Agenda item

Motions

Meeting of Full Council, Wednesday 18th September 2019 6.00 pm (Item 221.)

The following Motions have been received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 14.1. and 14.2, the detail of which is set out below:

Motion 1 – from the Independent Group relating to climate change and the implications for large scale development on the coastal plain

Climate change is real. It doesn’t matter whether we believe it is man-made or the end of the last ice age – climate change is happening – and quickly.

We are compelled, against our will, by government, to build 20,000 new homes on a coastal plain. As councillors, we are required to consider and determine planning applications for 20,000 new homes on this part of the coastal plain in the coming years.

Yet, here in Arun District the environmental risks are already substantial and increasing. The district is uniquely unsuitable for large scale development because it is particularly vulnerable to the risks arising from climate change, in addition to every type of flooding that already occurs in this country.

In Palaeolithic times the land we now live on was under the sea. The Slindon, Norton and Aldingbourne raised beaches, roughly following the line of the A27, remind us where the beach once was. If the coastal plain was under the sea once, it can be again.

Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age (approx. 11,700 years ago) and continue to do so. As sea levels rise, and extreme weather events increase, as anticipated by scientists around the world, flood risk will increase significantly, yet we have no coherent and deliverable plan or funding for effectively guaranteeing the prevention of this risk to the residents of the district.

Large scale development in an area at risk of coastal and tidal flooding, flash flooding, surface water flooding, groundwater flooding from chalk aquifers and fluvial flooding is irresponsible.

Because we live on a coastal plain the land is flat and the water table is very high. Drainage of surface and ground water to the sea is slow, even more so at times of major weather events, via a small network of rifes that are tide locked twice a day. We also have the South Downs to the north shedding water southwards towards the coastal plain and sea.

Against this background, this Council believes that the Local Plan does not adequately protect new and existing communities from increasing flood risk. Therefore, we have no confidence in the Local Plan.

The Council instructs the Chief Executive to write to the appropriate Government Minister to notify him/her of this motion and to request a meeting with the Minster in order to discuss it.

We also call on local MPs to engage with the concerns raised in this motion and to assist the Council in taking these concerns to Government.

Motion 2 - from the Liberal Democrat Group

This Council believes the decision by West Sussex County Council to enforce a blanket license fee for the use of tables and chairs on highways to be unfair, unjust, short sighted. This seems to have undergone no measurable research against similar charges made by other similar authorities. We request an urgent meeting with West Sussex County Council to find resolution to this punitive measure that will protect economic future of the Arun District

Minutes:

The Chairman announced that three Motions had been received in accordance with Council Procedure Rules 14.1 and 14.2.

The Chairman invited the proposer of the first Motion, Councillor Dixon to present the Motion which he duly proposed. The Motion was seconded by Councillor Coster. The Motion read as follows:

Motion relating to climate change and the implications for large scale development on the coastal plain

Climate change is real. It doesn’t matter whether we believe it is man-made or the end of the last ice age – climate change is happening – and quickly.

We are compelled, against our will, by government, to build 20,000 new homes on a coastal plain. As Councillors we are required to consider and determine planning applications for 20,000 new homes on this part of the coastal plain in the coming years.

Large scale development in an area at risk of coastal and tidal flooding, flash flooding, surface water flooding, groundwater flooding from chalk aquifers and fluvial flooding is irresponsible.

Against this background, this council believes that the Local Plan does not adequately protect new and existing communities from increasing flood risk. Therefore, we have no confidence in the Local Plan.

The Council instructs the Chief Executive to write to the appropriate government Minister to notify him/her of this motion and to request a meeting with the Minster in order to discuss it.

We also call on local MPs to engage with the concerns raised in this motion and to assist the council in taking these concerns to Government”.

CouncillorDixon then provided the meeting with a detailed presentation outlining what the impacts would be for the District as a result of rising sea levels. His presentation also covered what the long-term implications would be in terms of large-scale development.

Councillor Dixon stated that if the coastal plain had been underwater before, then it could be again and so the protection of residents was vital. He believed that the Council’s Local Plan did not adequately protect new and existing communities from increasing flood risk and due to this he held no confidence in the Council’s Local Plan. He therefore urged Members to agree with his Motion requesting the Council to call on the Government to introduce a moratorium on large scale development in the District whilst the impacts of climate change on coastal plain development could be assessed. This could be achieved by the Council’s Chief Executive notifying the relevant Government Minister of the Motion by requesting a meeting to discuss it. The Council’s three Members of Parliament were also requested to engage with the sentiments of the Motion and to assist the Council in taking these concerns to Government.

