Decisions

            The Chair invited the Interim Monitoring Officer to present the Work Programme. He explained that Member Learning and Development may be added to it if responsibility for this was given to Standards Committee.

            The recommendation was then proposed by Councillor Tilbrook and seconded by Councillor Gregory.

            The Committee

                        RESOLVED

                        That its Work Programme for 2021/22 be noted.

            The Chair invited the Interim Monitoring Officer to present his report. He explained that this was a record made available to the public, to show what activity had taken place in terms of complaints about Councillors.

            A discussion took place around the Complaint Form, and whether or not there was a section on the form that highlighted if the Member had been carrying out their duties as a Councillor when the complaint was made. The Monitoring Officer said he would review this.

            Clarification was sought around anonymous complaints and whether these were allowed. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that these were not usually allowed, unless there was an obvious good reason for this or that the incident had happened in a public place in which other people could verify it.

            It was asked whether anything sent to Members in relation to the Standards Committee, be also sent to the Independent Persons.

            The Committee

RESOLVED

That the Register of Complaints against Councillors and progress of any outstanding complaints be noted.

                        The Chair invited the Interim Monitoring Officer to present his report. He explained the report was the first of its kind in Arun, and the purpose was to give Members an overview of the work of the Monitoring Officer. The report went through the Terms of Reference of the Committee so Members could see how it had evolved. The Monitoring Officer went on to talk about promoting and maintaining high standards of conduct, and explained the report made clear the promotion of high standards sat not just with the Code of Conduct, but also through the adoption of protocols. The report also pointed out that Arun was seeking to train Parish Councils on the new Code of Conduct, although not all had so far chosen to adopt the new code.

                        The Monitoring Officer drew Members’ attention to page 21 where it mentioned Member/Officer Protocol. It was important that the Member/Officer Protocol be re-examined because it had not been looked at for some time and also the change to the Committee Structure implied a new way of working with Officers. The Monitoring Officer also highlighted that he had been asked to look at how Members conducted themselves during online meetings, as there had been complaints about Members eating, drinking, smoking or being in a café/restaurant. He noted Members may wish for this to be looked at in the Work Programme. The Monitoring Officer also mentioned that The Local Government Association (LGA), whose code Arun had partly adopted, were in the process of writing guidance on the code, which would be drawn to Members’ attention as and when it became available.

The Chair thanked the Monitoring Officer for the report.

            The Committee

RESOLVED

That the Monitoring Officer Report be noted.

            The Committee

RESOLVED

That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and accredited representatives of newspapers be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they may involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act by virtue of the paragraph specified against the items.

            The Chair invited the Interim Monitoring Officer to present his report, who then provided an introduction to the Terms of Reference for the Standards Committee. He drew Members’ attention to items 1, the general Terms of Reference of the Committee, and 2, the recommendation for Committee to ask the Constitution Working Party (CWP) to recommend to Full Council that the Terms of Reference of Standards Committee explicitly include the coordination of Member Learning and Development. The Monitoring Officer went on to explain that in several other Committees each Member was required to carry out training before they could sit on the Committee, and that this was not currently coordinated by any one Committee.

            Members then took part in a full debate where the following points were raised:

·         Some companies used an online training matrix that is visible to all, could this be considered for Arun.

·         Could the list of training that Members had completed, and their entitlement to sit on each Committee be published, which would make finding a suitable substitute easier. The Committee Services Manager provided reassurance that Committee Services kept a list of who was eligible to sit on each Committee and provided this for the purposes of finding substitutes when required.

            The recommendations were then proposed by Councillor Tilbrook and seconded by Councillor Bicknell.

            The Committee

RESOLVED - that

1.    the general Terms of Reference for Committees in Part 3 paragraph 3 of the Constitution be noted, and the specific Terms of Reference of this Committee as established by Full Council on 19 May 2021 as set out in part 1 and Part 2 of Appendix 1 be further noted.

2.  the Constitution Working Party (CWP) be asked to recommend to Full Council that the terms of reference of Standards Committee explicitly include the coordination of Member Learning and Development.

3.    the schedule of Committee meetings for 2021/22 set out in the Calendar of Meetings attached be noted.

The Committee

RESOLVED

That its start times for meetings for 2021/22 be 6.00 pm.

            The Chair invited the Customer & Parking Services Manager to present his report. He explained that the report referred to the parking area at the front of the Town Hall, which was not currently covered by the Parking Order, and not currently regulated. The area was meant to be a pick-up and drop-off zone, but had been being used by vehicles with no connection to The Town Hall. He explained that in the past a private company had been used to enforce this area, however as the Council had their own parking enforcement team, it would be appropriate for this to be covered by them. In order for any area to be included in the Parking Order, consultations were required to be carried out. The proposed change would be advertised as public notices in local newspapers as well as being advertised on the internet; notices would be displayed in the Regis Centre car park; consultation letters would be sent to all District Councillors and bodies as listed in Appendix B, inviting comments.

