgeries at supermarkets as people were encouraged to shop alone to be able to talk about domestic abuse without fear of their partner being with them. Cllr Clayden asked about government funding, this had resulted directly in ‘Operation Safety’ which was a National project trying to tackle the carrying of weapons.  Cllr Brooks said although limitations had been put on machines in betting shops and just this week they had raised the age for scratch cards and the lottery to 18, were people stealing to fund their gambling habits? The Community Safety Officer commented that this is not something that had been raised across the Boroughs and would be dealt with by licensing. CI Jon Carter advised that he sits on a gambling harm group within Sussex Police who had discussed this. If people are committing crime to cover gambling debts it is hard to identify. The Gambling Commission was concerned about increases in problematic gambling therefore the new measures that had been put in place with age limits and regarding advertising.

The Chairman then, with permission of all Members from the Working Group took questions from non-Working Group Members where it was clarified that the recommendations from this report would be presented at the next Cabinet meeting in January 2021 and the n would feed into Full Council in March 2021.

The Working Group

RECOMMEND TO CABINET:

1) The work of the Safer Arun Partnership is endorsed and the importance of partnership working in contributing to reducing anti- social behaviour and addressing crime and disorder in Arun is recognised. 2) Recognition is given to the work of the Safer Arun Partnership in contributing to the delivery of the Council’s strategic priority “supporting you if you need help”.

21. TREE PLANTING STRATEGY

The Environmental Services and Strategy Manager covered the background of his report and explained to Members that tree planting projects have an important part to play in terms of helping to tackle climate change. He advised that the team wanted this strategy to be truly collaborative. The Tree Officer then explained the aims and objectives of the strategy to Members, he explained that it was important to leave a legacy that would be highly visible over time. The 10-year action plan over the course of 90 sites would enable the team to identify the best opportunity for tree planting. He advised that planting schemes do have a very high mortality rate and the plan was to build into the action plan a strategy to ensure high survival rates as well as ensuring that the right tree, was in the right place. In summing up he stated that careful planning and local knowledge would be invaluable to the strategy. Page 244 Subject to approval at the next Environment & Leisure Working Group meeting

13

Environment & Leisure Working Group - 10.12.20

There were a number of questions asked by the Working Group and these are detailed below:

 Cllr Gunner commented that he hoped to see more urban and suburban tree planting and that the report did not constitute a strategy. He felt uncomfortable being asked to recommend to Cabinet a strategy that had not been seen. The Environmental Services and Strategy Manager advised that this report sought to agree the next steps for the development of a full strategy which at present is in draft form. The planting plan will be one of the key elements to the full strategy.  Cllr Thurston asked if more information about where the first few projects would be started and how the Parish Councils would be involved? In response to Cllr Gunner, Cllr Ms Thurston said roadside trees were a West Sussex County Council (WSCC) project and they had just released the West Sussex Tree Plan which would involve a West Sussex Tree Forum. The Environmental Services and Strategy Manager stated that if the working group required an updated report within the next 12 months that this could done.  Cllr Brooks asked in terms of disease, when we plant the right tree in the right place do, we plant a mixture of species in case of disease or pest attacks? He also asked if the Officers could take into consideration preserving larger open areas for events. The Tree Officer explained that in terms of inappropriate placement of trees impacting on events, that this was the reason why the strategy was being created to look at the correct placement of trees. Regarding pest and disease resilience, species diversity of the stock of trees was key to the strategy.

Further discussion was had by members in relation to the recommendation in the report, a proposal to amend the wording was put by Councillor Dixon and seconded by Councillor Ms Thurston that read;

To recommend to Cabinet that Arun the creation of a proposed Tree Planting Strategy 2021-2031 and the full development of an associated planting plan, based on the principles outlined in this report

On debating this proposal Members were quickly in agreement that the wording for the recommendation did need strengthening, several suggestions of different wording were provided by members, it was Councillor Gunner’s proposal of;

‘To recommend to Cabinet that Arun endorses the principals outlined in this report which will form the basis of tree planting strategy 2021 to 2031 and an associated planting plan which will both be presented to the relevant committee before being approved’.

That was favoured by the Working Group, at this stage Councillor Dixon and Ms Thurston withdrew their original proposal.

Page 245 Subject to approval at the next Environment & Leisure Working Group meeting

14

Environment & Leisure Working Group - 10.12.20

The Working Group

RECOMMEND TO CABINET:

1) To recommend to Cabinet that Arun endorses the principals outlined in this report which will form the basis of tree planting strategy 2021 to 2031 and an associated planting plan which will both be presented to the relevant committee before being approved’

22. PLACE ST MAUR

The Principal Landscape Officer introduced her report and provided the Working Group with an update on the plans for Place St Maur in Bognor Regis.

There were a number of questions raised by the Working Group these are detailed below:

 Cllr Dixon expressed his concerns that the whole project is being based around the ice rink which takes up the whole of Place St Maur, therefore leaving no opportunity for above the surface infrastructure. He asked if the Ice Rink could be moved The Esplanade meaning Place St Maur could have trees, a central feature, raised beds, above the surface water features etc. The Principal Landscape Officer advised that it was very early stages in the design and the design team were looking at Place St Maur as being a very flexible area.  Cllr Bicknell commented that the idea of this project was to link the town, seafront and the Regis Centre. Now the Regis centre project had been delayed, if we go forward with the Place St Maur scheme, we might lose the ability to link the three areas in the future. Regarding the cooling system for the ice rink that could be put underground and therefore other retail outlets could go above and this would also reduce the noise from it. He also queried the documented project team structure within the report. The Principal Landscape Officer confirmed that the client project manager was herself, and she would be overseeing the day to day delivery of the project and reporting to the project board on a regular basis, not daily. The project board will meet every few weeks and sign off milestones, this followed the process used for the delivery of the Littlehampton Wave project.

The Chairman then, with permission of the Working Group allowed questions from non-Working Group Members, where it was raised that there was confusion as to why these updates had not also been taken to the Bognor Regis Regeneration Committee. The Director of Services advised that the route for the project had been approved by Cabinet and that this point had also already been raised at the last Full Council Meeting in November 2020, where the confirmation was again provided that the route for this project had been approved by Cabinet and that the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhood Services, Councillor Mrs Staniforth, was overseeing the scheme. Also, at this time it was supported by the Cabinet Member for Technical Services and the Chairman of the Bognor Regeneration Committee, Councillor Stanley, that he was also in support of the project updates to be reported into this Working Group.

Page 246 Subject to approval at the next Environment & Leisure Working Group meeting

15

Environment & Leisure Working Group - 10.12.20

There were also further comments on the public consultation opportunity for the project, where it was confirmed by the Principal Landscape Officer that it would be widely advertised, and the details of the consultation could be circulated to members.

In responses to comments made about the lack of regeneration committee meetings, it was also confirmed by the Committee Services Manager that there was ongoing consultation with both the Chairman of the Bognor Regis Regeneration Committee and the Littlehampton Regeneration Committee to see if there would be further meetings of both these Committees in March 2021, however no confirmation could be given at this time as the decision was yet to be made.

The Working Group noted the update.

23. CLIMATE CHANGE UPDATE

The Group Head of Community Wellbeing and Group Head of Neighbourhood Services presented an update together with a power point presentation.

There were a number of questions asked by the Working Group these are detailed below:

. Cllr Clayden said it would be useful to know how much carbon Arun, as an organisation consumes and how that has changed. . Cllr Thurston wanted to highlight that we are in a national and global emergency and everybody, Officers, Councillors and the public need to buy into this, in a big way. We need targets and regular reports once the new Environment and Sustainability Manager joins Arun together with regular reporting available to the public against our targets. . Cllr Brooks stated the importance of the Planning department and inconsistencies in planning allowances needed to be looked at. He also stated that he was surprised that new homes would not be connected to the gas network after 2025 and if this was the case could Planning think about new housing estates being linked together so there is an opportunity for joint heating and cooling. . Cllr Huntley said in respect of new builds, more pressure should be put onto developers to include geothermal heat pumps, solar panels, recycling of rainwater and grey water and all kinds of carbon saving strategies. . Cllr Bicknell said he believed that members of the Planning committee think that composite window frames are wooden, but they are in fact plastic. He stated his concern about gas supply being stopped as people will become reliant on the electric grid system. He also felt that plans should incorporate more charging points for electric vehicles. . Cllr Thurston said that leading on from what others have said about planning that this is what she meant about being joined up across the whole Council and in planning they were looking at revisiting the Local Plan to bring in items that the Government are asking for. She also stated that the Council could also look at having more green technology within Arun to train people to fit new boilers and air source heat pumps.