The Chairman then invited Members to debate the Motion. The first to speak was Councillor Jones who stated that he wished to propose an amendment to the end of the third paragraph of the Motion to read as set out below – additions have been shown in bold:

The Council calls on the Government to introduce a moratorium on large scale development in the Arun District whilst climate change and its potential impact on coastal plain development is properly assessed at governmental level. “The Council also calls on the Government to, as part of this assessment, report on the terrain of the Arun District and which areas are expected to be lost as a result of rising high tide marks, increased saturation of the water table and alteration of the flood plains - with reference to global sea levels of +0.5m, +1, +2 and +3m.”

Councillor Jones explained that he supported the Motion but felt that added pressure needed to be applied to Central Government on this topic as climate change encompassed a huge range of issues. He held concern that many of these that needed to be focused on could not be backed up by the necessary scientific studies. This was not just about climate change, rising sea levels was also a major concern. Studies could prove that sea levels could rise by half a metre or more by the end of this century as a result of pollution. This was specifically relative in the medium to short term as it could not be underestimated what the impacts for the District would be. Councillor Jones hoped that other Councils would follow Arun’s stance and press Government for the appropriate data to be used when considering large scale development in the future.

Councillor Mrs Catterson then seconded the amendment.

The Chief Executive asked Councillor Dixon if he and his seconder would be happy to accept Councillor Jones’ amendment being added to his Motion. Councillor Dixon confirmed that they were both happy for the amendment to be added to his Motion.

The Chairman then invited debate on the amended Motion. Councillor Ms Thurston confirmed that she wished to propose a short amendment to add a few words to the first paragraph of the Motion to read as set out below [additions have been shown in bold]:

Climate change is real. It doesn’t matter whether we believe it is man-made or the end of the last ice age – climate change is happening – and quickly. Earlier this year, the UK Parliament declared an Environment and Climate Emergency.

Councillor Ms Thurston in proposing her amendment stated that she felt these words would add strength to the Motion. She felt it necessary to remind the Government of its own declaration made and that it was now duty bound to act upon it bearing in mind that it had declared a climate change emergency.

Councillor Mrs Catterson then seconded this amendment.

A Point of Order was then raised in which concerns were aired over the procedural aspects in debating and voting on this Motion.

The Chief Executive confirmed that two amendments to the Motion had now been proposed and seconded. The first amendment had been accepted by the proposer and seconder of the Motion, Councillor Dixon. If he now felt able to accept this second amendment, it would be easier for the Council to then continue to debate and then vote on the Motion, as amended.

The Chief Executive asked Councillor Dixon if he and his seconder would be happy to accept Councillor Ms Thurston’s amendment being added to his Motion. Councillor Dixon confirmed that they were both happy for the amendment to be added to the Motion.

The Chairman then invited debate on the amended Motion.

Various Councillors spoke against the Motion. The point was made that at the last meeting of the Council various statements had been made on managing the coast in a changing climate. This had resulted in the Cabinet confirming that there was no intention of the Council giving up the sea defences along the Arun coastline. Requests had also been made that a stop should be put to scaremongering and frightening residents on this topic. At the same meeting, a Motion had been debated on how the Council could improve the level of sustainability of all developments in comparison to the present position and it had also been resolved that this work be carried forward through the Planning Policy Sub-Committee. This Motion was asking Councillors to declare that they had no confidence in the Council’s adopted Local Plan and to agree a moratorium on large scale developments whilst instructing the Chief Executive to write to the appropriate Minister seeking a meeting. It was a fact that global warming and climate change were the direct result of population growth and it was due to this that the present arrangements for Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans had been introduced. As population grew, more homes were needed to house residents in sustainable development. Without a National Planning Policy Framework speculative development would lead to an inability to provide homes to meet the need of the population in the locations where homes were needed. This was why the Council had a Local Plan which included specific policies on green infrastructure; natural environment; and flooding including sustainable drainage. All of these assessments had been included within the Local Plan and were well understood by the relevant organisations such as the Environment Agency. Based on this, some Councillors could not support this element of the Motion as the areas of concern raised were specifically and adequately covered in the Local Plan.