            The Chair then invited questions from Members. Clarification was sought around whether the area would only be for short stays or whether tickets could be acquired from within the Town Hall. The Customer & Parking Services Manager confirmed the area would only be for short stays, which was currently 20 minutes.

            A full discussion then took place around how this could impact people with disabilities. It was noted that someone with disabilities may require parking for longer than 20 minutes. The possibility of rear access to the Town Hall was mentioned, however later noted that this was probably not possible, as it was believed the rear access led straight into the confidential area.

            The Chair asked the Customer & Parking Services Manager whether the matter would go back to Committee for Members to be presented with the detail following the consultation process. The Customer & Parking Services Manager explained the recommendation was that it went back to the Group Head, as the next Committee meeting was not until 23 September, which would mean the area could not be enforced until then.

            It was asked whether Blue Badge holders from this Committee could be involved in the consultation. The Customer & Parking Services Manager explained that a letter would be sent to all Members for them to comment, which could be included in the response. He also offered to send a copy of the response to Members of this Committee, and if needed a discussion could be had about this.

            Councillor Needs declared a Personal Interest as was also a Member of Bognor Regis Town Council.

            The recommendations were then proposed by Councillor Edwards and seconded by Councillor Chace

            The Committee

RESOLVED – that

1. The proposed amendment to the Council’s Off-Street Parking Order be put out for consultation.

2. Delegated authority be given to the Group Head of Neighbourhood Services to consider the results of this consultation and review whether this amendment is to be confirmed.

A proposal was made by Councillor Edwards and seconded by Councillor Staniforth to change the date of the November Committee meeting.

            The Committee

                        RESOLVED

That the Environment & Neighbourhood Services Committee meeting date in November be changed from 18 November to 17 November.

            The Chair invited the Engineering Services Manager to present his report. He explained that it was regarding the Environment Agency’s Phase 2 scheme at Elmer Sands. He pointed out that the idea of the Community Flood Fund was well established within the Council, and the report was just seeking to draw down £40,000 of that money towards the work that the Environment Agency wanted to do. He went onto explain that the Environment Agency had a previous successful scheme called Elmer 1, that Arun contributed to, which was to protect the area from direct coastal attack by waves. He explained the new scheme would protect against ‘back-door flooding’, where the area slightly to the East was being eroded, and potential for water to get round the back of the defences and attack or cause flooding to the area of Elmer Sands from a different direction. The Environment Agency had got the scheme on their programme for quite a while, however because of the monitoring that had taken place, it had been noticed that the beach was responding a lot quicker than had been anticipated, so it had been brought forward in the scheme. The total scheme would probably cost in excess of £1,000,000 to carry out. The work would probably not take place until 2022/23, however a formal agreement needed to be entered into with the Environment Agency. The design of the scheme would probably be very much like the Elmer Rock Islands, but on a smaller scale.

            Members then took part in a question and answer session as summarised below:

·         Would the money stay with Arun until it was actually required. The Engineering Services Manager confirmed the funds would stay with Arun until required for work to be carried out.

·         Could more details be provided on the works that would be carried out. The Engineering Services Manager agreed to circulate further information when it was received by him. He also pointed out that the work would be carried out under Permitted Development.

·         Could the work have a detrimental effect on surrounding areas. The Engineering Services Manager confirmed it would be designed in such a way that it did not have a detrimental effect on surrounding areas.

·         Clarification was sought on which budget this would come out of. The Engineering Services Manager confirmed this would be from the Community Flood Fund, set up some years ago.

·         Would the Community Flood Fund require topping up. The Engineering Services Manager explained that this has been considered, and could be looked at again.

            Several Members expressed their support for the scheme.

            The recommendations were then proposed by Councillor Bicknell and seconded by Councillor Huntley

The Committee

RESOLVED – that

1.  A Partnership Funding contribution of £40,000 from the Community Flood Fund to the Environment Agency’s Elmer II scheme be approved;

2.  Authority to enter into a Contribution Agreement with the Environment Agency be given;

3. The draw down funds from the Community Flood Fund (likely to be required in 2022/23) be authorised.

The Chair invited the Group Head of Technical Services to present the Work Programme to the Committee. He and the Group Head of Neighbourhood Services introduced the Work Programme and explained that additional items would be added onto this, particularly in the latter parts of the year.

The Chair explained to Members that if they had any suggestions for items to be added onto the Work Programme, they should send these to the Chair and Vice-Chair, who would then have discussions with Officers. It was asked that such suggestions not be brought to Committee directly by Members.

The recommendations were then proposed by Cllr Bicknell and seconded by Cllr Needs.

The Committee

                        RESOLVED

That its Work Programme for 2021/22 be noted.

The Chair invited the Group Head of Technical Services to present his report, who then provided a summary. He explained the Council has been invited by the Environment Agency to submit a response to a consultation on an application for an Environmental Permit. He explained the reason for it being an Urgent Item was due to the current deadline for a response being 23 June 2021. It was explained that Officers were seeking authority from this Committee to submit a consultation response.