Page 247 Subject to approval at the next Environment & Leisure Working Group meeting

16

Environment & Leisure Working Group - 10.12.20

. Cllr Clayden asked why we had recently installed gas into our housing stock when really the Council should have gone for some form of heat pump and felt this was a rather retrograde step. The Director of Services clarified that the Warm Homes Grant awarded was for gas heating systems only.

The Director of Services advised that this report was for noting and therefore did not need amending. The report was to reassure Members of what the Council had been doing and what we needed to be doing for the Climate Emergency via a Carbon Audit and Carbon Budgeting. She confirmed that the Council would the public aware and do regular reports to the Committee.

The Working Group then noted this report.

24. REPORT BACK FROM CABINET/FULL COUNCIL

The Working Group noted the verbal update provided by the Chairman.

25. WORK PROGRAMME 2020/21

The Group Head of Neighbourhood Services and the Group Head of Community Wellbeing presented the Work Programme for 2020/21 to the Working Group.

. The Work Programme attached to the agenda was emailed to Members on 16 November 2021 which addressed the requests that were put forward at the last Working Group meeting.

. Programme for March meeting includes: o Place St Maur o Enforcement Contract Update o Flooding – Roger Spencer, Engineering Manager will be attending the meeting o Wellbeing Review – standing Annual item o Local Community Network . At the bottom of the report it was noted that the various other reports would be coming forward under the new Committee Structure meetings including o Place St Maur update o Littlehampton Keystone Project o Pollution – 2 reports from Nat Slade, Group Head of Technical Services

. Cllr Gunner referred to the minutes of last meeting and stated that the updated Work Programme did not address all of the concerns he raised at the last meeting, i.e. Coast & Foreshores, Parks & Open Spaces, Dog Fouling, Pollutions, Cycling and Cllr Dixon raised Southern Water. He asked for an explanation where the responses to these suggestions were. The Group Head of Neighbourhood Services explained that it was his understanding that all suggestions had been covered. The reports on climate change, parks and open spaces included climate change and initiatives on tree planting. If there were more specific requests, then these could be looked at. Dog fouling and Page 248 Subject to approval at the next Environment & Leisure Working Group meeting

17

Environment & Leisure Working Group - 10.12.20

enforcement are part of the East Hants project, and this report, together with Pollution will be covered by the reports from the Group Head of Technical Services. Recycling is something that we haven’t specifically identified but would be coming forward at part of the Cleansing Contract Review which would be going to the Overview Select Committee in March 2021. . Cllr Thurston requested the biodiversity plan that was passed by Full Council in late summer for a plan which was easily accessible for the public. The Director of Services advised that we are very happy to do work on any of these subjects but to produce the biodiversity work is an officer capacity issue at present. . Cllr Dixon commented Southern Water are a statutory consultee. Every planning application they confirm the work can be done but they are discharging into Pagham harbour and being fined. Can Southern Water be added to the work programme? The Director of Services said if the Working Group wished to invite Southern Water to a future meeting then the questions can be put forward. The Committee Services Manager advised that a request for Southern Water was made by the Overview Select Committee not at this Working Group. Cllr Dixon felt a way forward was that officers give a summary of Southern Waters contributions over the last two years, the number of planning applications that they have agreed and the breaches they have made in Pagham Harbour etc. Southern Water could then be invited to discuss. The Director of Services advised that the team present are not the team to complete this work and would be a Planning Officer role. She advised that she would, explore this request with the Group Head of Technical Services and The Director of Place to see if this would be something that the team could assist with. Cllr Bicknell advised that the information regarding Southern Water discharges could be obtained from the Environment Agency. . Cllr Gunner asked for confirmation that the Working Group would amend the Work Programme tonight to include Southern Water for the meeting in March? He also asked for the outcome of those discussions that took place on his and Cllr Staniforth suggestions six months ago. The Director of Services advised that she believed Cllr Mrs Staniforth received the response and the answer from the Group Head of Neighbourhood Services and that was what we had incorporated into the Work Programme. She then requested for Cllr Gunner to contact her outside of the meeting for any further discussion on the matter and she would do her best to assist.

It was agreed that Sothern Water would be added to the work programme subject to confirmation from them accepting the invite to attend a meeting with the Working Group.

The Working Group then agreed to note the update provided.

(The meeting concluded at 10:04pm)

Page 249 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 250 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 28 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

321

CABINET

14 December 2020 at 5.00 pm

Present: Councillors Dr Walsh (Chairman), Oppler (Vice-Chairman), Coster, Mrs Gregory, Lury, Stanley, Mrs Staniforth and Mrs Yeates

Councillors Bennett, Bicknell, Bower, Charles, Clayden, Dendle, English, Gunner, Mrs Pendleton and Roberts were also in attendance for all or part of the meeting.

371. WELCOME

The Chairman welcomed Members, members of the public and Officers to what was the eighth virtual meeting of Cabinet. He provided a brief summary of how the meeting would be conducted and the protocol that would be followed and how any break in the proceedings due to technical difficulties would be managed.

372. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no Declarations of Interest made.

373. QUESTION TIME

The Chairman confirmed that no questions had been submitted for this meeting.

374. URGENT BUSINESS - LITTLEHAMPTON HARBOUR BOARD

The Chairman confirmed that there was one urgent item to consider and he invited the Interim Monitoring Officer to introduce it.

It was explained that an extraordinary situation had occurred earlier in the day where the Littlehampton Harbour Board had sought to exclude an Arun representative from attending its meeting held that morning as that Outside Body appointment had not been made by Full Council. This had been due to an extraordinarily bad reading of the Council’s Constitution where it had been thought that only Full Council had authority to appoint its representatives to the Board. The Interim Monitoring Officer confirmed that this was an Executive function not a Full Council function and that following his intervention as Monitoring Officer in explaining how the Council’s Constitution should be read, only then had the Board allowed the Council’s representative to attend the meeting, by which time he had missed a significant part of that meeting.

The Interim Monitoring Officer confirmed that the purpose of raising this matter urgently was to ask Cabinet to confirm that the Council’s representative filling what had been a vacant seat on the Littlehampton Harbour Board was Councillor Dr Walsh and that this appointment was being validly made as an Executive confirmation and not a Full Council confirmation.

Page 251 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

322

Cabinet - 14.12.20

The Cabinet then

RESOLVED

That it be noted that Councillor Dr Walsh be confirmed as this Council’s nominated Outside Body representative on the Littlehampton Harbour Board, filling the current vacant seat.

The Cabinet confirmed its decision as per Decision Notice C/036/14122020, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of the Minutes.

375. MINUTES

The minutes from the meeting of Cabinet held on 16 November 2020 were approved as a correct by Cabinet. The Chairman confirmed that these would be signed at the earliest opportunity to him.

376. BUDGET VARIATION REPORTS

There were no matters discussed.

377. FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO LEISURE OPERATING CONTRACT

The Cabinet Member for Community Wellbeing, Councillor Mrs Yeates, introduced this item and stated that Members were aware that as a Council, Arun had been providing support for the Leisure Operating Contract since 21 March 2020, when Freedom Leisure had been required to close the doors to the leisure centres in response to the pandemic.

On 25 July 2020, the Government relaxed its lockdown restrictions and Freedom Leisure reopened their facilities. Over the proceeding months, Freedom Leisure had recorded a steady growth in the number of residents who had welcomed a return to activity with this being supported by communications highlighting that processes had been put into place to ensure that the Centres were Covid secure.

The Centres had been required to close again on 5 November 2020, but Councillor Mrs Yeates confirmed that, following her visit to the Littlehampton Wave at precisely 1-minute past midnight on 2 December 2020, that the appetite for residents to use the facilities appeared to be undiminished.

Councillor Mrs Yeates then invited the Group Head of Community Wellbeing to update Cabinet on the reconciliation of the first two quarters and announcements on Government support.

Page 252 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

323

Cabinet - 14.12.20

He was pleased to report that the attendance trend had continued in the months where data was available and even though December was a notoriously quiet month in leisure centres, the footfall so far was better than some had anticipated. It appeared that people had taken the opportunity to exercise outside of their homes in a warm and safe place and he had witnessed large queues of parents and children waiting to access swimming lessons which was very reassuring.