Other Councillors speaking against the Motion stated that they could not envisage Government supporting implementing a moratorium on large scale developments in the District due to the support of all three main political groups to increase rates of housebuilding to house the growing population. It was also unclear whether the moratorium would cover the number of homes for which permission had been granted and were either already in development or awaiting development. It needed to be pointed out that any delay in carrying forward agreed developments would result in rising levels of homelessness; a reduction in Section 106 contributions supporting infrastructure improvements and a reduction in income from New Homes Bonus. It was felt that the Motion did not address the issue of homelessness and would make that situation worse.

Those speaking in favour of the Motion could not agree with the statements just made. It was stated that the reasons for climate change such as population growth could not be accepted. One of the reasons lying behind climate change was the behaviour of people. It was accepted that housing for young people was needed. What had to be looked at was where these houses would be built – in areas where people had major concern about flooding now and in the future. The anticipated timeframe for increased sea levels was not far away. This Motion was simply asking for some breathing space so that the Council could take another look at these unpopular and contentious areas. The Motion, if accepted, need not hold up housebuilding, it was about looking at local challenges for Central Government to review.

There were some Members who expressed views for and against the Motion. It was pointed out that proposals for creating an Eco Town at Ford has been fully discussed some years ago but had not been pursued for all sorts of reasons. Much debate had taken place in agreeing housing numbers with the Council challenging these figures on two or three occasions since 2006. All these facts had been fully covered when the Council had agreed the Local Plan. The Council had a legal obligation to assess planning applications against the Local Plan. Failure to do this would lead to more planning appeals and losing controlling of the planning system.

Councillor Coster, as seconder to the Motion, confirmed that the Council should not rule out the fact that sea levels were rising and that if predictions materialised this meant a considerable rise within the next 60 years. This was why the Council had to adopt a sensible precautionary attitude in planning for this possibility to ensure that residents were protected. The Council’s Local Plan was not adequately covering this threat. What was needed was a coherent and funded plan which needed to come from Central Government level. A moratorium would introduce a temporary pause allowing a proper assessment to take place about what could happen.

Councillor Dixon, as proposer of the Motion, stated that he felt that many Members had not understood it. He had presented evidence that sea levels would increase to where they had once been. Although the precise timescales were not known, this was why Government needed to look at the unique situation forming Arun’s coastal community. He felt sure that it would result in the Council being recommended to not build on some levels. On the issue of providing much needed housing, he agreed that houses were needed but should only be built on what would be dry land in the future, this was the main thrust of his Motion and this was why the matter needed serious consideration by Central Government and before the Council granted planning permission for thousands of houses in areas at risk of flooding. He was simply asking the Government to assess the risk prior to the granting of planning permission.

A request had been made for a recorded vote to be taken.

Those voting for the Motion, as amended were Councillors Bennett, B Blanchard-Cooper, Brooks, Mrs Catterson, Coster, Dixon, Mrs Erskine, Goodheart, Mrs Gregory, Mrs Hamilton, Mrs Haywood, Huntley, Jones, Lury, Oliver-Redgate, Oppler, Purchese, Smith, Mrs Staniforth, Stanley, Ms Thurston, Dr Walsh, Mrs Worne and Mrs Yeates (24). Those voting against were Councillors Bicknell, Bower, Mrs Caffyn, Chapman, Charles, Clayden, Mrs Cooper, Mrs Daniells, Dendle, Edwards, Elkins, English, Gunner, Kelly, Mrs Madeley, Miss Rhodes, Roberts and Mrs Stainton (18). Councillors Buckland, Hughes, Ms Seex, Tilbrook and Mrs Warr abstained from voting.

The Motion was therefore declared CARRIED.

The Council, therefore

RESOLVED

That climate change is real. It doesn’t matter whether we believe it is man-made or the end of the last ice age – climate change is happening – and quickly. Earlier this year, the UK Parliament declared an Environment and Climate Emergency.

We are compelled, against our will, by Government, to build 20,000 new homes on a coastal plain. As Councillors we are required to consider and determine planning applications for 20,000 new homes on this part of the coastal plain in the coming years.

Large scale development in an area at risk of coastal and tidal flooding, flash flooding, surface water flooding, groundwater flooding from chalk aquifers and fluvial flooding is irresponsible.

The Council calls on the Government to introduce a moratorium on large scale development in the Arun District whilst climate change and its potential impact on coastal plain development is properly assessed at governmental level. The Council also calls on the Government to, as part of this assessment, report on the terrain of the Arun District and which areas are expected to be lost as a result of rising high tide marks, increased saturation of the water table and alteration of the flood plains - with reference to global sea levels of +0.5m, +1, +2 and +3m.