The recommendation was proposed by Cllr Bicknell and seconded by Cllr Huntley.

The Committee

                     RESOLVED

That delegate authority be given to the Group Head of Technical Services, in consultation with the Chair of the Environment & Neighbourhood Committee, to submit a response to the consultation on an application for an Environmental Permit ref: EPR/MP3904BD.

            The Chair invited the Interim Monitoring Officer to present his report. He then provided an introduction to the Terms of Reference, drawing Members’ attention to the recommendations and the two appendices which detailed the general terms of reference and the specific terms of this Committee.

            Members then took part in a full debate where the following points were raised:

·         Could Biodiversity be added to the Terms of Reference, and should air pollution also be considered as a specific function of the Committee. The Chair confirmed that Biodiversity was within the remit of the Committee. The Director of Services confirmed that Officers would consider whether the different elements of pollution could be brought together in a report and brought to Committee, and that officers could make some suggestions at the next Agenda Preparation Meeting.

·         It was asked whether discussions could be had on how more wildlife could be encouraged into the District.

Clarification was also sought around some of the points in the report, which was provided by the Chair and Officers at the meeting.

The Chair asked whether Members would agree to suggesting to the Constitution Working Party (CWP) that the wording on Appendix 1 - 3.1.6 – be changed from ‘In discharging its functions, Committees must have regard to the ongoing requirement to make savings and efficiencies’ to read ‘In discharging its functions, Committees must have regard to the ongoing requirement to provide value for money’

This motion was proposed by Cllr Edwards and seconded by Cllr Goodheart.

The motion was put to a vote and was CARRIED.

The Chair asked whether Members would agree to suggesting to the Constitution Working Party (CWP) that a new standing item be added to the agenda after Public Question Time for Members Question Time.

This motion was proposed by Cllr Edwards and seconded by Cllr Needs.

The motion was put to the vote and was CARRIED.

A discussion then took place regarding Reserved Matters on Appendix 2, around compensation and grants.

The Chair went on to talk about the figures for awarding contracts, and the following points were raised:

·                    Whether the value for awarding contracts, delegated to Officers, should be reduced to £50,000 or remain at £100,000.

·                    If a contract was to be awarded for a period of more than a year and the full contract was going to cost over £100,000, this should be taken to the Committee.

·                    It was suggested that the Heads of Service provide a list at the Agenda Preparation Meetings of all contracts that were due for procurement, and the Chair and Vice Chair would then give a view on whether these should be taken to the Committee. Other Members offered their support for this.

A discussion took place around Outside Bodies and how feedback would be provided to the Committee, and the role of those Members sitting on the Outside Bodies.

The subject of Biodiversity was referred back to and Members agreed the suggestion to add Biodiversity onto the Terms of Reference would be taken to the CWP.

The Chairman then returned to the substantive recommendations which were then proposed by Cllr Edwards and seconded by Cllr Staniforth.

The Committee

                        RESOLVED - That

1)   the general terms of reference for Committees in Part 3, Paragraph 3, of the Constitution and further note the specific terms of reference of this Environment and Neighbourhood Services Committee, as established by Full Council on 19 May 2021, as set out in Part 1 and Part 2 of Appendix 1 (attached), be noted;

2)   the suggestions agreed by the Committee in respect of a change to Appendix 1 - 3.1.6; a new standing item to be added to the agenda for Members Question Time; to add Biodiversity onto the Terms of Reference, be taken to Full Council, through the Constitution Working Party (CWP)for clarifications of these terms of reference

3)   the schedule of Environment and Neighbourhood Services Committee meetings as set out in the Calendar of meetings, attached as a background paper accessible by e-link; be noted and

4) the matters reserved scheme whereby matters not reserved by Committee to itself are delegated to Officers be approved as set out in Appendix 2 (attached).

The Committee

                        RESOLVED

That its start times for meetings for 2021/22 be 6.00pm.

            The Chair invited the Principal Landscape Officer to present her report. She then explained the reason for the item being an Urgent Item was so that tenders could be issued and the Project Programme be met. The item had been due to go to the meeting of Cabinet on 17 May 2021, however this meeting was cancelled. It was then highlighted that the report focussed on two elements of the procurement process, the Construction Contract for Place St Maur, and the Traffic Studies for The Esplanade. Key points in the report were then highlighted.

            The Principle Landscape Officer also shared a summary of events that could take place on the sites. These included those that were more established such as the ice rink and Folk Festival; screenings such as sport and national events; themed fairs and markets including covered markets in a marquee; theatrical performances and a range or family activities. It was mentioned that this was the start of a new opportunity for Bognor Regis in terms of event programmes and also opportunities to link with road closures of The Esplanade should event organisers wish to take this forward.

            Members then took part in a full debate and the following points were raised:

·         Had accessibility for everyone including the partially sighted and wheelchair users, been taken into consideration. The Principle Landscape Officer confirmed this had been taken into account and the site would be accessible.

·         It was stated that a disabled changing places toilet was being pursued, and was hopefully something that would be coming up later in the year.