The Group Head of Community Wellbeing confirmed that since his last report to Cabinet in September 2020, the Government had announced a £100M National Leisure Relief Fund specifically to support local authority leisure facilities. The Council was waiting to receive the criteria for applications but what was known was that this would require the Council to substantiate the support costs with input from Freedom Leisure. This had been anticipated and Freedom Leisure had confirmed that it would be happy to assist. It was explained that this new Fund was in addition to the Income Compensation Scheme which was allowing the Council to claim approximately £570,000 of the £800,000 it had budgeted in lost income from the contract.

Noted in the report was the improvement in both the number of activities available at the centres and the number of people attending. The second four-week period saw footfall increase by 5,800 people. Also, since the last report the first and second quarters had been reconciled. Members were referred to Table Three in the report that quarter 1 had been better than forecast by over £5,000 and quarter 2 by over £139,000. However, Quarter 2 had been affected by the Centres opening later than expected and this would impact on Quarter 3, as would the second lockdown which started on 5 November 2020.

Despite this, it was encouraging to note that in September 2020, Freedom Leisure recorded its first month whereby its income had been greater than expenditure, illustrating the bounce back in customer confidence the Council had hoped to see.

The projected relief required for Quarter 4 was £177,740. This continued to demonstrate a downward trend for support despite the recent lockdown. It was anticipated that this sum would be subject to a claim from the National Leisure Support Relief Fund. On a positive note, it was unlikely that the Centres would need to close if Arun moved from Tier 2 to Tier 3, but some activities would need to be modified and classes stopped, however, children’s activities were unlikely to be affected.

Finally, the Group Head of Community Wellbeing stated that he hoped that the Cabinet would be encouraged by news of both of the Government’s support schemes, but also to learn how residents had responded to the Centres opening. It was also hoped that members felt assured that Freedom Leisure was doing all it could to promote confidence to use the facilities and were working with staff to ensure that the level of relief provided was appropriate and justified.

In response, the Cabinet praised the support shown by the public in continuing to use the facilities which illustrated how important they were in assisting the wellbeing of the community and so it was vital to continue to financially support Freedom Leisure and for the Council to ensure that facilities remained open.

Page 253 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

324

Cabinet - 14.12.20

Requests were made to receive attendance figures for the four weeks from the end of September 2020 and whether comparison figures could be provided covering December this year in comparison to December last year as there were Councillors who were interested to see how the public were responding in this unique situation. The Group Head of Community Wellbeing confirmed that he would provide and share these figures outside of the meeting.

The Cabinet

RESOLVED

Approval be given to the Council making a bid to the National Leisure Relief Fund towards the operating support costs paid to Freedom Leisure.

The Cabinet

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL

Approval be given to a supplementary estimate for a sum of up to £177,740 (Band D equivalent of £2.86) to support the Council’s leisure operating contract from January to March 2021 (Quarter 4).

The Cabinet confirmed its decision as per Decision Notice C/037/14122020, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of the Minutes.

378. THE COUNCIL'S RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC SITUATION

The Chairman introduced this report confirming that this provided a formal update on progress on Covid-19 related issues since the last meeting of Cabinet held on 16 November 2020. It continued to be based on the weekly updates that he and the chief Executive provided to Councillors and partner organisations.

Since the last meeting, the local Tier setting had occurred with the Arun District being placed in tier 2, linked to the geography of West and East Sussex County Councils, and Brighton and Hove. Councillor Dr Walsh outlined his thanks to the Officer team, not only for these updates, but all the diligent work they continued to undertake on a daily basis to (a) ensure the Arun area was kept as safe as possible and (b) that the Clinically Vulnerable continued to receive support, by assisting WSCC, and, (c) by supporting local businesses and individuals by allocating Government grants as quickly and efficiently as possible, within the guidelines provided. The Chairman confirmed that he recognised that Officers continued to work hard to juggle all the various demands on their time during this difficult period. He also thanked the public for their hand in abiding by the restriction rulings which had ensured that the District of Arun remained relatively free from Covid-19.

The Cabinet Page 254 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

325

Cabinet - 14.12.20

RESOLVED

That the actions taken to date be noted.

The Cabinet confirmed its decision as per Decision Notice C/038/14122020, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of the Minutes.

379. THE GREATER BRIGHTON ECONOMIC BOARD - DRAFT COVID-19 SUSTAINABLE RECOVERY PLAN

The Chairman introduced this item reminding Councillors that as the Council’s nominate Outside Body representative on the Greater Brighton Economic Board, he and the Chief Executive regularly attended Board meetings. The last had been on 19 October 2020 where the very topical issue of sustainability in a COVID recovery phase had been discussed and he referred Councillors to the report that had been provided as an Appendix. All the Members of the Board had been invited to confirm their support for the 10 pledges of the Board, which had been outlined in Paragraph 1.9.

Councillor Dr Walsh had confirmed the Council’s support to these pledges as they aligned with many of the Council’s principles for future sustainability. It is anticipated that the Council would shortly have an Officer in place to take the Council forward on these matters. He then asked the Committee Services Manager to play a short video provided by the Board as he felt that this would be of interest to Members. The link to this video had also been set out within the report.

Various comments were made on the presentation received:

 In terms of mitigation measures Members were delighted to see carbon capturing kelp forests off the Worthing coast and felt that this was a step in the right direction in addressing climate change issues  On rewilding, an increase in natural landscapes was supported  All ten points were classed as a good starting point in addressing the climate emergency  Zero omission fleets were vital  Supportive of measures – refers to enhancing and supp of tourism crucial to local econ – diversifying what we are doing locally –  Good actions around talent management real focused actions vital thing to focus on in view of current pandemic  Grey water recycling was felt to be an area that this Council needed to start exploring now. It was hoped that with new strategic sites this could be examined further as water resources were becoming scares and it was acknowledged that this would become a real problem with climate change  Energy efficiency in all housing to be built to encourage energy generation was a priority  It was felt that the presentation had not addressed the real issue of energy generation and the generation of electricity. The use of the River Arun

Page 255 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

326

Cabinet - 14.12.20

was sited as an opportunity that should be used to energy generation along with wind farms and other hydro mechanisms  There was no mention from Government sources to use the power of the sea. As an island this was a gift to be used as waves and tidal action was a prime source of free energy all around Britain and needed to be exploited with lobbying being undertaken for the necessary research into this to be escalated.

In summing up the points made, the Chairman suggested that a comment be added to the recommendation which was that the Council would like to see greater reference in the future to electricity generation by sustainable means using tidal and hydro in the Greater Brighton area.

The Cabinet, then

RESOLVED

That the Greater Brighton Economic Board Sustainable Recovery Plan and Arun District Council’s commitment to this be noted with the Council wishing to see greater reference in the future to electricity generation by sustainable means using tidal and hydro in the Greater Brighton area.

The Cabinet confirmed its decision as per Decision Notice C/039/14122020, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of the Minutes.

380. STANDARDS COMMITTEE - 3 DECEMBER 2020

The Chairman confirmed that following the meeting of the Standards Committee held on 3 December 2020, there were two recommendations for Cabinet to consider in relation to the new Social Media Guidance for Councillors. An extract from the minutes had been published as a supplement on 14 December 2020 and emailed separately to Councillors.

The guidance had been debated at the meeting of Cabinet held on 19 October 2020 but referred back to the Standards Committee in view of a range of concerns raised by non-Cabinet Councillors about the content of the document.

The Chairman then invited Councillor Stanley to comment on this item as he had been in attendance at the Standards Committee as a substitute for Councillor Blanchard-Cooper.

Councillor Stanley confirmed that the Committee had had an open and honest debate on this item and he believed that it was accurate to say that as far as the Committee was concerned, it was necessary to have in place specific guidance on social media as this was an area that Councillors did have an issue with currently.

Page 256 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

327

Cabinet - 14.12.20

Councillor Stanley stated that there had been some suggestions to adjust slightly the list the of ‘Do Nots’ in the guidance and that such requests had been set out in the minutes circulated.

