minutes of a meeting of the arun district council … · meeting of the arun district council held...

409

MINUTES OF A

MEETING OF THE ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL HELD IN THE ARUN CIVIC CENTRE ON 3RD JANUARY 2007 AT 6.00 P.M.

Present:- Councillors Haymes (Chairman), Tyler (Vice-Chairman), Ayling,

Bicknell, Biss, Mrs. Bower, Bower, Brookman, Mrs. Brown, R. Brown, Butcher, Butler, Mrs. Coleman, Cosgrove, Mrs. Daniells, Dendle, Dingemans, Dixon, Dyball, Elkins, English, Gammon, Mrs. Goad, Mrs. Hall, Harding, Hill, James, Lury, Mrs. Maconachie, McDougall, Mrs. Oakley, O’Neill, Oppler, Patel, Rankin, Rose, Scutt, Squires, Mrs. Squires, Steward, Taft, Dr. Walsh, Wells, Wensley, Wilby and Wilde.

[Note: The following Members were absent from the meeting during consideration of the matters referred to in the Minutes indicated:- Councillor Dr. Walsh – Minutes 570 to 572; Councillors Mrs. Daniells – Minutes 595 to 601; Councillors Mrs. Oakley, Mrs. Coleman and Mrs. Maconachie – Minutes 595 (part) to 601; Councillor Dyball – Minutes 596 to 601; Councillor Oppler – Minutes – 599 (part) to 601; and Councillor Ayling – Minutes 600 to 601]

570. WELCOME The Chairman welcomed Councillors, guests, the press and officers to the meeting. 571. MR. MICHAEL KNIGHT The Chairman made a presentation to Mr. Michael Knight, Deputy Head of Surveying and Estates with the 2006 “Excellence in Property Management” Award from the Association of Chief Surveyors and Property Managers in Local Government. The Award had been made to a team of officers from Havant Borough Council, East Hampshire District Council, Chichester District Council, Gosport Borough Council and Portsmouth City Council. Members congratulated Mr. Knight and Ms Helen Atkinson, Assistant Lawyer, who had provided legal support to the team, on this success. 572. SOUTHERN CROSS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE – BUSINESS

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT The Chairman welcomed Mrs. Janet Ballard from Barton Instruments and Mr. George Weir from John Wiley & Son on behalf of the Southern Cross Industrial Estate in Bognor Regis to celebrate their successful Business Improvement District Bid. The Chairman also welcomed Mr. Chris Shephard,

410 Council Meeting 03.01.07 Coastal Business Parks Coordinator, who had worked with the Estate to develop the Bid. Mrs. Ballard and Mr. Weir thanked the Council for their support in pursuing Bid status and outlined how the additional revenue gained would be used. Members congratulated Mrs. Ballard and Mr. Weir on their achievement at becoming the 1st Industrial Estate Business Improvement District in the South East and only the 7th in the Country as a whole. 573. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors L. Brown, Mrs. Harrison, Mrs. Hazlehurst, Northeast, Mrs. Olliver, Mrs. Warr and Wotherspoon, and Honorary Aldermen Mr. Chandler, Mrs. Morrish, Mr. Redman and Mrs. Stinchcombe.

574. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME No questions were asked. 575. MINUTES The Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 1st November 2006 were approved by the Council as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendments:

The addition of Honorary Alderman, Mrs. Morrish to the list of apologies at Minute 431 (Apologies for Absence)

Amend the 1st supplementary question from Councillor

Cosgrove, as shown on the 2nd page of the ‘Questions from Members Pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 10’ attached to the Minutes to read:

“Q. Does the Cabinet Member agree that publicity should be given

to these facts as a potent myth-buster to counter the all too often made claims that such people get preferential treatment in obtaining housing via the Council?”

Amend the 2nd supplementary question from Councillor Cosgrove, as shown on the same page to read:

“Q. What steps does the Cabinet Member suggest could be taken by the Council to impress on the Government the need for more starts to be made in this District to meet projected need?”

