Agenda item

The Chairman, Councillor Dr Walsh, will present the Minutes from the meeting of Cabinet held on 3 June 2019.  There are recommendations at:

 

o   Minute 20 [Assets of Community Value – Policy and Procedures] – to view the Officer’s report and the Appendixes, please click on these links: Report and The Policy

o   Minute 22 [Tivoli Group Ltd, Admissions Agreement to Local Government Pensions Scheme] – to view the Officer’s report – please click on this link: Report

o   Minute 24 [Planning Appeal at Land North of Hook Lane, Pagham] – to view the Officer’s report – please click on this link: Report

 

[Councillor Coster re-declared a personal interest in this item as a member of the Ship Inn.

 

Councillor Elkins declared a personal interest in this item as a member of West Sussex County Council.

 

Councillor Dr Walsh declared a personal interest in minute 22 as a member of West Sussex County Council.

 

Councillor Huntley declared a personal interest in minute 24 as a member of Pagham Parish Council]

 

Before introducing the Minutes, the Chairman invited Councillor Dendle to make a statement.  His statement referred to the start time of Cabinet meetings of 5.00pm which he felt was not a convenient time for working councillors.  He requested that a start time of 6.00pm be considered by the Cabinet which the Chairman, Councillor Dr Walsh agreed to consider.

 

            The Chairman, Councillor Dr Walsh, then presented the Minutes from the meeting of Cabinet held on 3 June 2019.

 

            Councillor Dr Walsh alerted Members to the first set of recommendations at Minute 20 [Assets of Community Value – Policy and Procedures] which aimed to make it easier for Parish Councils and community groups to understand how they could nominate an asset of community value.             Councillor Dr Walsh then formally proposed the recommendations which were seconded by Councillor Stanley.

 

            The Council

 

                        RESOLVED – That

 

(1)          the assets of Community Value Policy and Guidance Notes for Nominating Bodies and Owners be adopted;

 

(2)          the Group Head of Technical Services be delegated authority to make any future necessary changes to the Policy as a consequence of new legislation or alternative practices;

 

(3)          the following additions be made to the Council’s Constitution as Part 4 (Officer Scheme of Delegation):

 

(a)  Authority be delegated to the Director of Place and Group Head of Technical Services, or their nominated representative, in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Technical Services, to validate, consider and determine nominations for property/land to be listed as an asset of community value under the Assets of Community Value Policy.

 

(4)          the Group Head of Council Advice & Monitoring Officer be authorised to make any further consequential changes required to the Constitution.

 

            Councillor Dr Walsh then alerted Members to the next recommendation at Minute 22 [Tivoli Group Ltd – Admissions Agreement to Local Government Pensions Scheme}.  The recommendation was being made to reflect a change in service provider.

 

            Councillor Dr Walsh then formally proposed the recommendation which was duly seconded by Councillor Purchese.

 

            Councillor Chapman made a statement that he found it difficult to support this recommendation because it was unclear if this fund was in surplus or benefit.   Councillor Purchese, as Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods responded that he had been advised that two former members of Arun staff were affected, hence why the request was being made.

 

            Councillor Edwards sought clarification from the Monitoring Officer on whether he needed to declare an interest in this item.  The Monitoring Officer confirmed that there was no requirement based on his declaration in his Register of Interests.

           

            The Council returned to the recommendation and

 

                        RESOLVED

 

            That the Council acts as a guarantor in respect of any and all pension liabilities which may arise throughout the term of the contract and gives delegated authority to Legal Services to enter into the Admissions Agreement and Guarantee.

 

            Councillor Dr Walsh then drew Members’ attention to the final recommendation at Minute 24 [Planning Appeal at Land North of Hook Lane, Pagham], and the request for a supplementary estimate.  Councillor Dr Walsh duly proposed the recommendation, and this was seconded by Councillor Lury.

 

            Councillor Bower made a proposal that any debate on the recommendation should be held in exempt business as it related to a planning application and any statements made could affect the appeal.  He clarified the reason for the item to be considered exempt related to the potential legal proceedings.  Councillor Charles seconded this proposal.

 

            On putting this proposal to the vote, it was declared LOST.

 

            Returning to the recommendation, various points were made about the Council’s decision to defend planning appeals and decisions taken in the previous administration.  In concluding, Councillor Dr Walsh explained that the Council would always have to defend planning decisions/appeals due to the very nature of its business, and on this occasion, he was in support of the recommendation.