A question was asked in terms of the List of ‘Do’s’ and ‘Don’ts’ in the guidance in terms of whether these were a list of suggestions or were they something that a Councillor could be held to. It was explained by the Interim Monitoring Officer that the document was only guidance and had no legal weight. Its purpose was to ask Members to be cautious and it alerted them to situations they could potentially find themselves in. It was a good practice document which was not part of the Members Code of Conduct, but it could be used to interpret this code.

The Cabinet

RESOLVED – That

(1) The new Social Media Guidance for Councillors as amended at the Standards Committee meeting, be endorsed, replacing the previous version endorsed by Cabinet on 31 May 2016; and

(2) To authorise the Acting Monitoring Officer to make any consequential changes arising from the adoption of a new Members’ Code of Conduct.

The Cabinet confirmed its decision as per Decision Notice C/040/14122020, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of the Minutes.

381. PLANNING REVIEW WORKING PARTY

The Chief Executive presented the minutes from the first meeting of the Planning Review Working Party held on 8 December 2020 so that the recommendations proposed could be considered.

The first recommendation was at Minute 4 [Terms of Reference] which sought a slight amendment to the terms of reference as agreed at Cabinet on 16 November 2020 which was to highlight that the Working Party would only examine the recommendations from the Planning Review that related to Members and not Officers.

The Cabinet

RESOLVED

That the Terms of Reference for the Working Party be:

Page 257 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

328

Cabinet - 14.12.20

To consider the findings and examine the recommendations from the Planning Review (when presented) to only include those that related to Members and not Officers so that the Council can agree which recommendations it wants to accept and establish a monitoring process to ensure that recommendations are followed through. The Working Party will report to Cabinet, who would report to Full Council.

Cabinet was then referred to the recommendations as set out in Minute 5 [Planning Review Recommendations] as set out in the Appendix attached to the minutes listing the recommendations that had been debated by the Working Party and the Working Party’s recommended action for Cabinet to consider.

It was highlighted that in relation to Recommendation 52, that in addition to the Points (3), (4) and (5) which had been suggested should be removed, that point (1) also be removed. This had been checked with Mr Hannaby who had confirmed that this already took place and could therefore be removed.

Recommendation 57 had also been amended by the Working Party to have the words (the review should be with the Town and Parish Councils) added as it was felt that they should be involved.

The Chief Executive therefore asked Cabinet if it could accept Appendix A as the process to take forward the list of recommendations debated by the Working Party.

Councillor Stanley then spoke as Chairman of the Planning Review Working Party and he confirmed that the meeting had been very constructive with everyone sharing widespread experiences. There had been lots of support around training for Members and that there needed to be better understanding of both Member and Officer roles. There had also been much support and the importance of parishes in this process acknowledged. Discussion had also taken place on how Members felt that the Advisory Groups were working and the need to remove barriers for the public to enable them to interact and comment and to encourage public interaction and engagement. It was hoped that this would be an item for discussion at the next meeting of the Working Party planned for early February 2021.

A non-cabinet Councillor then raised a concern to the amendment that had been made, but not mentioned, in terms of Recommendation 58 as it was his view that this required further investigation. Following discussion, it was agreed that this recommendation would be referred back to the Working Party for further consideration.

The Cabinet

Page 258 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

329

Cabinet - 14.12.20

RESOLVED – That

(1) A further meeting of the Planning Review Working Party be convened for February 2021; and

(2) That the list of recommendations from the Planning Review Report, as attached to the report as Appendix A, be pursued with the exception of the amendments made at the meeting – being that:

 Recommendation 52 (i) [Amend the ‘call-in’ procedure to require the planning reason to be agreed by the Director of Place, in consultation with the Chair] be removed along with points 3, 4 and 5, as set out in Appendix A; and  Recommendation 58 be referred back to the next meeting of the Planning Review Working Party for further consideration.

The Cabinet confirmed its decision as per Decision Notice C/041/14122020, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of the Minutes.

382. HOUSING AND CUSTOMER SERVICES WORKING GROUP - 5 NOVEMBER 2020

Cabinet considered the minutes from the meeting of the Housing & Customer Services Working Group held on 5 November 2020 and were alerted to a range of recommendations.

The Cabinet Member for Technical Services, Councillor Stanley, confirmed that at Minute 12 [Additional and Selective Licensing Schemes for Houses in Multiple Occupation] there were two recommendations to consider. Councillor Stanley provided some background to this item by reminding Councillors that earlier in the year, Full Council had approved a motion requesting Officers explore options for introducing controls on (1) the quality of HMOs; and (2) the number of HMOs. A separate report produced by the Planning Policy team had been considered by the Development Control Committee on 25 November 2020 regarding the number of HMOs. The Committee had agreed to make a recommendation to Full Council.

What was for Cabinet to consider was a recommendation by the Housing and Customer Services Working Group which related to the quality of HMOs in the District. The private sector housing team currently undertook proactive inspections to identify and assess the significance of hazards only in those HMOs that fell within the mandatory HMO licensing regime. Simply put, the HMOs that currently required a licence were those with five or more people from more than one household sharing facilities. The cost of undertaking these inspections could be recovered by the Council by way of licence fee payable by the HMO landlord. Where significant hazards were identified, the team required landlords to make improvements.

Page 259 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

330

Cabinet - 14.12.20

The private sector housing team had not undertaken proactive inspections of the private rented sector properties outside of the mandatory HMO licensing regime since 2012. The inspection programme that existed prior to that time had been ended in response to a need to make savings. HMOs were however inspected where concerns were raised by tenants. Expanding the inspection programme would increase the number of HMOs where Officers could ensure housing standards met the minimum legal requirements.

There were two potential licensing regimes that could be introduced to do this: Additional Licensing (of HMOs) and Selective Licensing (of the whole private rented sector within a specific area). Each regime allowed the resourcing of the inspection programme to be recovered by way of a licensing fee from the private sector landlords. Each licensing regime had different criteria which must be satisfied in order to introduce it. At present there was insufficient evidence that the criteria were satisfied.

Given the potential improvements that could be made to the quality of HMOs from expanding the inspection programme by introducing a licensing regime, it had been recommended by the Working Group that [paraphrased rather than verbatim] (1) Cabinet agree Officers continue to research and gather evidence to establish if the criteria for either is satisfied, and (2) that Cabinet asks Full Council for a supplementary estimate of 20K in order to procure data modelling services for which licensing regime is met work on exploring.”

The Cabinet

RESOLVED

That Officers continue to research and gather further evidence to help support whether additional HMO Licensing (Housing Act 2004, s.56-60) or selective licensing of the private rented sector (Housing Act 2004, s 80- 84) is justified.

The Cabinet also

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL

That approval be sought for a supplementary estimate of up to £20,000 (which equates to a Band D Council Tax equivalent of £0.32) to commission the services and expertise to undertake the appropriate research and collation of data in order to support whether additional HMO Licensing or selective licensing of the private rented sector is justified.

The next recommendation for Cabinet to consider was at Minute 14 [Water Hygiene Policy and Management Plan] which was presented by the Cabinet Member for Residential Services, Councillor Mrs Gregory.

Page 260 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

331

Cabinet - 14.12.20

The Cabinet

RESOLVED – That

(1) The Water Safety Policy 2020 be adopted; and (2) Delegated authority be given to the Group Head of Residential Services in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Residential Services to make minor changes to the Policy and Plan.

Councillor Mrs Gregory then alerted Cabinet to the final set of recommendations at Minute 15 [Gas Safety Policy and Management Plan.

The Cabinet

RESOLVED – That

(1) The Gas Safety Policy – October 2020 be approved; and

(2) Delegated authority be given to the Group Head of Residential Services in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Residential Services and the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Housing & Customer Services Working Group to make minor changes to the Policy.

The Cabinet confirmed its decision as per Decision Notice C/042/14122020, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of the Minutes.

383. OVERVIEW SELECT COMMITTEE - 1 DECEMBER 2020

The Chairman then referred to an extract from the minutes of the Overview Select Committee held on 1 December 2020 that contained a recommendation for Cabinet to consider in relation to the Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme 2021/22.

Councillor Mrs Gregory presented this recommendation, as the Cabinet Member for Residential Services, and it was explained that this minute extract had been uploaded to the web as a supplement on 14 December 2020 and circulated separately to Members.

Page 261 Subject to approval at the next Cabinet meeting

332

Cabinet - 14.12.20

The Cabinet

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL

That Option 2 [to retain the current scheme for 2021 in respect of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme but to allow for an increase in the income banding] be approved.