411 Council Meeting 03.01.07

576. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Butler declared a personal interest in Item 13 (Questions/Statements from Members). Councillor Cosgrove declared a prejudicial interest in any matters relating to Bognor Regis Regeneration as a Trustee of Arun Arts Ltd. Councillor Mrs. Daniells declared a prejudicial interest in any matters relating to the Hotham Arts Centre as part of Bognor Regis Regeneration. 577. CHAIRMAN’S COMMUNICATIONS The Chairman advised Members that the Civic Service would now be held on Sunday, 4th March 2007 at Arundel Cathedral. The Chairman referred to the Chinese Supper held in aid of his Charity on 16th November 2006. This had been very successful and had raised £350. The Chairman thanked those Members who had supported the evening and particularly thanked Councillor Mrs. Coleman who had been the inspiration behind the event. Finally, the Chairman outlined the Christmas Day visits that he and his wife had attended with the Mayor and Mayoress of Littlehampton. 578. MATTERS OF URGENCY – BOGNOR REGIS WORKING PARTY :

21ST DECEMBER 2006 The Chairman raised one matter of urgency relating to the Bognor Regis Working Party. An additional meeting of the Working Party had been held on 21st December 2006 and the recommendations from this meeting needed to be considered by the Council to ensure that the ongoing timetable for the Bognor Regis Regeneration project could be met. Members had been circulated the Minutes from this meeting and the Chairman proposed that these were dealt with under Agenda Item No. 9(xv). Councillor Tyler seconded this proposal. On the proposal being put to the vote, it was declared CARRIED.

(In view of his declared interest, Councillor Cosgrove abstained from

voting.)

579. MATTERS REQUIRED BY STATUTE

There were no items for this meeting.

412 Council Meeting 03.01.07 580. BUSINESS REMAINING FROM THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING

There were no items for this meeting. 581. CABINET – 6TH NOVEMBER 2006 The Chairman, Councillor Mrs. Brown, presented the Minutes of the Cabinet Meeting held on 6th November 2006.

The Chairman referred Members to the first of the recommendations being proposed at Minute 464 (Strategic Risk Register) which sought approval to the Strategic Risk Register and the approach to be taken to Risk Management. Councillor Mrs. Brown formally proposed the recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor Elkins. The Council

RESOLVED That the ‘Approach to Risk Management’ and the Strategic Risk Register be approved in accordance with the Corporate Governance guidelines and Comprehensive Performance Assessment criteria, subject to the minor amendments made at the Cabinet Meeting.

The Chairman then referred Members to the recommendation being proposed at Minute 470 (Electoral Administration Act 2006 – Request for a Supplementary Estimate) which sought approval to a supplementary estimate for up to £48,000 to cover the additional costs of the annual canvass for the Register of Electors and new postal vote arrangements in order to comply with the requirements of the Electoral Administration Act 2006. Councillor Mrs. Brown formally proposed the recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor Elkins. In discussing the recommendation, some concern was expressed that budgetary provision had not been included to meet the new legislation resulting in the need for a supplementary estimate. A question was also asked about the number of postal votes now being requested. Councillor Mrs. Brown advised that a contingency had been included within the Council’s budget of £48,000 to cover the impact of the new legislation but this had not been drawn down when the budgets were prepared as the full impact of the Act had not been known. The main new area of work was in obtaining personal identifier information from postal voters to prevent fraud but there were other additional requirements to be addressed. In response to the question on the number of postal voters, Councillor Mrs. Brown advised that the number of applications had increased from 10,500 to over 20,000.


The Council therefore

RESOLVED That a supplementary estimate of up to £48,000 be approved to cover the additional costs of the annual canvass for the Register of Electors and postal vote arrangements. Note : The supplementary estimate of £48,000 one off under consideration equates to an increase of £0.80 for a Band D Council Tax.

Councillor Biss then made a statement on Minute 471 (Butlins, Bognor Regis – Agreement in Principle to Disposal of Freehold) in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10.2 referring to the decision taken and the leak of information to the press. As his comments related to confidential matters, it was agreed that his statement would be continued later in the meeting under exempt business. Councillor Dr. Walsh then made a statement on Minute 460 (Regional Priority List for Transport Investment – A27 Arundel Bypass Scheme) expressing his regret at the latest decision that it was unlikely that the Arundel Bypass would be started before 2016. He believed it was vitally important for the Council to work with its partners to ensure that no new major development took place in the District without the necessary transport infrastructure in place. Councillor Mrs. Brown responded that she shared his concern and that she intended to raise the matter at the next meeting with Members of Parliament on 19th January 2007. Councillor Bower also made a statement on Minute 460 referring to the representations made by the Council to the Regional Transport Board about the need for the Arundel Bypass. From this, he believed there was support that the Bypass should be provided before any new major development was undertaken in the District. The approach was also supported by West Sussex County Council. Finally, Councillor Dixon made a statement on Minute 460 referring to how the indicative road programme would affect the Council’s Local Development Framework.

