Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber, Arun Civic Centre, Maltravers Road, Littlehampton, BN17 5LF. View directions

Contact: Jane Fulton (Ext 37611) 

Items
No. Item

257.

Welcome

Minutes:

            The Chairman welcomed Councillors, representatives of the public, press and officers to the Council Meeting.

258.

Apologies for absence

Minutes:

 

            Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Batley, C Blanchard-Cooper, Buckland, Miss Needs, Purchese, Roberts, Smith and Stanley and from all of the Council’s Honorary Aldermen.

 

 

259.

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

Minutes:

A Declaration of Interest Sheet had been circulated to the meeting setting out 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 Agenda Item 8 – A27 Trunk Road – Improvements at Arundel.  This table is set out below:

 

 

Name

Town or Parish Council or West Sussex County Council [WSCC]

Councillor Jamie Bennett

Rustington

Councillor Paul Bicknell

Angmering

Councillor Billy Blanchard-Cooper

Littlehampton

Councillor Jim Brooks

Bognor Regis

Councillor Mike Clayden

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 Steve Goodheart

Bognor Regis

Councillor Pauline Gregory

Rustington

Councillor June Hamilton

Pagham

Councillor Shirley Haywood

Middleton-on-Sea

Councillor David Huntley

Pagham

Councillor Martin Lury

Bersted

Councillor Francis Oppler

WSCC

Councillor Jacky Pendleton

Middleton-on-Sea and WSCC

Councillor Vicky Rhodes

Littlehampton

Councillor Emily Seex

Littlehampton

Councillor Samantha Staniforth

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

 

 

 

 

260.

Public Question Time

To receive questions from the public (for a period of up to 15 minutes)

Minutes:

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. 

 

The Chairman announced that six questions had been received and that all questions were for the Leader of the Council, Councillor Dr Walsh to respond to.  All of these questions related to Agenda Item 8 – A27 Trunk Road – Improvements at Arundel.

 

Question One outlined concern about the viability of the route options throughout the consultation and referred to an email that Highways England (HE) had sent to a Member of Arun District Council confirming that it had “not yet formulated any conclusions on the planning likelihood of any route” and that “it was too early and inappropriate for HE to conclude the ‘consentability’ of any route”.  The questioner asked if the Council had been made aware of this guidance and if it would be taken into account when the route options were ranked against the Council’s stated objective of improving the social and environmental wellbeing of Arundel and Walberton, Storrington and surrounding communities.

 

Councillor Dr Walsh responded confirming that he was not aware of the email referred to.  However, he stated that there was a subtle difference between viability and consentability.  The Council’s Officers had worked on the basis that the six options were viable and would not have been put forward by HE if this was not the case.

 

Members of the Council tonight would debate the issues and would be invited to vote for or against or abstain on each of the six options.  The options would not be ranked, however, a ranking could be discernable once the votes had been cast for all six of the options. 

 

Question Two outlined that the Magenta option would result in Walberton and Slindon Parishioners facing the sum of all fears with the monstrous multi-directional motorway interchange that would cover at least the size of the Crossbush junction.  Great concern was expressed over the increase in traffic for surrounding areas and the threat that ‘rat runs’ would be created too.  The Magenta route would sever two parts of the area permanently and so the Council was asked it could please oppose options that achieved one Arundel by creating two Walbertons.

 

Councillor Dr Walsh responded stating that the reason why this Special Council meeting had been called was to debate the very important issue of a proposed by-pass of Arundel and so to provide a basis upon which HE could be provided with the Council’s corporate response to its consultation.  As part of the debate, Councillors would have regard for the likely effects on local routes and for junction arrangements.  Councillor Dr Walsh confirmed that he was confident that severance would be in Members’ mind when casting their votes for/against each of the options.

 

Question Three outlined that the Crimson route was now said to be ‘viable’ by HE and would cause the least damage to any  ...  view the full minutes text for item 260.

261.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 509 KB

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Council held on 18 September 2019, which are attached.

Minutes:

            The Minutes of the last Full Council Meeting held on 18 September 2019 were approved by the Council as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

 

262.

Chairman's Announcements

To receive such announcements as the Chairman may desire to lay before the Council.

Minutes:

The Chairman alerted Members to the list of engagements and events that had been attended since the last Full Council meeting held on 18 September 2019 – these had been emailed to Councillors recently.

 

The Chairman then invited Councillor Dixon to make a statement. 

 

Councillor Dixon outlined that it had recently been brought to his attention that at the last Full Council meeting he had failed to sit when the Chairman of the Council had stood to regain order within the Council Chamber.  Councillor Dixon confirmed that he had been unaware, at that time, of his actions and that he had not, at any time, intended to show any form of disrespect to the Chairman.  Councillor Dixon gave his unreserved and sincere apologies to the Chairman in this respect and confirmed that his actions had not in any way been intentional.

 

The Chairman confirmed that she accepted Councillor Dixon’s apology.

 

263.

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.

Minutes:

            There were no items for this meeting.

264.

A27 Trunk Road - Improvements at Arundel pdf icon PDF 318 KB

The report seeks authorisation to respond to Highways England with a corporately preferred option for the proposed improvements on the Arundel section of the A27 Trunk Road. It sets the reasons why Highways England has opted for a second non-statutory consultation, outlines the options put forward in the current consultation; and the issues identified as being pertinent to the various options.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

            The Chairman invited the Chief Executive to make a statement.

            The Chief Executive outlined that all Members of the Council were sent an email on 8 October 2019 advising them that the recommendations in the Officer’s report issued with the agenda were being withdrawn and were being replaced with revised recommendations which had been provided and published to the Council’s website that same day.

            The decision had been made to take this action based on concerns raised with him by the Council’s Group Leaders about the wording of the recommendations in the Officer’s report.  The Chief Executive believed that the revised recommendations allowed greater transparency and would allow for a more democratic debate to take place on all the options put forward by Highways England (HE) for the A27 improvements at Arundel.  A copy of the Chief Executive’s statement issued including the revised recommendations had been circulated to the meeting.

            The Chief Executive then explained the process that would be followed for the meeting. He confirmed that:

 

·         It was in order for an Officer recommendation to be revised and withdrawn right up to the time it was due to be considered by Members.  This was because at a Council meeting, an officer recommendation only became the subject of debate once it had been proposed and seconded by two separate Members.

·         In terms of the officer recommendations now before Members, if proposed and seconded, the Chairman intended to request that each recommendation be debate and voted on individually.  This meant that:

o   If the Council supported Recommendations (1) and (2) then there would be no further discussion on the options put forward by HE.

o   If recommendation (1) was not supported, then the Council would debate all the options in the consultation document as set out in Recommendation (3) then allowing all Members to have the opportunity to vote on each option.  The vote on each option would be recorded.

o   If there was support by a majority for one of the options, then Recommendation (4) sought approval to this option being presented as the Council’s response to HE.  It was explained that if there was not an overall majority for one option, then the Council would be able to consider ranking the options.

o   Members would then consider Recommendation (5).

·           Throughout the debate, Members would have the opportunity to propose further amendments in line with Council Procedure Rule 16.7.

 

 

            The Chief Executive confirmed that to support and inform debate, all Councillors had been provided with the Officer report setting out the technical assessment of the options; the opportunity to participate in a briefing provided by HE on 24 September 2019 or to attend one of the community-based exhibitions; and a copy of the full consultation documents from HE.

            Finally, the Chief Executive alerted Councillors to an error on Page 29 of the Officer report at Paragraph 1.1.4 in which the option 4/5AV2 (Magenta) should read (Amber) and the ‘emerging Local Plan’ had been referred to in the Officer’s report, as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 264.