The Cabinet confirmed its decision as per Decision Notice C/043/14122020, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of the Minutes.

(The meeting concluded at 6.44 pm)

Page 262 ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL

DECISION NOTICES FROM THE MEETING HELD ON MONDAY 14 DECEMBER 2020

REF NO. DECISION

036/14122020 Urgent Decision – Representation on the Littlehampton Harbour Board 037/14122020 Financial Support to Leisure Operating Contract 038/14122020 The Council’s Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic Situation 039/14122020 The Greater Brighton Economic Board – Draft Covid-19 Sustainable Recovery Plan 040/14122020 Standards Committee – 3 December 2020 – Recommendations 041/14122020 Planning Review Working Party – 8 December 2020 – Recommendations 042/14122020 Housing & Customer Services Working Group – 5 November 2020 – Recommendations 043/14122020 Overview Select Committee – 1 December 2020 - Recommendation

PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE DECISIONS WILL COME INTO EFFECT FROM 10.00 A.M. ON WEDNESDAY, 23 DECEMBER 2020 UNLESS THE CALL-IN PROCESS IS APPLIED

If a Councillor wishes to request a call-in of any of the decisions taken above, they will need to take the following steps in line with the Scrutiny Procedure Rules at Part 6 of the Constitution – Scrutiny Procedure Rules (Other)

They will need to: • Submit their request in writing for a Call-In to the Group Head of Policy & Scrutiny and identify who will act as the lead Member of the Call-In • Specify which decision is to be the subject of the Call-In • Explain which of the criteria for the Call-In apply

Page 263 REFERENCE NO: C/036/14122020

URGENT DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 14.11 OF THE NO SCRUTINY PROCEDURE RULES SUBJECT: URGENT BUSINESS – REPRESENTATION ON LITTLEHAMPTON HARBOUR BOARD OFFICER CONTACT: Solomon Agutu – Locum Lawyer Tel: 01903 737611 Email: [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: To confirm that the current vacant seat on the Littlehampton Harbour Board has been filled by Councillor Dr Walsh. DECISION: The Cabinet

RESOLVED

That it be noted that Councillor Dr Walsh be confirmed as this Council’s nominated Outside Body representative on the Littlehampton Harbour Board, filling the current vacant seat.

REASON FOR THE DECISION: The decision has been made in line with constitutional requirements from both sides, Arun District Council and the Littlehampton Harbour Board. OPTIONS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED: To not fill the vacancy at this time. CABINET MEMBER(S):

DECLARATION OF INTEREST BY CABINET MEMBER(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISION: None DISPENSATIONS GRANTED : None CONFLICT OF INTERESTS DECLARED BY A CABINET MEMBER CONSULTED IN RESPECT OF THIS DECISION: None

Page 264

REFERENCE NO: C/037/14122020

URGENT DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 14.11 OF THE NO SCRUTINY PROCEDURE RULES SUBJECT: FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO LEISURE OPERATING CONTRACT OFFICER CONTACT: Robin Wickham – Group Head of Community Wellbeing Tel: 01903 737835 Email: [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Freedom Leisure is in receipt of a support package to mitigate the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the Council’s leisure operating contract. The purpose of this report was to set out the current situation with recommendations for the period January to March 2021. DECISION: The Cabinet

RESOLVED

That approval be given to making a bid to the National Leisure Relief Fund towards the operating support costs paid to Freedom Leisure; and

The Cabinet

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL

That approval be given for a supplementary estimate for a sum of up to £177,740 (Band D equivalent of £2.86) to support the Council’s leisure operating contract from January to March 2021 (Quarter 4).

REASON FOR THE DECISION: To safeguard the Council’s leisure operating contract and to serve the health and wellbeing needs of the community. OPTIONS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED: CABINET MEMBER(S):

DECLARATION OF INTEREST BY CABINET MEMBER(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISION: None

DISPENSATIONS GRANTED : None CONFLICT OF INTERESTS DECLARED BY A CABINET MEMBER CONSULTED IN RESPECT OF THIS DECISION: None

Page 265

REFERENCE NO: C/038/14122020

URGENT DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 14.11 OF THE NO SCRUTINY PROCEDURE RULES SUBJECT: THE COUNCIL'S RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC SITUATION OFFICER CONTACT: Nigel Lynn – Chief Executive Tel: 01903 737600 [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: To update the Cabinet on the Council’s response to the pandemic situation and possible proposals for economic recovery. DECISION: The Cabinet

RESOLVED

To note the actions taken to date.

REASON FOR THE DECISION: For Cabinet to note the Council’s response to the Covid-19 Pandemic. OPTIONS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED: To request further information. CABINET MEMBER(S):

DECLARATION OF INTEREST BY CABINET MEMBER(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISION: None DISPENSATIONS GRANTED : None CONFLICT OF INTERESTS DECLARED BY A CABINET MEMBER CONSULTED IN RESPECT OF THIS DECISION: None

Page 266

REFERENCE NO: C/039/14122020

URGENT DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 14.11 OF THE NO SCRUTINY PROCEDURE RULES SUBJECT: THE GREATER BRIGHTON ECONOMIC BOARD - DRAFT COVID-19 SUSTAINABLE RECOVERY PLAN OFFICER CONTACT: Nigel Lynn – Chief Executive Tel: 01903 737600 Email: [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: DECISION:

That the Greater Brighton Economic Board Sustainable Recovery Plan and Arun District Council’s commitment to this be noted with the observation added that the Greater Brighton Economic Board be made aware that the Council would like to see greater reference in the future to electricity generation by sustainable means to include, wind, tidal and hydro in the Greater Brighton area.

REASON FOR THE DECISION: For Cabinet to note the Greater Brighton Economic Board Sustainable Recovery Plan and Arun District Council’s commitment to this.

OPTIONS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED: To request further information and defer this report.

CABINET MEMBER(S):

DECLARATION OF INTEREST BY CABINET MEMBER(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISION: None DISPENSATIONS GRANTED : None CONFLICT OF INTERESTS DECLARED BY A CABINET MEMBER CONSULTED IN RESPECT OF THIS DECISION: None

Page 267 REFERENCE NO: C/040/14122020

URGENT DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 14.11 OF THE NO SCRUTINY PROCEDURE RULES SUBJECT: STANDARDS COMMITTEE - 3 DECEMBER 2020 OFFICER CONTACT: Solomon Agutu – Locum Lawyer Tel: 01903 737611 Email: [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Having sought the further views from the Standards Committee at its meeting held on 3 December 2020, Cabinet was now being asked to approve the new Social Media Guidance for Councillors. DECISION: The Cabinet

RESOLVED – That

(1) The new Social Media Guidance for Councillors, as amended by the Standards Committee, be endorsed, replacing the previous version endorsed by Cabinet on 31 May 2016; and

(2) Authorisation be given to the Acting Monitoring Officer to make any consequential changes arising from the adoption of a new Members’ Code of Conduct.

REASON FOR THE DECISION: To provide updated guidance to Councillors as to how to approach social media communications and how the Code of Conduct may apply to those communications. OPTIONS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED: Not to endorse the new Social Media Guidance for Councillors. CABINET MEMBER(S):

DECLARATION OF INTEREST BY CABINET MEMBER(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISION: None DISPENSATIONS GRANTED : None CONFLICT OF INTERESTS DECLARED BY A CABINET MEMBER CONSULTED IN RESPECT OF THIS DECISION: None

Page 268

REFERENCE NO: C/041/14122020

URGENT DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 14.11 OF THE NO SCRUTINY PROCEDURE RULES SUBJECT: PLANNING REVIEW WORKING PARTY OFFICER CONTACT: Nigel Lynn – Chief Executive Tel: 01903 737600 Email: [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Planning Review Working Party considered the Recommendations within the Planning Review report that related to Members and Members/Officers (only) so that it could agree a set of recommendations to be considered to be taken forward and approved by Cabinet. DECISION: The Cabinet

RESOLVED

That the terms of reference for the Planning Review Working Party be amended to read:

To consider the findings and examine the recommendations from the Planning Review (when presented) to only include those that relate to Members, not Officers so that the Council can agree which recommendations it wants to accept and establish a monitoring process to ensure that recommendations are followed through. The Working Party will report to Cabinet, who will report to Full Council.