582. CABINET – 4TH DECEMBER 2006 The Chairman, Councillor Mrs. Brown, presented the Minutes of the Cabinet Meeting held on 4th December 2006. The Chairman referred Members to Minute 520 (Disability Equality Scheme) which sought the Council’s endorsement of the publication of the

414 Council Meeting 03.01.07 Disability Equality Scheme to meet the required deadline of 4th December 2006. Councillor Mrs. Brown formally proposed the recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Elkins. The Council

RESOLVED That the publication of the Disability Equality Scheme by the deadline date of 4th December 2006 be endorsed.

Councillor Mrs. Brown then referred Members to the recommendation at Minute 521 (Cost of Accommodation for Households applying as homeless) which sought approval to a supplementary estimate to meet additional anticipated costs for providing accommodation for households applying to the Council as homeless. In proposing the recommendation, Councillor Mrs. Brown referred to the considerable efforts being taken to deal with the issue but that the number of homeless enquiries continued to increase, particularly due to the additional categories that could now be classed as homeless. The officers were working with other successful authorities to see if their approach could help to improve the position. Councillor R. Brown seconded the recommendation. Clarification was sought on whether the supplementary estimate would cover just bed and breakfast costs or the private sector leasing scheme as well. Councillor Mrs. Brown responded that the £75,000 was intended to cover all aspects of homelessness, not just bed and breakfast costs. Concern was expressed at the lack of affordable housing within the District which could be attributed to the lack of new build opportunities. This was not seen to be the Council’s fault but the system imposed by Government. It was felt that every attempt should be made to rehouse families directly into suitable housing rather than having to rely on bed and breakfast accommodation.

Councillor Cosgrove asked if the other Group Leaders would join him in taking a united approach write to the Minister and ask for meeting to discuss the particular difficulties that were being faced within the Arun District. Both Councillors Mrs. Brown and McDougall supported this approach. Councillor Mrs. Brown referred to her position on the Regional Housing Board and assured Members she would use her influence to raise the issues facing the District at these meetings. She also agreed to raise the issue at the forthcoming meeting with Members of Parliament on 19th January 2007.

Reference was made to the work being carried out by the Housing

Working Party, which it was hoped would help in identifying a way forward. A question was asked about how the findings from the visits from other


organisations/authorities would be reported. Councillor Mrs. Brown confirmed these would be fed into the Working Party. The Council

RESOLVED That a supplementary estimate for up to £75,000 be approved for 2006/07 to meet the additional anticipated costs of providing accommodation for households applying to the Council as homeless. Note : The supplementary estimate equates to an increase of up to £1.25 for a band D Council Tax.

Councillor Dr Walsh made a statement on Minute 523 (Rent Restructuring) in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10.2 asking for a fuller explanation of what had led to this error in the calculation on Rent Restructuring; how this was being rectified; and how the tenants would be protected. Councillor Mrs. Brown responded that the issue was being considered at the next Audit Committee when the matter was being reviewed. Councillor McDougall asked a question on Minute 523 in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10.1 asking how this action would impact on the Council’s ability to reach the Decent Homes Standard. Councillor Mrs. Brown replied that this would not affect the Decent Homes Standard. Councillor Dr. Walsh also made a statement on Minute 526 (Representation on Outside Bodies) and asked if reports circulated at the meeting could be made available to all Members. Councillor Mrs. Brown agreed that the report referred to from Councillor Mrs. Maconachie would be circulated to Members and that she would ensure circulation of any tabled reports in future.

583. LICENSING AND ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE AND LICENSING

COMMITTEE – 20TH OCTOBER 2006 The Chairman, Councillor Wotherspoon, presented the Minutes of the meeting of the Licensing and Enforcement Committee and Licensing Committee held on 20th October 2006. 584. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 25TH OCTOBER 2006 The Chairman, Councillor Mrs. Goad, presented the Minutes of the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 25th October 2006.

416 Council Meeting 03.01.07 585. POLICY DEVELOPMENT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – 14TH

NOVEMBER 2006 The Chairman, Councillor Wilde, presented the Minutes of the meeting of the Policy Development Scrutiny Committee held on 14th November 2006. 586. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 15TH NOVEMBER 2006 The Chairman, Councillor Mrs. Goad, presented the Minutes of the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 15th November 2006 587. LICENSING AND ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE AND LICENSING

COMMITTEE – 17TH NOVEMBER 2006 The Chairman, Councillor Wotherspoon, presented the Minutes of the meeting of the Licensing and Enforcement Committee and Licensing Committee held on 17th November 2006. 588. PERFORMANCE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – 21ST NOVEMBER 2006 The Chairman, Councillor Dr. Walsh, presented the Minutes of the meeting of the Performance Scrutiny Committee held on 21st November 2006.

