Minutes:
(At the commencement of this item, Councillor Goodheart declared a Personal Interest in Minute 19 – Bognor Regis Place Branding and in relation to any reference made to the Rox Festival).
The Chairman, Councillor Stanley, presented the Minutes from the meeting of the Bognor Regis Regeneration Sub-Committee held on 4 March 2021.
Councillor Stanley then referred Members to a recommendation at Minute 19 [Bognor Regis Place Branding] which he duly proposed. This recommendation was then seconded by Councillor Brooks.
The Council
RESOLVED
That the findings of the place branding perception study be noted as a reflection on community perceptions following the public consultation exercise.
Councillor Stanley confirmed that there was now a second
recommendation for the Council to consider and he provided some
background to this and revised minutes which had been uploaded to
the Full Council webpage as a supplement. He outlined that at the Sub-Committee meeting, a
vote had been undertaken on whether the Place Branding core values
and brand filter for all Council activity in Bognor Regis should be
adopted. The result of the vote
undertaken was that the Sub-Committee voted against this
recommendation. Following consultation with the Interim Monitoring
Officer, it was confirmed that the Bognor Regis Regeneration
Sub-Committee did not have the authority to not bring this matter
to Full Council based on the outcome of the vote, but that a
recommendation to not to adopt the place branding core value should
have been forwarded to Full Council to allow debate by all Members
to make the final decision. In view of
this, Councillor Stanley confirmed that this formed the second
recommendation for the Council to consider. In proposing it,
Councillor Stanley confirmed that he wished to make an amendment
and he provided some background information to this. The recommendation read as follows: additions are
shown in bold and deletions shown using
strikethrough
“Full Council adopts the place branding Core Values
and “Brand Filter” approach are not adopted for all Council
activity in Bognor Regis with a review by the relevant Committee
after a twelve month period to assess progress”.
This amendment was seconded by Councillor Staniforth.
The Chairman then invited debate on this amendment.
Debate commenced with Councillors speaking against this amendment. This was because they could not agree with the detail surrounding the core values which they felt contained outdated information and as only 600 people had been involved in the topic and been asked questions. It was also felt that the information presented only related to Bognor Regis and no other part of the area such as Bersted, Aldwick or Pagham.
Other Councillors confirmed that they could not support the amendment on the grounds that the Sub-Committee had already decided that it did not want this to be presented to Full Council for further determination. This amendment was an attempt to bypass the Sub-Committee’s conclusion of this item.
Following further debate, Councillor Stanley confirmed that he wished to withdraw this amendment.
The Chairman then returned to the substantive recommendation and for clarity asked this to be confirmed. The substantive recommendation was confirmed as follows:
“To recommend to Full Council to not to adopt the place branding Core Values and “Brand Filter” approach for all Council activity in Bognor Regis”.
The substantive recommendation was seconded by Councillor Brooks.
The Chairman then invited debate on the substantive recommendation. This saw Councillors speaking in support of it based on the comments that had been raised earlier in that the study contained out of date information; had not reached out to a large representation of people residing in the area; and that its content was restrictive and the values listed could be improved. There were Councillors who agreed with these statements but still wished for this matter to be brought before the new Economic Committee for further consideration. Following further debate, Councillor Bennett proposed a further amendment which was to “refer this back to the new Economic Committee to review” based on comments made by some Members that a place branding exercise should be conducted for the whole of the District, not just for Bognor Regis.
Councillor Miss Seex then seconded this amendment.
Debate then took place on this amendment and a recorded vote was requested and if this vote failed, that a recorded vote also be undertaken on the substantive recommendation.
The Chairman then invited debate on this amendment.
There were Councillors who supported this new amendment and felt strongly that it should be reviewed further by the new Economic Committee hopefully resulting in a place branding initiative being devised to cover and enhance the entire District to include Arundel and Littlehampton.
Following further debate, Councillor Cooper proposed “that the question be now be put”. This was agreed by the Chairman and seconded by Councillor English.
A recorded vote was then undertaken on Councillor Bennett’s amendment. Those voting for were Councillors Batley, Bennett, Blanchard-Cooper, Brooks, Buckland, Goodheart, Gregory, Haywood, Jones, Lury, Needs, Oppler, Purchese, Seex, Smith, Staniforth, Stanley, Tilbrook, Walsh, Warr and Mrs Yeates (21). Those voting against were Councillors Bicknell, Bower, Caffyn, Chapman, Charles, Cooper, Cooper, Coster, Dixon, Edwards, Elkins, English, Gunner, Hamilton, Huntley, Kelly, Oliver-Redgate, Pendleton, and Roberts (19). Councillors Baker, Thurston and Worne abstained from voting (4).
The amendment was therefore CARRIED.
The Chairman then called for a short adjournment.
The Interim Monitoring Officer then reminded Members what the next process was in concluding this item. This was that the amendment put forward by Councillor Bennett, which had been carried, would now become the substantive recommendation. Unless there was further debate, a recorded vote would need to be undertaken.
A recorded vote was then undertaken on this substantive recommendation.
Those voting for were Councillors Batley, Bennett, Blanchard-Cooper, Buckland, Gregory, Haywood, Lury, Needs, Oppler, Purchese, Seex, Smith, Staniforth, Stanley, Tilbrook, Walsh, Warr, Worne and Yeates (19). Those voting against were Councillors Bicknell, Bower, Caffyn, Chapman, Charles, Cooper, Cooper, Coster, Dendle, Dixon, Edwards, Elkins, English, Goodheart, Gunner, Hamilton, Kelly, Oliver-Redgate, Pendleton and Roberts (21). Those abstaining were Councillors Baker, Brooks, Huntley, Northeast and Thurston (4).
The substantive recommendation was LOST.
The Committee Services Manager then confirmed that she had made a miscalculation in confirming the results of the recorded vote. A Point of Order was raised in that Councillor Goodheart’s vote had not been taken. The Committee Services Manager confirmed that she had called for his vote, however had not received a response.
The Chief Executive confirmed that a revote was required. The Committee Services Manager was asked to confirm again the wording of the substantive recommendation.
This was that “to refer the place branding item to the Economic Committee”.
Several Points of Order were then raised on the wording of the substantive recommendation.
Those voting for it were Councillors Batley, Bennett, Blanchard-Cooper, Buckland, Gregory, Haywood, Lury, Needs, Oppler, Purchese, Seex, Smith, Staniforth, Stanley, Tilbrook, Walsh, Warr, Worne and Yeates (19). Those voting against were Councillors Bicknell, Bower, Brooks, Caffyn, Chapman, Charles, Cooper, Cooper, Coster, Dendle, Dixon, Edwards, Elkins, English, Goodheart, Gunner, Hamilton, Kelly, Oliver-Redgate, Pendleton and Roberts (21). Councillor Baker, Huntley, Northeast and Thurston abstained from voting (4).
The substantive recommendation was therefore LOST.