The Cabinet

RESOLVED – That

(1) A further meeting of the Planning Review Working Party be convened for February 2021; and

(2) That the list of recommendations from the Planning Review Report, as attached to the report as Appendix A, be pursued with the exception of the amendments made at the meeting – being that:

 Recommendation 52 (i) [Amend the ‘call-in’ procedure to require the planning reason to be agreed by the Director of Place, in consultation with the Chair] be removed along with points 3, 4 and 5, as set out in Appendix A; and  Recommendation 58 be referred back to the next meeting of the Planning Review Working Party for further consideration.

Page 269 REASON FOR THE DECISION: To allow the Working Party to present to Cabinet a list of recommendations to consider from the Planning Review. OPTIONS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED: Not to approve the list of recommendations presented or to make further amendments. CABINET MEMBER(S):

DECLARATION OF INTEREST BY CABINET MEMBER(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISION: None

DISPENSATIONS GRANTED : None CONFLICT OF INTERESTS DECLARED BY A CABINET MEMBER CONSULTED IN RESPECT OF THIS DECISION: None

Page 270

REFERENCE NO: C/042/14122020

URGENT DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 14.11 OF THE NO SCRUTINY PROCEDURE RULES SUBJECT: HOUSING AND CUSTOMER SERVICES WORKING GROUP - 5 NOVEMBER 2020 OFFICER CONTACT: Satnam Kaur – Group Head of Residential Services Tel: 01903 737740 Email: [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: To consider a range of recommendation from the Housing & Customer Services Working Group held on 5 November 2020. DECISION: Minute 12 – Additional and Selective Licensing Schemes for Houses in Multiple Occupation

The Cabinet

RESOLVED

That Officers continue to research and gather further evidence to help support whether additional HMO Licensing (Housing Act 2004, s.56-60) or selective licensing of the private rented sector (Housing Act 2004, s 80-84) is justified.

The Cabinet also

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL

That approval be sought for a supplementary estimate of up to £20,000 (which equates to a Band D Council Tax equivalent of £0.32) to commission the services and expertise to undertake the appropriate research and collation of data in order to support whether additional HMO Licensing or selective licensing of the private rented sector is justified.

Minute 14 – Water Hygiene Policy and Management Plan

The Cabinet

RESOLVED – That

(1) The Water Safety Policy 2020 be adopted; and

(2) Delegated authority be given to the Group Head of Residential Services in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Residential Services to make minor changes to the Policy and Plan.

Page 271 Minute 15 – Gas Safety Policy and Management Plan

The Cabinet

RESOLVED – That

(1) The Gas Safety Policy – October 2020 be approved; and

(2) Delegated authority be given to the Group Head of Residential Services in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Residential Services and the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Housing & Customer Services Working Group to make minor changes to the Policy.

REASON FOR THE DECISION: To gain Cabinet approval to recommendations made at the meeting of the Housing & Customer Services Working Group held on 5 November 2020. OPTIONS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED: No alternative options were agreed as all of the recommendations were approved. CABINET MEMBER(S):

DECLARATION OF INTEREST BY CABINET MEMBER(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISION: None DISPENSATIONS GRANTED : None CONFLICT OF INTERESTS DECLARED BY A CABINET MEMBER CONSULTED IN RESPECT OF THIS DECISION:

Page 272

REFERENCE NO: C/043/14122020

URGENT DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 14.11 OF THE NO SCRUTINY PROCEDURE RULES SUBJECT: OVERVIEW SELECT COMMITTEE - 1 DECEMBER 2020 OFFICER CONTACT: Satnam Kaur – Group Head of Residential Services Tel: 01903 737630 Email: [email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A report was submitted to the Council Tax Reduction Working Party for its meetings held on 17 November 2020 which provided Working Party Members with an update on the Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme (LCTRS) for April 2020 – March 2021 (Year 8) and the options for consideration for the 2021/22 LCTRS. (Year 9).

The Working Party then made a recommendation to Cabinet to consider to then forward onto Full Council. DECISION: The Cabinet

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL

That Option 2 [to retain the current scheme for 2021 in respect of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme but to allow for an increase in the income banding] be approved.

REASON FOR THE DECISION: To meet the requirements of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and the Local Government Finance Act 2012 in that it abolished the national council tax benefit (CTB) scheme and put in place from 1 April 2013 a framework for local authorities to create their own local council tax reduction (LCTRS) schemes.

It is an annual requirement to consider if the Council wishes to amend its scheme in place.

OPTIONS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED: To not accept the recommendation from the Council Tax Support Working Party. CABINET MEMBER(S):

DECLARATION OF INTEREST BY CABINET MEMBER(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR DECISION: None

DISPENSATIONS GRANTED : None CONFLICT OF INTERESTS DECLARED BY A CABINET MEMBER CONSULTED IN RESPECT OF THIS DECISION: None

Page 273

Page 274 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 29 Subject to approval at the next Planning Policy Sub-Committee meeting

1

PLANNING POLICY SUB-COMMITTEE

15 December 2020 at 6.00 pm

Present: Councillors Mrs Yeates (Chairman), Jones (Vice-Chairman), Bower, Chapman, Charles, Dixon, Elkins, Hughes, Huntley, Lury, Ms Thurston and Tilbrook

Councillor Coster was also in attendance at the meeting.

[Note: The following Councillors were absent during consideration of the matters in the following minutes – Councillor Charles – Minute 26 to 31]; and Councillor Chapman – Minute 29 to 31].

16. WELCOME

The Chairman welcomed Councillors, representatives of the public, press and Officers to what the third virtual meeting of the Sub-Committee.

17. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for Absence had been received from Councillors Mrs Daniells and Oppler.

18. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Elkins declared a Personal Interest in some of the items on the agenda in his capacity as a Member of West Sussex County Councillor and also in his capacity as Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure.

19. MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 22 September 2020 were approved by the Sub-Committee as a correct record and the Chairman confirmed that she would sign these as soon as she could, when she returned to the office.

20. URGENT ITEMS - A259 BOGNOR REGIS TO LITTLEHAMPTON CORRIDOR

The Chairman confirmed that there was one urgent item for the Sub-Committee to consider and this had been published to the Sub-Committee’s web pages on 14 December 2020 and emailed to Councillors separately.

This item was on the A259 Bognor Regis to Littlehampton corridor enhancement scheme where an update on the technical work carried out as part of the feasibility stage by West Sussex County Council (WSCC) was being presented. This item was urgent as the information had only just been made available and the Sub-Committee needed to be made aware of the current position.

Page 275 Subject to approval at the next Planning Policy Sub-Committee meeting

2

Planning Policy Sub-Committee - 15.12.20

The Chairman confirmed that in considering this item, she proposed a change to the order of the agenda in that this item would be considered as a new Item 7 after Item 6 [West Sussex County Council Transport Plan Review Consultation and Potential Updates on the A259 Bognor Regis to Littlehampton Enhancement Scheme.]

This change to the order of the agenda was approved by the Sub-Committee.

21. COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY GOVERNANCE

(During the course of the introduction of this item, Councillor Elkins redeclared his interest made at the start of the meeting and asked to be placed in the waiting room during its debate and so did not take part in any debate or vote on this item.)

The Sub-Committee received a report from the Principal Planning Officer confirming that the Council started implementing the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on 1 April 2020.

Members were advised that although it potentially might take a number of years for a significant level of income to be received from CIL, it was important now to set out a method for determining how CIL receipts would be spent in the future.

The proposed approach had been prepared following discussion with neighbouring CIL charging authorities and officers within various departments of the Council to understand the best approach to CIL spending and governance. The process set out was considered to ensure transparency and clarity on how CIL would be allocated and spent by the Council in the future.

The report included five recommendations in relation to CIL spending and governance arrangements, covering the following:

 A methodology and process chart for the preparation of a 3 year Infrastructure Investment Plan, starting in 2021 as set out in Background Papers 1 and 2  The process for spending CIL – set out in Background Paper 3. This provided examples of different situations relating to how infrastructure providers might apply for CIL funding.  A recommendation which related to ensuring all necessary contractual documents be executed as necessary to ensure CIL would be passed to service providers  The recommendations also asked the Planning Policy Sub Committee to note that a report to the Constitution Working Party would be prepared to recommend necessary changes to the new 2021 Constitution.  These would include a change to the scheme of delegation for the Group Head of planning to authorise transfer of CIL receipts for approved

Page 276 Subject to approval at the next Planning Policy Sub-Committee meeting

3

Planning Policy Sub-Committee - 15.12.20

schemes, subject to all contracts for spending in accordance with the IIP being in place.  Also, where CIL bids were not in accordance with the IIP, authority would be delegated to Planning Policy Sub-Committee to grant or refuse spend on applications for projects less than £25,000.

