Minutes:
The Chairman confirmed that the Questions from Members along with their responses had been circulated to Councillors earlier in the day and had been uploaded to the Full Council website. She outlined that the questions and responses would be put without discussion, in line with the Constitution.
The Chairman then invited each questioner to ask a supplementary question.
Supplementary questions were asked in relation to all questions that had been submitted. These questions and the supplementary responses would be uploaded to the Full Council website following this meeting.
Councillor Northeast confirmed that he wished to suspend Council Procedure Rules as he had been very disappointed that at last night’s meeting of the Overview Select Committee, due to a lack of Cabinet Member attendance, Members of the Committee had been denied their chance to ask the Cabinet questions. The Leader of the Council had stated that the questions could be asked at this meeting as part of this item.
Councillor Northeast then formally proposed a Motion without Notice 15 (m) [to suspend a particular Council Procedure Rule] to allow Cabinet Member Questions and Updates from last night’s meeting of the Overview Select Committee to be heard at the end of this item. This proposal was seconded by Councillor Roberts.
Advice was sought from the Interim Monitoring Officer who confirmed that Council Procedure Rule 15 made reference to Motions without Notice and 15(m) was the rule that needed to be applied in this instance to suspend a particular Council Procedure Rule and that the particular Council Procedure Rule that was being referred to was the rule where only those minutes that were before the Council could attract questions. His view was that Councillor Northeast had proposed to suspend that procedure rule and this was what Councillors would be asked to vote on.
In discussing this proposal, it was suggested that only Members who had attended last night’s meeting of the Overview Select Committee be entitled to ask a Cabinet Member a question now, otherwise it would make this matter very complicated. This suggestion was highlighted as a very sensible way forward by the Interim Monitoring Officer.
In terms securing the good management of the meeting, it was also suggested that a timeframe be placed on the question time period allowed and that the questions be constrained to an agenda item and not be allowed to be applied to all remaining items on this agenda.
A 30 minute timeframe was suggested for these Cabinet Member questions and this was formally proposed by Councillor Dr Walsh as an amendment to Councillor Northeast’s Motion without Notice 15 (m). Councillor Northeast confirmed that he was happy to accept this, however Councillor Roberts asked it a further 15 minutes could be added to the 30 minute timeframe, to be applied at the Chairman’s discretion. On this being put to the vote, it was declared CARRIED.
It was confirmed that the following Councillors [Members of the Overview Select Committee or those that had attended as substitutes], be permitted to ask the Cabinet questions. These were Councillors Bennett, Bicknell, Mrs Cooper, Cooper, Dixon, Edwards, English, Gunner, Huntley, Needs, Northeast, Roberts, Seex, Tilbrook and Thurston.
The following questions were then asked:
(1) From Councillor Cooper to the Leader of the Council or the appropriate Cabinet Member. In December there had been a meeting regarding much needed kelp beds organised by Wildlife Sussex. The Council had been asked to send two representatives, one from the Foreshore team with the other from the tourism team, though none of these Officers had attended what had been an important meeting. Reassurance was required that in the future, the appropriate Officer(s) would attend.
Councillor Dr Walsh responded stating that he was a huge supporter of the kelp forest and that the extensions had now been confirmed from the east of Shoreham to Selsey. Councillor Dr Walsh confirmed that he could not respond on the non-attendance of Officers, however, agreed that the Council needed to ensure that for all future meetings, attendance by the Council would be guaranteed.
(2) From Councillor Gunner to the Leader of the Council regarding Littlehampton Regeneration, which was two years late, yet the Place St Maur project had sped ahead. Why was it that this administration no longer cared about Littlehampton?
Councillor Dr Walsh confirmed that he represented part of Littlehampton on the County Council; the District Council and the Littlehampton Town Council. He confirmed that he cared very passionately about the Town and for its economic, social and health wellbeing. The reasons for the delay in the public realm works had already been explained in detail on several occasions. The money was there, the delays had been explained as being down to Covid and contractual difficulties, and the scheme had now started and would be visible to the public from September onwards. Other schemes would be progressed for Littlehampton in response to the opportunity for the Council to apply for funding from the Levelling Up Fund and the Opening Up High Streets Fund.
A supplementary question was asked. This response was difficult to accept in terms of it being the reality. There had been many Member Briefings and Presentation on other major schemes, Littlehampton Community Wardens had no power over enforcement and so it felt that the commitment was not there – reassurance was requested that the Cabinet was committed to Littlehampton, not just Bognor Regis.