·         It was noted it would be beneficial for all the Ward Members involved in the location to be briefed on the progress.

The recommendations were then proposed by Cllr English and seconded by Cllr Chace.

The Committee

                        RESOLVED – that

1.  the Heads of Terms, as set out in the report, for the Place St Maur construction contract procurement process be approved; and

2.  the budget of £70K approved by Full Council for the Esplanade traffic studies be noted and the Heads of Terms, as set out in the report, for the procurement process be approved.

The Chair invited the Internal Audit Manager to present his report. He pointed out that CIPFA best practice was that an annual report was provided to Full Council by the audit committee of local authorities. His report summarised the meetings and activity of Arun’s Audit & Governance Committee in the municipal year 2020/21 and it was requested that the Committee agree that it was presented to Full Council. As the 2020/21 Chair was no longer a member of the Council, with the agreement of the Committee it would be presented by the current Chair who was a member of the Committee through the period.     

The recommendation was then proposed by Councillor Chace and seconded by Councillor Oliver-Redgate.

            The Committee

                        RESOLVED

To endorse the content of the report and to recommend its presentation to Full Council by the Committee Chair.

            The Chair invited the Neighbourhood Services Manager to present her report, who explained that tenancy fraud was a very common problem for local authorities, and it could be very difficult to detect without specialist investigations, which often involved visiting people in their homes. The post of Fraud Investigation and Enforcement Officer, previously the Housing Investigator, became vacant in January 2020. They had now successfully recruited to the post and were delivering a service, which they were reviewing to develop a robust approach, to detect and investigate all reports of tenancy fraud.

            A discussion took place around whether an update report should be provided in 6 months rather than in 12 months. This was proposed by Councillor Chapman and seconded by Councillor Haywood.

            The Committee

RESOLVED – that

1)    the report be noted.

2)   an update report comes back to the Committee in 12 months, with an additional update report in the February 2022 Committee meeting.

            The Chair invited the Senior Accountant (Treasury) to present her report, who highlighted a few areas in her report as follows:-

·         Page 116, the Member briefing held on 13 July 2021, carried out by the Treasury Management Advisor, Richard Bason from Link Group, which she understood Members found informative.

·         Page 120 and 125, it mentioned Returns on Investments, which had been challenging due to the low interest rate environment, however investments with CCLA Diversified Fund, introduced to Arun in August 2020 helped the returns. There were also additional funds from the Covid Grants, which increased the monetary value on the returns. The rates dropped significantly from the budgeted rates, due to Covid-19. The budgeted rates of 1.26% dropped to an actual rate of 0.86%, however the monetary value was at £550,000 on the budget, but £627,000 had been achieved, which was an additional £77,000. They survived negative rates.

·         Page 122 the base rate expectations by advisors in November 2020 was to stay at 0.1% until after March 2024, whereas pre-Covid-19 it was expected to be at 1.25% in March 2023.

·         Page 124 the borrowing stood at £44,000,000 with £8,860,000 due to be paid off on 28^th March 2022 leaving £35,000,000 million at 28^th March 2022.

            There were no questions from Members.

            The recommendations were then proposed by Councillor Bennett and seconded by Councillor Chapman.

            The Committee

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL – that

1)     the actual prudential and treasury indicators for 2020/21 contained in the report be approved

2)     the annual treasury management report for 2020/21 be noted

3)     the treasury activity during 2020/21 which has generated interest receipts of £627,000 (0.86%), budget £550,000 (1.26%) be noted.

The Chair invited the Internal Audit Manager to present his report, who explained that Ernst & Young LLP undertook this work on behalf of the Council and reported the results to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). In the past they had provided a summary report which has been presented to the Committee. However, they now only provided a technical report to Revenues & Benefits management, a ‘summary’ then had to be drafted separately by Officers. The results were a credit to the work of the Benefits and Benefits Subsidy staff involved with a small number of minor items being reported. While this had resulted in a small final adjustment to the claim submitted to the DWP and a qualification letter being raised, this was basically a standard for when any errors were noted as part of the certification and, as had been advised to the Committee previously, was not a significant issue in the same way that a qualification from the audit of the Council’s main Accounts would be. The Committee’s view was sought on whether it wished to receive a similar report each year as it now had to be prepared by Officers, or whether it would be happy that a report was only presented in future if significant issues were identified as part of the certification.

Members expressed the view that whilst it was nice to be able to thank Officers, they understood that time would be better spent only bringing the matter to Committee in future if there were significant issues.

Councillor Bennett proposed that a report regarding the Housing Benefit Subsidy Claim Certification was only presented in future if significant issues were identified as part of the certification. This was seconded by Councillor Staniforth.

            The Committee

RESOLVED

That a report regarding the Housing Benefit Subsidy Claim Certification would only be presented to Committee in the future if significant issues were highlighted

            The Chair invited the Interim Monitoring Officer to present his report, who introduced the Terms of Reference for the Committee. He explained that as the Council had transitioned from a Cabinet form of governance, to a Committee form of governance, the first meeting of the Committee in the municipal year consisted of going through the Terms of Reference. This was for Members to see what the Terms of Reference of the Committee were, for clarification to be sought, and for any suggestions for change that Members had to be taken to the Constitution Working Party (CWP).