Finally, the Principal Planning Officer drew to the attention of the Sub-Committee two points. Firstly, that Paragraph 2.3 of the report explained that CIL income was estimated to total around £30 million over the lifetime of the plan. However, to put this into context, the Infrastructure Funding Statement, presented to the Planning Policy Sub-Committee in September, stated that S.106 income from the strategic housing allocations was estimated to total approximately £200 million. CIL was therefore a less significant funding stream, which would be difficult to accurately forecast for a number of years. Therefore, high expectations should not be placed on CIL to deliver large infrastructure projects at this time.

Secondly, CIL worked alongside S.106 in most cases, but on smaller sites, it mainly replaced S.106 income, which would have previously been passed to the County Council and other infrastructure providers for services such as education, transport and healthcare. It was for that reason that it was felt necessary to highlight the approach proposed in Section 4 of the report.

Allocating a proportionate amount of CIL to different infrastructure providers did not mean that this amount of the Council’s CIL receipts would automatically be passed to these service providers. They would have to bid for the money through the Infrastructure Investment Pan process – and would then have to apply for CIL funding, in accordance with Background Paper 3. This approach aimed to ensure continuity of service provision for all infrastructure providers, whilst giving the Council greater control and certainty over which projects the money was spent on and when, in accordance with the Council’s Infrastructure Investment Plan.

In considering the report, there were concerns expressed over difficulties that the Council had had with certain infrastructure providers in the past in that they had not actually delivered on their part of the agreement by either withholding monies or had had arguments about costs. The Sub-Committee was of the view that it needed to be sure that these infrastructure providers delivered what had been agreed by allowing the monies to be properly released.

The Director of Place responded reassuring Councillors that the work undertaken by the Principal Planning Officer around CIL and governance helped to put Arun in a much better position in terms of understanding infrastructure needs and that it was now in a good place to monitor and ensure the delivery of infrastructure, which had been a weakness in the past.

Page 277 Subject to approval at the next Planning Policy Sub-Committee meeting

4

Planning Policy Sub-Committee - 15.12.20

The Sub-Committee saw this as an exceptional report as it provided evidence that the Council now had more control in terms of how CIL money was spent and in the appropriate time constraints. Officers were commended for their work.

Following further discussion,

The Sub-Committee

RESOLVED

That it be noted that the Principal Planning Officer will prepare a report to the Constitution Working Party to recommend changes to the new 2021 Constitution (Committee System) as set out in Paragraph 7.5 of the report.

The Sub-Committee also

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL – That

1) the CIL arrangements set out in Sections 4 to 7 (inclusive) of the report, and CIL District Pot apportionment set out under paragraph 4.3 be approved;

2) the first Infrastructure Investment Plan (2022-2025), which sets out CIL spending priorities over the three-year period, will be completed, subject to Full Council approval, by December 2021 and will last for a period of 3 years; 3) The Planning Policy Committee (PPC) is granted delegated authority to approve bids for funding infrastructure projects that are not listed on the Infrastructure Investment Plan (IIP) (subject to the correct application process being undertaken in accordance with processes set out in Background Paper 3); 4) the Group Head of Planning in consultation with the Group Head of Corporate Support, be granted delegated authority to authorise money to be passed to infrastructure providers to spend on CIL projects on the IIP. Where projects are not listed within the IIP, spending will be subject to Planning Policy Committee approval; and 5) approval be given to execute all necessary documentation to ensure CIL is passed to service providers and spent in accordance with the council’s Infrastructure Investment Plan.

Page 278 Subject to approval at the next Planning Policy Sub-Committee meeting

5

Planning Policy Sub-Committee - 15.12.20

22. WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL TRANSPORT PLAN REVIEW CONSULTATION AND POTENTIAL UPDATES ON THE A259 BOGNOR REGIS TO LITTLEHAMPTON ENHANCEMENT SCHEME

The Sub-Committee received a report from the Principal Planning Officer which provided an update to the West Sussex Transport Plan (WSTP) review, which had recently commenced. The current WSTP 2011-2026 period needed to be reviewed to take account of changes to national and local policy, such as the Government’s legally binding commitment to achieve net zero carbon by 2050.

The first step in the WSTP review was to ask stakeholders to complete a survey, which would identify key issue and priorities. The survey results would help to shape the draft version of the plan, which was due to be published for consultation in Summer 2021.

The report provided the response to the survey which the Sub-Committee was being asked to note so that it could be submitted to WSCC by its deadline date of 17 December 2020.

In summary, the response included the following key issues to be considered by the County Council as they prepared the draft WSTP:

 Consider impact of future population growth on the highway network (by taking into account the proposed Standard Housing Methodology, as set out by the Government in its latest consultation, published on 6 August 2020);  Taking into account new technologies in relation to transportation – in particular a focus on electric vehicles, and the availability of electric vehicle charging points across the county;  Consider equitable provision and the availability of electricity supplies for electric vehicles (looking ahead to 2030 when new diesel and petrol cars will no longer be on sale);  Give greater priority in the plan to the impact of the economy, as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic – this will have long term impacts on transport and travel;  The WSTP should identify the barriers that level crossings continued to have in terms of movement of traffic within the District;  The revised plan should address the challenge of integrated transport systems which provide mobility and connectivity to people, through the provision of transport hubs and shared transport opportunities (eg. bike share, car share, bus shelters and efficient links to other public transport nodes); and finally  the response explained that Arun District Council Officers were investigating the principle of ‘twenty-minute neighbourhoods’, where all essential, day-to-day facilities were located within a twenty-minute walk from home. This involved unlocking walking and cycling routes within, and between, communities to allow residents to walk and cycle to key services (schools, shops, leisure facilities etc). This could be increasingly achievable as working from home became more commonplace.

Page 279 Subject to approval at the next Planning Policy Sub-Committee meeting

6

Planning Policy Sub-Committee - 15.12.20

In considering the report, the Sub-Committee welcomed the idea of 20 minute neighbourhoods where people could live having easy access through either walking or cycling to a wealth of amenities such as work; education; leisure and shops. There were also concerns expressed over out commuting from the District and the way in which some priorities had been ranked.

Although the Sub-Committee agreed that the Council’s response was good, questions were asked over the next steps in terms of where this response tied in with other responses that were ongoing and involved West Sussex highways interlinking with other projects. The timeline for this project was explained by the Planning Policy Team Leader who confirmed that he felt that the complete process would take some time [until Sumer 2021] and in terms of how this related to other studies.

Following further discussion,

The Sub-Committee

RESOLVED

That the response to the West Sussex Transport Plan Review Survey, to be submitted to the County Council by the deadline date of 17 December 2020 be noted.

23. A259 BOGNOR REGIS TO LITTLEHAMPTON CORRIDOR ENHANCEMENT

As referred to earlier in the meeting by the Chairman, the Sub-Committee received this report so that it could note the update provided regarding the West Sussex County Council A259 Bognor Regis to Littlehampton Corridor Enhancement Scheme.

The Sub-Committee

RESOLVED

That the update provided regarding the West Sussex County Council A259 Bognor Regis to Littlehampton Corridor Enhancement Scheme be noted.

24. ARUN DESIGN GUIDE SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT

The Sub-Committee received an update report from the Senior Planning Officer. At the meeting of the Sub-Committee on 30 June 2020 it had been agreed that the Draft Arun Design Guide should progress to Public Participation Stage (under Regulation 12b of the Town and County Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 and this stage of that process had been commenced on 16 September 2020 and had been completed on 14 October 2020.

Page 280 Subject to approval at the next Planning Policy Sub-Committee meeting

7

Planning Policy Sub-Committee - 15.12.20

The report before Members set out what the further representations were, and it detailed this Council’s response to those representations which needed to be approved by Full Council so that at the next Full Council meeting the Design Guide could be finally adopted.

The Sub-Committee confirmed that it was delighted that work on the Design Guide had finally got to this stage and it wished to have placed on record to all Officers who had played a part in its implementation, especially the Senior Planning Officer.