The Council instructs the Chief Executive to write to the appropriate government Minister to notify him/her of this motion and to request a meeting with the Minster in order to discuss it.

We also call on local MPs to engage with the concerns raised in this motion and to assist the council in taking these concerns to Government.

The Chairman then invited Councillor B Blanchard-Cooper to present his Motion – this was Motion 2 which read:

“The Council believes that the decision by West Sussex County Council to enforce a blanket license fee for the use of tables and chairs on highways to be unfair, unjust, short sighted. This seems to have undergone no measurable research against similar charges made by other similar authorities. We request an urgent meeting with West Sussex County Council to find resolution to this punitive measure that will protect the economic future of the Arun District”.

Councillor B Blanchard-Cooper stated that West Sussex County Council’s decision had been ill thought out and would be detrimental to Arun’s business community. He had contacted the Leader of West Sussex County Council, the copy of the email and the response received had been circulated to the meeting. The email had asked a series of questions and raised concerns and it was hoped that the response received might have cultivated a constructive way forward. Unfortunately, a bland list of answers had been received. Councillor B Blanchard-Cooper stated that although he had been disappointed at the response received, the Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure at WSCC, Councillor Elkins, had been in contact and had offered to meet to discuss the concerns listed. Based on this latest chain of events, Councillor B Blanchard-Cooper stated that he now wished to withdraw his Motion.

The Chairman then invited Councillor Bennet to present his Motion, this was Motion 3 which had been set out in the second bundle of papers issued. The Motion read:

“I make a request to change the following section of the Council’s Constitution- Part 3- Responsibility for Functions-Paragraph 4.2- Development Control Committee in terms of its stipulation that no more than 2 Members can also be Cabinet Members.

This will enable Cabinet Member Substitutes to replace any member on the Development Control Committee should they not be able to attend. It will also ensure that this vitally important committee has full representation at each meeting, which will help deliver the best possible service to the community of Arun District.”

Councillor Bennett outlined that the Development Control Committee was one of the Council’s most important Committees. Some of the Members on this Committee were Members who worked and so it was not always possible for them to be able to attend all meetings, sometimes apologies had to be given and at short notice. The Council’s Constitution limited the number of Cabinet Members who were able to sit on the Committee to two. This made substitution arrangements difficult if the Liberal Democrat Group found that a named substitute who was also a Cabinet Member needed to substitute a Member of the Committee who was not a Cabinet Member. The Motion aimed to resolve this issue.

Councillor Oppler seconded the Motion.

In debating this Motion, Councillor Dr Walsh stated that having discussed the Motion with the Council’s Monitoring Officer, he believed there some ambiguity in what was being proposed and so he therefore wished to propose an amendment to make the Motion clear. The amendment is set out below with deletions shown using ~~strikethrough~~ and any additions shown in bold.

This will enable Cabinet Member Substitutes to replace ~~any~~ a relevant Group Member on the Development Control Committee should they not be able to attend. It will also ensure that this vitally important committee has full representation at each meeting, which will help deliver the best possible service to the community of Arun District.”

Councillor Oppler, as seconder, and Councillor Bennett, as proposer to the Motion confirmed that they were happy to accept this amendment.

The Chairman then invited debate on the Motion, as amended.

Debate saw several viewpoints being expressed. A couple of Members felt that to extend the Membership of the Committee to allow up to four Cabinet Members to be able to sit on the Committee was too big an increase and that the matter needed wider debate at the Constitution Working Party where more legal opinion could be gained.

In response, the Group Head of Council Advice & Monitoring Officer confirmed that the appropriate Regulations had been checked and this was why it had been recommended that a cap on the level of Cabinet Member attendance be added to the Motion. The further amendment in the second paragraph also ensured that the political balance of the Committee would always be maintained.

Other Members spoke in support highlighting that the most important element of the Motion was to ensure that the Committee had full representation at each meeting.

Having voted on the amendment, it was declared CARRIED.

The Council

RESOLVED – That

(1) the following section of the Council’s Constitution - Part 3 - Responsibility for Functions -Paragraph 4.2 - Development Control Committee be changed in terms of its stipulation that no more than 2 Members can also be Cabinet Members and increase this figure from 2 to 3.

(2) This will enable Cabinet Member Substitutes to replace a relevant GroupMember on the Development Control Committee should they not be able to attend. It will also ensure that this vitally important Committee has full representation at each meeting, which will help deliver the best possible service to the community of Arun District.