            There were no questions from Members.

The recommendations were then proposed by Councillor Chapman and seconded by Councillor Bennett.

            The Committee

RESOLVED – that

1)     the general Terms of Reference for Committees in Part 3 paragraph 3 of the Constitution be noted, and the specific Terms of Reference of this Audit and Governance Committee as established by Full Council on 19 May 2021 as set out in part 1 and Part 2 of Appendix 1 be further noted.

2)     the schedule of Audit and Governance Committee meetings set out in the Calendar of meetings attached be noted.

The Chair proposed that start times for the Audit & Governance Committee meetings for 2021/22 be 10.00am. This was seconded by Councillor Chapman.

            After a short debate, the proposal was put to the vote and there being an equality of votes, the Chair used his casting vote in favour of the motion.

            The Committee

RESOLVED

That its start times for meetings for 2021/22 be 10.00 am.

Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Planning Team Leader presented his report to the Committee and confirmed that the service had been reviewed in 2018 and was now being reviewed again particularly with regards to fees. He explained that by using this service, applicants gave the Council a good idea about what projects were coming up in the District and that the Council could influence applications at early stage.

The recommendations were then proposed and seconded.

The Committee

RESOLVED that

1.             The pre-application planning advice fees be amended in accordance with the attached report;

2.             The fee schedule to be implemented on 1 September 2021 after this report is agreed to allow notification to planning agents, changes to the web etc;

3.             The pre-application advice fees be reviewed 2 years from the date of the changes agreed by this report being implemented.

2 Public Speakers

Nick Hopper – Agent

Christian Brian – Applicant

Outline application with all matters reserved for up to 10 No. new dwellings with associated services, landscaping, car parking & amenity (resubmission following BR/190/20/OUT).

The Planning Team Leader presented his report with updates. This was followed by 2 Public Speakers.

The Committee

RESOLVED

That the Planning Committee recommend that the application be granted subject to a s106 Agreement. As the s106 Agreement has not been completed the Planning Committee delegate the decision to the Group Head of Planning (in consultation with the Chair) to make on completion of a s106 Agreement. The Group Head of Planning has authority to make minor amendments to the s106 Agreement if required. Should the s106 Agreement not be completed within 4 months of the date of this resolution, the application shall be refused for the following reasons:

1.    In the absence of a signed s106 Agreement, the development makes no provision for the contributions to off-site public open space, and is thereby contrary to the aims and objectives of the NPPF, Arun Local Plan policies INF SP1, HWB SP1 and OSR DM1 and the Council’s supplementary planning document “Open Space, Playing Pitches, Indoor and Built Sports Facilities (January 2020)”

2.    In the absence of a signed s106 Agreement, the application fails to make a financial contribution towards the cost of providing accessible natural open green spaces to mitigate the harm to the Pagham Harbour Special Protection Area and the proposal is therefore not in accordance with Arun Local Plan policies ENV DM1 and ENV DM2.

2 Public Speakers

Linda Wale – Objector

Kerry Simmons - Agent

3 No dwellings including access, landscaping & associated works (resubmission following BN/51/20/PL). This site is in CIL Zone 2 and is CIL Liable as new dwellings.

The Planning Team Leader presented his report with updates. This was followed by 2 Public Speakers.

Members then took part in a full debate on the application where a number of points were raised including:

·       sympathy for residents

·       the possibility of alternative access to the site

·       precedent and its relevance for future planning decisions

·       that this application was an improvement on a previously refused application [BN/51/20/PL] and the applicant was commended for this

The Planning Team Leader and Director of Place provided Members with answers to all points raised during the debate.

The Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY as detailed in the report and report update subject to the conditions as detailed.

[Councillor Edwards re-declared his Personal Interest made at the start of the meeting. Councillor Charles declared a Personal Interest as a Member of West Sussex County Councillor.]

5 Public Speakers

Cllr Dennis Thompson – Bersted Parish Council

Gary Bottwood - Objector

Graham Wingate – Objector

Daniel Delaney – Applicant

Tom Hayes – Agent

Replacement of blockwork boundary wall with fence and new vehicular access (resubmission of BE/149/21/PL)

The Planning Team Leader presented his report. This was followed by 5 Public Speakers.