Having asked for a view on what the significant changes in the revisions were, the Sub-Committee

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL – That

(1) the proposed modifications schedule which addresses the comments made from the Regulation 12b Public participation period in accordance with Regulation 35 (as amended by Regulation 2 (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 be agreed; and

(2) the revised Design Guide (as a result of the Reg.12b proposed modifications), be adopted.

25. RAISING ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS FOR NEW HOMES CONSULTATION

The Planning Policy Team Leader presented this item to the Sub-Committee on the proposed responses to the Government’s consultation on Raising Accessibility Standards for new homes. The consultation sought views on five options to raise the ‘accessible and adaptable’ standard for homes (known as Part M of the Building Regulations and these were explained. There was M4(1) concerning the outside access to homes for example level thresholds to the door and M4 (2) accessible adaptable internal spaces within the home and M4(3) the ‘wheelchair user’ standard which were currently used as optional technical standards. It was highlighted that the Arun District had a significant ageing population, on top of the national picture, and so there were issues of increasing need to address the required needs of this group and also to respond to issues around disabilities. There was the need to respond to issues about confusion over standards being applied differently in authorities in terms of developers not being sure of the standards to be used and costs involved. This highlighted an increasing realisation that significant progress needed to be made. The consultation sought the Council’s views on each of the five options – these had been set out in the report at Paragraph 1.15.

All Councils were also being asked to confirm one of the five options in response to the Government’s consultation on Raising Accessibility Standards for new homes.

Page 281 Subject to approval at the next Planning Policy Sub-Committee meeting

8

Planning Policy Sub-Committee - 15.12.20

It was explained that Option 4 was what Officer’s recommended as this was felt to be the most effective for everyone. Developers would be clearer on the requirement from the outset without needing to negotiate with the Local Authority. It would be easier and clearer for the Local Authority to apply and enforce and it would provide greater certainty for the end user of the homes to have a space which was fit for purpose.

The consultation on this had run from 8 September until 1 December 2020 and so a provisional response had been sent prior to this meeting.

Following a very brief discussion,

The Sub-Committee

RESOLVED

That the Planning Policy Sub Committee notes the Officer recommendation to the Government in response to the consultation ‘Raising Accessibility Standards for New Homes’ – this being: Option 4 is preferred, to mandate the current M4(2) requirement in Building Regulations as a minimum standard for all new homes with M4(1) applying by exception only, a set percentage of M4(3) homes would also need to be applied in all areas. So rather than local authorities setting a local planning policy for the provision of M4(3), a defined and constant percentage would apply to all new housing.

26. REGULATION 18 (II) GYPSY & TRAVELLER AND TRAVELLING SHOWMEN SITE ALLOCATIONS DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT - PREFERRED OPTIONS

(During the course of the introduction of this item, Councillor Elkins redeclared his interest made at the start of the meeting and asked to be placed in the waiting room during its debate and so did not take part in any debate or vote on this item.)

The Planning Policy Team Leader presented this item on behalf of the Senior Planning Officer reminding the Sub-Committee that at its last meeting held on 22 September 2020, the Sub-Committee had agreed that the Regulation 19 (II) Draft Gypsy & Traveller and Traveller Showperson site Allocation Preferred Options development Plan Document (DPD) should commence to public consultation in October 2020 for eight weeks.

It was confirmed that following the public consultation period, this report set out the representations received and the proposed response and next steps for noting. This was because material objections had been raised by West Sussex County Council in relation to restrictive covenants affecting three of the sites proposed for intensification for Gypsy and Traveller pitches and for Traveller showmen plots.

Following some discussion, Page 282 Subject to approval at the next Planning Policy Sub-Committee meeting

9

Planning Policy Sub-Committee - 15.12.20

The Sub-Committee

RESOLVED – That

(1) The Statement of Representation and proposed response to comments made from the consultation Draft Gypsy & Traveller and Traveller showmen Site Allocations Development Plan Document ‘Preferred Options’ - Regulation 18 (ii) be noted; and (2) It also be noted that Officers will undertake further ‘duty to cooperate’ discussions and evidence work to resolve objections before progressing G&T DPD further and will report back to this Sub-Committee in the Spring 2021 with the proposed way forward and timetable for progressing the Reg.19 publication consultation and subsequent DPD submission.

27. BROWNFIELD LAND REGISTER 2020

The Planning Policy Team Leader presented this report on behalf of the Principal Planning Officer and explained that the production of a Brownfield Land Register was a requirement under the Town and County Planning (Brownfield Land Register) regulations 2017.

The Register was established in two parts which was explained in the report and was to include all brownfield sites that were suitable for residential development. It was highlighted that the register had to be updated every year.

The Sub-Committee

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL – That

1) Notes the 2020 Brownfield Land Register (Part 1); and 2) Agrees that Officers work towards the production of the Brownfield Land Register (Part 2) including the carrying out of consultation and publicity requirements, as well as other procedures in line with the Brownfield Land Register Regulations 2017.

28. CHANGE TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

The Chairman proposed and the Sub-Committee agreed a change to the order of the agenda to allow Item 12 [Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA 2020 Update) to be considered before Item 11 [Authority Monitoring Report).

Page 283 Subject to approval at the next Planning Policy Sub-Committee meeting

10

Planning Policy Sub-Committee - 15.12.20

29. HOUSING AND ECONOMIC LAND AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT (HELAA 2020 UPDATE)

The Planning Policy Team Leader presented this report reminding the Sub- Committee that the Council had reviewed and updated its HELAA for 2020. This document provided the Council with a database of sites within the District and that each site within the database had been assessed to determine whether it was deliverable, developable or not currently developable according to the HELAA methodology.

It was important to note that whilst the HELAA was a useful resource, it did not allocate sites, nor did it grant planning permission. Its principal purpose was to provide evidence at a high level, identifying the best performing sites with potential to consider for further assessment as part of plan making. The HELAA was not intended to be used for development management decisions, as set out in national guidance. The HELAA methodology was updated to more closely align with the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 which clarified that high level assessment of strategic development plan constraints could be considered alongside national constraint criteria, including guidance on avoiding areas at risk from, or adding to, the risk of flooding using 100 year development lifetime climate change constraints. A consequence of this was that Arun was a significantly constrained authority in terms of housing land supply.

The Planning Policy Team Leader then worked through the highlights of the report confirming that there were 22 new sites that had been identified for this year’s HELAA. These included sites that had been submitted to the Council as part of the ‘Call for Sites’ exercise, it did not include commitments. Of these new sites, only 3 had been identified as being deliverable and 3 had been identified as being developable. The remaining 14 sites had been identified as being ‘Not Currently Developable’ due to suitability; availability and achievability reasons and two sites comprised 1 potential employment site and 1 existing employment site.

The Sub-Committee was being asked to note the HELAA as part of the evidence base for the Local Plan and any future Development Plan Document preparation.

Following some discussion,

The Sub-Committee

RESOLVED

That the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment be noted as part of the evidence base for the Local Plan and any future Development Plan Document preparation.

Page 284 Subject to approval at the next Planning Policy Sub-Committee meeting

11

Planning Policy Sub-Committee - 15.12.20

30. AUTHORITY MONITORING REPORT

The Planning Policy Team Leader presented the annual authority monitoring report which had to be published at the end of each year as a requirement under Regulation 34 of the Town and County Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.

This was the Arun Local Planning Authority’s Monitoring Report for 2019/20 and it included a range of updates and progress reports which had been summarised in the report. It was explained that further work needed to be undertaken to resolve the Council’s inability to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and so it was necessary for the Planning Policy Team Leader to undertake further work on this issue to be able to set out the Council’s approach to resolving this. It was therefore necessary to bring a further report back to the next meeting of the Sub-Committee in February 2021.

Following questions from Members relating to non-delivery of the 5-year Housing Land Supply and housing targets and responses from Officers, the Sub-Committee

RESOLVED – That

(1) the Authority Monitoring Report 2019/20 be noted; and

(2) It be agreed that a further report be made back to this Sub- Committee in the Spring 2021 to set out the Authority’s approach to resolving the inability to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply.

31. COMPLIMENTS OF THE SEASON

As this was the last meeting before Christmas, the Chairman wished Members and Officers the compliments of the season.

(The meeting concluded at 8.47 pm)

Page 285 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 286