Councillor Dr Walsh responded stating that the answer he had provided about the £3.4m being invested in the public realm for Littlehampton showed commitment. There were other attempts to incorporate the section that could not be achieved in that budget from the Station to the Church and Surrey Street and Beach Road. There were other schemes that would be looked at however it was impossible to pre-judge what the outcome of the Council’s bid to the Levelling-Up Fund and Opening Up High Streets Fund would be.
(3) From Councillor Huntley to the Leader of the Council regarding the Pagham Petition submitted to the Council on 8 February 2021. The Pandemic had had a slowing effect on processing this petition but why had no progress been made to allow it to be presented for discussion. If further valid signatures were submitted to make the required number to ensure Full Council debate, could assurance be given that this would be discussed at the earliest opportunity at Full Council?
The Interim Monitoring Officer responded explaining the varying reasons for the delay in validating this petition. He confirmed that if there were additional signatures that could be submitted, these should be so that these signatures could be added to those that had been confirmed as valid. If the required number of signatures were met to allow Full Council discussion [1,500], then it would be the next Full Council meeting on 12 May 2021 which would consider the petition.
A supplementary question was asked. There was about 1,483 signatures and at close of play today the total was 1,490 and so it was likely that further submissions would be made. This was a result of the over development at Pagham.
The Cabinet Member for Planning, Councillor Lury then made a statement on this item.
(4) From Councillor Roberts to the Leader of the Council regarding the Foreshore Officers and an email exchange about a member of staff leaking the content of emails to the press with regard to their employment this season. Was the Leader of the Council aware of this email confirming to Foreshore Officers that they would not be employed this year?
Councillor Dr Walsh confirmed that he had not seen that email but when he had been made aware of the comment made by that member of the Foreshore staff, he had spoken to the Chief Executive who agreed that it had been an internal leak from within the Council. As these were operational matters, it was felt inappropriate for him to see such emails passed between senior officers and staff members.
A supplementary question was asked. This was not about operational matters but about policy. The detail of the email referred to above was again reread by Councillor Roberts who asked for clarification.
Councillor Walsh confirmed that the Cabinet had made it clear that it wished to continue with the Foreshore service, and this had been carried out by Officers.
(5) From Councillor Dixon regarding the Pagham Petition which had been submitted on 8 February 2021. This had taken too long for the Council to verify the signatures, though it was accepted that there were sound reasons for this. Had the Council verified the petition earlier, the petitioners would have had the opportunity to address the problems and could have met the requirements to have allowed debate at this Full Council meeting. There were good reasons as to why such a large proportion of names had been declared invalid and this was due to them residing outside of the District. Would it be possible to show the Ward Members a marked up copy of the petition showing the names that were disqualified and the reason so that they could feedback to the public, subject to GDPR guidelines.
The Interim Monitoring Officer responded stating that if the Cabinet Member for Planning was content for this information to be supplied, then this would be actioned. The Cabinet Member for Planning confirmed that he approved this course of action.
(6) From Councillor Bicknell to the Leader of the Council regarding Littlehampton Regeneration and the contract for the public realm works. It was his understanding that all Members would have input in agreeing the design before the tender submission stage. When would the input and thoughts of Councillors be taken on board?
Councillor Dr Walsh confirmed that Members of the Littlehampton Regeneration Sub-Committee as well as other Councillors had been involved in looking at the designs and their progression and had taken part in a walkthrough of the area. The contract had been let, as confirmed earlier in the meeting, with the preliminary works already started with the visible construction works commencing in September 2021.
A supplementary question was asked. The walkthrough had not been effective, and the design proposals should have been reported to Members for approval. This had not taken place.
The Director of Place referred Councillor Bicknell back to the answers provided to the meeting of the Littlehampton Regeneration Sub-Committee held on 11 March 2021. He had advised that the Council was in Stage 3 [the design stage] of this project and that Members would be presented with the final documents towards the end of April 2021 to allow them to give an indication as to whether the final sign-off for the design was acceptable. The Director of Place then explained the tender process to date and explained that a Members’ Seminar would be organised soon.
(7) Councillor Edwards to the Cabinet Member for Planning regarding the Pagham petition and whether sharing the petition would breach GDPR regulations.
Councillor Lury confirmed that if this was the case, the action proposed earlier would not be able to happen.
A supplementary question was asked, and Councillor Edwards confirmed his view that he was pretty sure that to share the detail of the petition, with Ward Councillors, would be breaching GDPR rules.
The Interim Monitoring Officer confirmed that it would not be a breach of GDPR because those who had signed the petition had been made aware that their names and addresses would be made public. Disclosing this information to a closed group of Ward Councillors with condition of confidentiality applied, would meet the Council’s requirements in respect of GDPR.
The Chairman then drew Cabinet Member questions to a close.