Members then took part in a full debate on the application where a number of points were raised including:

·       the presence of small or medium commercial vehicles in the vicinity of the proposed access

·       that parking could not be controlled on Bedford road (the site of the proposed access) and that West Sussex County Council had tried by previously installing bollards which were no longer there

·       parking on the pavement in a crowded residential road being a District matter

·       another road immediately opposite the proposed access and the need to ensure the plan is located precisely

·       visibility splays and maintaining them, especially when the road is full of parked cars

·       concerns over the height condition and whether the applicant could control this

·       ensuring that conditions were enforced, and whether double yellow lines could be installed to this end

·       the addition of a non-commercial vehicle condition

·       the lack of photographs of the site in the report to understand the implications of the decision

·       the need for a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for reoccurring parking issues or whether a TRO would just shift parking issues elsewhere

·       the lack of objection from the Highways Authority, and this being an issue if the Committee was minded to refuse the application

·       whether representation from the Committee should be sent to West Sussex County Council

·       only being able to decide on the application based on the information available now and not on any future interventions that may or may not take place

·       the lack of room on the pavement for pedestrians and those with disabilities, wheelchair users, people with prams etc

·       whether a new access would further reduce parking space on this road

The Planning Team Leader and Director of Place provided Members with answers to all points raised during the debate. It was confirmed an additional condition ensuring the use of the land to the rear of the building should remain associated to 339 Chichester Road and not for separate business use in accordance with policy D DM1 of the Arun Local Plan and the NPPF would be added to the decision notice if the application were approved by the Committee.

The Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY as detailed in the report and report update subject to the conditions as detailed.

Variation following grant of AL/103/18/PL to amend Condition No.2 approved plans – to change the design & Layout of approved 2 No. dwellings

The Planning Team Leader presented his report with updates.

Members then took part in a full debate on the application where a number of points were raised including:

·       the access to these properties

·       the width of the access road and whether it was narrower than a standard width

·       that it was regrettable that applicants resubmit for larger development once planning permission had been given on a smaller proposal

·       Concerns over more cars in the area

·       Whether the materials used would be different to what was previously agreed in AL/103/18/PL

The Planning Team Leader provided Members with answers to all points raised during the debate.

The Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY as detailed in the report and report update subject to the conditions as detailed.

Construction of 1 No. 3 bed dwelling. This application is in CIL Zone 2 & is CIL liable as new dwelling.

The Planning Team Leader presented his report with updates.

Members then took part in a full debate on the application where a number of points were raised including:

·       the need for an independent bat survey before consent could be given

·       the whole of Aldingbourne being a bat corridor, with 9 species of bat being present

·       delays from Natural England

·       the Cost of bat surveys and whether a single bat survey could be produced by/for the Council that all future applicants could use

·       that is was irresponsible to put such stress on a bat survey for this application

·       the application not having all the necessary information for Members to reach a decision – no response from the Council’s Tree Officer despite many trees being mentioned in the report

·       whether any removed trees would be replaced

The Planning Team Leader provided Members with answers to all points raised during the debate, confirming that planning applications could not be delayed due to delays in consultee responses and that if approved the applicant would have 14 days from the date of the meeting to get a bat survey done or the application would be refused under delegated authority.

The Committee

RESOLVED

That the Planning Committee delegate the decision to the Group Head of Planning (in consultation with the Chair). The decision will be made following the submission of a further ecology report by the applicant and further consultation thereafter with the Council’s Ecologist. If no further ecology report is received by the Council within 14 days of this resolution the application will be refused for the following reason:

Due to the lack of suitable information regarding the bats the Council cannot be certain that the impact on biodiversity would not be adversely harmful contrary to Policy ENV DM5 of the Arun Local Plan and the NPPF.

The Chair explained that following the revision of the Council’s Constitution with regard to Planning matters [Public Speaking at Planning Committees – Part 8, Section 3 – Planning Protocol, Paragraph 11.5], it had become clear that the restricted time of three minutes allowed for each group, rather than individuals, on applications before the Committee was unduly restrictive. In particular for applications on which there was a high level of public and professional interest the time restriction would effectively disenfranchise parties with particular and personal interests.

He proposed a motion in response to this, which was seconded by the Vice-Chair and debated by the Committee.

The Committee

RESOLVED

That this Committee agrees that for this meeting (28th July 2021) the Chairman will exceptionally use his discretion as Chairman to allow each registered public speaker to speak for up to 3 minutes on each application for which they have registered their interest.

The Committee

RECOMMEND TO CONSTITUTION WORKING PARTY

That they urgently review the provisions on public speaking on Planning matters, so that the reputation of the Council as an open and transparent Authority be safeguarded.

A Member asked if it could be confirmed whether site visit protocol was in the new Constitution. The Council’s Solicitor confirmed that guidance for site visits was in the Constitution and referred the Member to the Planning Protocol at Part 8, Section 3, Paragraph 13.

The Chair also confirmed that the running order of the meeting would vary from that of the published agenda due to the Covid-19/Health and Safety restrictions in place at this meeting, and the new running order would be as follows [published agenda item numbers in brackets]:

6.    BE/59/21/PL [Item 9]

7.    AL/40/21/PL [Item 7]

8.    AL/50/21/PL [Item 8]

9.    BN/150/20/PL [Item 10]

10. BR/129/21/OUT [Item 11]

11. Review of Pre Planning Application Advice Fee Report [Item 13]

12. Appeals [Item 15]

AL/20/21/PL [Item 6] and LU/158/21/PL [Item 12] had been withdrawn ahead of the meeting.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 21 July 2021 were approved by the Committee.