 

            The Council then

 

                        RESOLVED

 

That a supplementary estimate of up to £25,000 be approved for the costs associated with defending the appeal in respect of planning application P/6/17/OUT.  These include Counsel costs and costs of the appointment of a Planning Consultant to assist Members with defending an appeal in respect of Planning application P/6/17/OUT.

 

The supplementary estimate equates to a Band D Council Tax of £0.41.

 

Several Councillors then made statements on Minute 21 (Managing the Coast in a Changing Climate) in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 13.2, the detail of which is set out below:

 

·         Councillor Dendle specifically regarding an officer’s view stating that there may be areas of the coast that the Council would not defend. He requested a categorial assurance that residents’ homes in high risk areas such as Pagham and Clymping would not be sacrificed when it came to coastal defences.

·         Councillor Gunner said he welcomed an attempt from this authority to respond to Climate change. He did not feel that the report demonstrated this responsibility sufficiently. He specifically referred to how the report addressed the possible adaptation of the shoreline but asked what did this mean for the residents, businesses and the Arun District?  He believed that this report would be used to selectively stop coastal defences within our community. He asked what areas of Arun was the Council going to retreat from?

·         Councillor Mrs Pendleton stated that she supported Councillor Gunner’s statement.  She stated that the Council had a responsibility to its residents to protect them and their homes and this report did not explain how the Council was going to do this.

·         Councillor Huntley agreed with statements that had been made and thanked his colleagues for highlighting what he felt was a very important and concerning issue, particularly for Pagham residents. 

·         Councillor Elkins shared his opinion that the Council received good advice from its officers and that Arun had already completed a considerable amount of work on its coastal defences and had a good record for coastal defences and believed the Council should continue with this record. But that full consultation with Arun’s residents not just in high risk areas should take place.

·         Councillor Goodheart advised that having listened to his colleagues he agreed that the Council needed to be looking at all areas of Arun that would be at risk, including those not covered by the report. He stated that there was an ever-increasing pressure with global warming.

 

In responding, Councillor Dr Walsh advised the Council that the Cabinet had no intention of giving up the sea defences along the Arun Coast line and it was agreed that action needed to be taken now.  He reminded Members that it was the Environment Agency and the Government that used the phrase ‘managed retreat’ it was not Arun District Council.  He reiterated that there was absolutely no intention to abandon the Council’s sea defences and he was in agreement with Councillor Gunner that the Council needed to protect its coastline for future generations. He made a final request that a stop was put to scaremongering and frightening residents on this topic.

 

Councillor Dendle then made a statement regarding an inaccurate post that had been published on the Arun Conservatives website as set out below:

 

“I control the Arun Conservative Group website and as such I am the publisher of this site.

 

In a recent post we posted a story regarding Coastal Flooding, I didn’t write this post but I am the publisher.

 

We attributed Martin Lury with the following quote:

 

“It may be the case that we don’t defend certain parts of the coast.”

 

I accept this was a mistake and in fact an officer had in fact said this.  I want to sincerely apologise to Martin for the error.   I didn't attend the meeting, people who attended the meeting took notes but cannot confirm what Martin said.  If it’s ever pointed out I had made an error I’m happy to apologise without hesitation.

 

Martin I would have happily sat down with you over a cup of Coffee and said sorry.

 

However that is not what happened, the Corporate Board met on Monday 24 June at 0900hrs, the two Councillors who attended that meeting were Councillor Walsh and Councillor Oppler.  At 1017hrs immediately after Corporate Board our Leader, Councillor Terry Chapman received an email on behalf of the Chief Executive that said:

 

“The quote from Councillor Lury should be removed from the website immediately as it is not true he said it, is defamatory and is likely to have a negative impact on Councillor Lury’s reputation.

 

If the quote is not removed my Legal Team will consider instigating legal action for its removal and seek damages for loss of reputation. 

 

I do not blame the Chief Executive for this email because I believe he was acting on the direct instructions of either the Deputy Leader or the Leader, I also believe this was bullying in its nature. As stated I would have been happy to apologise without the threat to ruin me personally.

 

So I believe we need to avoid this situation in the future so at the next Council meeting I plan to bring a motion saying that any decision to take legal action for slander or libel against the Executive by a fellow Councillor should be decided by Full Council alone.  Not by the Executive, e.g. the Deputy Leader or the Leader.

 

It’s very regrettable that the Liberal Democrats have become intoxicated with power.”