[Councillor Thurston left the meeting at the beginning of this item.]

The Committee

RESOLVED

That under Section 100a (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and accredited representatives of newspapers be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act by virtue of the paragraph specified against the items.

Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Group Head of Community Wellbeing presented his report to the Committee. The recommendations were then proposed and seconded.

The Committee

                     RESOLVED that

1.    Arun District Council (with West Sussex County Council and the other West Sussex District and Borough Councils) procure a Community Advice Services contract for the provision of an independent and comprehensive information and advice service for up to seven years from 1 April 2022: and

2.    A funding contribution of £120,550 uplifted annually in line with the consumer price index calculated on the anniversary of the agreement, subject to satisfactory service reviews in line with Arun’s Priorities and the availability of Arun District Council funding be provided.

[Cllr Worne left the meeting during this item and returned from the beginning of Minute 167.]

Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Neighbourhood Services Manager presented her report explaining that it sought guidance from Members on which options regarding the site’s future it wanted to be researched in greater detail by Officers and brought back to Committee at a later date for a final decision to be made.

Members (and a non-Committee Ward Member given permission to speak by the Committee) then took part in a full debate on the item where a number of points were raised including:

·       the impact on the residents of both Flaxmean House and the bungalows in the different options

·       the time scales involved

·       the overprovision of sheltered and older peoples’ housing in the district

·       Flaxmean House being the only example of sheltered housing with shared bathing facilities

·       whether current residents would be given first choice to return after decanting for refurbishment

·       what sheltered housing accommodation is needed (studios, one or two-bed flats etc.)

·       the option of a hybrid approach of semi-permanent renovation before future disposal of the site

·       the significant sums of money involved and the possibility of delivering less for less expenditure

·       the sums of money mentioned in the report being guestimates due to variables yet to be determined

·       concerns for the future of the residents in the bungalows on the site

·       doing nothing not being an option

·       whether vacant units were being re-tenanted

·       fears residents in other sheltered housing accommodation may now have of being moved should they raise concerns in the future

·       the Council’s duty to provide decent accommodation

·       the need that whatever must be done must be done sensitively – these are residents’ home

·       the Council needing to retrofit all accommodation (insultation etc.) in future so if the site was retained there would be a need to retrofit anyway

·       the Council’s duty to maximise its assets

·       a lack of communication with residents of the site, residents of the area more widely and Ward Members

The Neighbourhood Services Manager and Director of Services provided Members with answers to all points raised during the debate. It was confirmed that 12 residents with shared bathing facilities had been consulted and the majority wanted to move out. Only 3 residents wanted to stay with shared facilities in a slightly remodelled way. The need was for one-bed flats, and without full refurbishment the studios would still be sub-standard and below the quality of Arun’s other sheltered housing stock. This report only included indicative costs for illustrative purposes. A consultant would need a specific remit in order to properly estimate the costs involved which could be considerably more as the Council would want to bring up the standard of the accommodation in all aspects, and any spend would need to be approved by Full Council. If the site was sold, the profits would be ring-fenced in the Housing Revenue Account (HRA). The Neighbourhood Services Manager and Director of Services stressed that they were keen on an inclusive approach and as such a wide range of stakeholders would be consulted.

Following a vote on each option, options 4 and 5 were determined to be the preferred options of the Committee. Councillor Pendleton proposed an amendment to the first recommendation in the report changing the options from ‘3 and 4’ to ‘4 and 5’. This was seconded, and following a vote was declared CARRIED.

The substantive recommendations were then proposed and seconded.

The Committee

                     RESOLVED that

1.    Detailed proposals for Options 4 and 5 be developed by Officers;

2.    An options appraisal for the remaining sheltered housing stock be commissioned.

Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Communities & Wellbeing Manager presented her report and highlighted particular successes with the weight management programme, stop smoking service and pre-diabetes programme. She noted changes to delivery necessitated by the Covid-19 pandemic and the involvement of Arun community champions to better support work in marginalised communities.

The Chair commended the team for their enthusiasm and then Members took part in a full debate on the item where a number of points were raised including how and where some of the statistics mentioned in the report are determined, the South Downs National Park and social prescribing, social media campaigns to support the service, engagement with local schools and churches and the possibility of a programme involving narcotics.

The recommendations were then proposed and seconded.

The Committee

                     RESOLVED that

1.    The report be noted; and

2.    The Committee support targeted work in Arun’s areas of significant health inequalities and need.

The Minutes of the previous meeting held on 3 June 2021 were approved by the Committee.

The Chair introduced this report and explained that the Council’s change to a Committee structure had necessitated this action.

Members then took part in a full debate on the item where a number of points were raised including:

• the consequences if the Committee did not approve this item
• the location of Crawley to Arun
• sympathy for Crawley’s issues but recognition that Arun also had issues
• Arun taking housing demand from Chichester and Crawley
• Horsham being closer to Crawley and should be bearing more of the need
• development needs in Brighton and Worthing/Adur, and the lack of green spaces
• water supply and waste water treatment sites

The Planning Policy and Conservation Team Leader provided Members with answers to all points raised during the debate. The recommendations were then proposed and seconded.

The Committee

                     RESOLVED

That the Chair of Planning Policy Committee be authorised to sign the joint Statement of Common Ground with Crawley Brough Council.

Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Planning Policy and Conservation Team Leader presented his report, explaining the impact of the Government’s Housing Delivery Test and how this triggered the need for an Action Plan to identify ways to improve housing delivery. This Action Plan had proactively sought to establish what issues were preventing or delaying landowners and developers from bringing forward planning applications, as well as attempted to improve the quality of applications that did come forward. He confirmed that the key finding from the low level of response was a call for greater flexibility for developers to allow proposals to come forward on their own merits and therefore more quickly. He also confirmed that if the recommendations were approved this would be renamed the Housing Delivery Action Plan to clarify its contents.

Members then took part in a full debate on the item where a of points were raised including:

• which developers were asking for this flexibility and would this report lead to suggestions to move things forward
• the Council’s ongoing communication with developers and whether responses had been chased to improve the response rate
• whether flexibility meant sacrificing standards
• the need for new development to be climate resilient
• the design guide being a positive thing and the Council seeing better developments as a result
• the dichotomy of pushing for new sites without undermining existing developments

The Planning Policy and Conservation Team Leader provided Members with answers to all points raised during the debate. The recommendations were then proposed and seconded.

The Committee

                     RESOLVED that

1.    The updated Housing Delivery Action Plan be published on the website;

2.    The Committee considers the limited results of the consultation and barriers identified and notes that Officers will continue to work proactively on feasible measures to boost housing supply.

[Councillor Elkins re-declared his Personal Interest made at the start of the meeting.]

Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Planning Policy and Conservation Team Leader explained the impact of changes to the Council’s structure and the Constitution on timescales for the project and how the proposed amended timetable would be in place for the next financial year which would also allow for more information to be sought from infrastructure providers.

Members then took part in a full debate on the item where a number of points were raised including:

·       the need for more information before the investment plan could be taken forward, including liaising with the Cabinet Member with responsibility for infrastructure at West Sussex County Council

·       the possibility of a CIL forecast so Members could have some sense of what level of infrastructure project might be achievable and an idea of the schemes most likely to come forward

·       the lack of other options available

·       the need for more information from Parish Councils and an understanding of the frameworks they work within

·       the need for Member liaison meetings where needs could be identified

The Planning Policy and Conservation Team Leader provided Members with answers to all points raised during the debate. The recommendations were then proposed and seconded.

The Committee

                     RESOLVED

That the Planning Policy Committee agree the updated timetable for the preparation, consultation and approval of the Arun Infrastructure Investment Plan 2022-2023.

          [Councillors Charles and Elkins re-declared their Personal Interest made at the start of the meeting).

The Chair welcomed Paul Eagle, Principal Transport Planner at West Sussex County Council, to the meeting. The Planning Policy and Conservation Team Leader then presented his report and explained the importance of the A259 corridor to Arun (to address growth, and relationships between key settlements and identified development sites in the District) and how it was recognised by the Department for Transport as part of the major road network.

Members then took part in a full debate on the item where a number of points were raised including:

·       the crucial need for mitigation measures

·       issues around land take, for example around roundabouts and bus lanes

·       support for better cycling and walking lanes

·       disappointment with the proposed speed limit of 60mph and impacts on safety to cyclists and pedestrians

·       the number of roundabouts and the disruption caused to the flow of cycle ways even with priority given to cyclists

·       concerns over time added to journey times

·       support for roundabouts, even if they do slow journeys, due to their impact on reducing road traffic collisions

·       whether the A259 should become dual carriageway

·       concerns with the Wick roundabout, particularly the petrol station junction and supermarket filter lane

·       concerns with the Church Lane roundabout currently (northbound traffic holding up eastbound traffic) and whether the proposals would make any difference to these issues, and potentially create new issues with the proposed closing of the southern arm which leads to a primary school

·       data missing from the proposal - development north of the A259 between the Oystercatcher and Church Lane roundabouts

·       positive response that it would allow more time for the consultation stage and for more comment to be fed into it

The Planning Policy and Conservation Team Leader, with the support of the Principal Transport Planner, provided Members with answers to all points raised during the debate. It was confirmed that the consultation would be extended to 15 August with a report published in October. This would be followed up by further data collection over the autumn/winter delayed by Covid 19 restrictions, with an outline business case then going to the Department for Transport. If this was approved, then a detailed design would be submitted to Government in October 2024 with a view to construction in 2025

The recommendations were then proposed and seconded.

The Committee

                     RESOLVED

That the Planning Policy Committee agree the consultation response to the A259 Corridor Enhancement Study as set out in strategic comments in section 1.6 and detailed comments in section 1.7 and Appendix 2.

The Minutes of the previous meeting held on 1 June 2021 were approved by the Committee.