Councillor Wells made a statement on Minute 509 (Sussex by the Sea Visitor Strategy 2006 to 2011 Action Plan) expressing his concern that the Visitor Information Centres (VICs) were closed over the Christmas and New Year period. He asked if this could be reviewed for future years. Councillor Dr. Walsh advised that he did not feel this was an issue for the Scrutiny Committee to review but he was sure the request had been noted by the Cabinet Member. Councillor Harding advised that this was one of the issues being looked at by the Tourism Working Party. Councillor Dingemans, Cabinet Member for Economic and Cultural Development, advised that when the VICs had been opened in the past, they had had few visitors and it had not been seen to be cost effective to keep them open over the period between Christmas Day and New Year. Councillor Lury made the final statement on Minute 509 commending the Tourism Working Party on the content of the Tourism Strategy.

589. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 6TH DECEMBER 2006 The Chairman, Councillor Mrs. Goad, presented the Minutes of the special meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 6th December 2006.


590. STANDARDS COMMITTEE/PARISH COUNCIL STANDARDS SUB-

COMMITTEE – 7TH DECEMBER 2006 The Chairman, Councillor Mrs. Goad, presented the Minutes of the Standards Committee held on 7th December 2006. The Chairman referred Members to the recommendation at Minute 545 (Safeguarding Children : Criminal Records Bureau Checks for Councillors) which sought approval to arrangements to be introduced for carrying out Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks for Councillors. Councillor Mrs. Goad formally proposed the recommendations, which were seconded by Councillor Wilde. In discussing the recommendation, clarification was sought on whether the CRB checks would be the enhanced check. Councillor Mrs. Goad confirmed that they would. A question was also asked about whether the CRB checks would be applicable to Parish Councillors too. Councillor Mrs. Goad advised that this issue would be raised at the next meeting of the Standards Committee. Clarification was sought on the procedures that would be put in place to review checks and respond to any issues raised. It was felt this needed to be included within the Constitution. Councillor Mrs. Goad advised that the officer who would be responsible for reviewing the checks was the Head of Human Resources. In terms of any concerns raised from a check, these would be discussed with the Solicitor to the Council in consultation with the relevant Group Leader. Councillor Mrs. Goad agreed that a procedure and any changes needed to the Constitution would be considered at the next meeting of the Committee.

Generally, the proposal was welcomed as it was felt that Councillors could find themselves in situations where they would be meeting vulnerable adults and children and these checks would protect both the individuals as well as the Councillor. In view of the latest legislation on vulnerable groups, Councillor Cosgrove proposed an amendment to recommendation (1) to add the words: “and also to the procedures of the Protection of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 operative from October 2007.” Councillor O’Neill seconded the amendment. As Councillor Mrs. Goad agreed to a full report on the implications of this Act being presented to a future meeting of the Standards Committee, Councillors Cosgrove and O’Neill agreed to withdraw their amendment. The Council therefore

RESOLVED – That


(1) all new and returning Councillors at the 3rd May 2007

District Council Elections will be subject to Criminal Records Bureau checks;

(2) political agents and election candidates be notified without delay that this will be a requirement;

(3) information and forms be included in the information

packs for Members immediately following their election; (4) the process be repeated at subsequent District Council

elections, and for incoming Members at by-elections; and (5) the cost of these checks be included within the budgetary

process for 2007/2008. The Chairman then referred Members to Minute 547 (Future Training Budget) which sought support to a bid being made for training funds for the Standards Committee. Councillor Mrs. Goad formally proposed the recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor Wilde. The Council

RESOLVED That the bid for Standards Committee training for Members, Officers and Parish Councils of £5,160 be supported in the Council’s budget bidding process.

Councillor Biss then made a statement on Minute 550 (Standards Board Decision concerning Allegations against a District Councillor) referring to his concern at the unfairness of the Standards Board’s approach to complaints from one Councillor about another that they named the person complained about but not the complainant. He asked if a response had been received to the letter requested. He also asked whether if he gave out the name of the complainant, that he would have committed a breach of the Code of Conduct and the Solicitor would be required to report him to the Standards Board. Councillor Mrs. Goad asked the Solicitor to respond. On the second question, the Solicitor advised that it would be a breach of the Code to give out the name of the complainant as the only information that could be provided was based on the decision notice from the Standards Board, as posted on the Standards Board website. On the first question, the Solicitor outlined the response received from the Standards Board which stated that the Board had considered this issue and had decided against publishing complainants names in the case summaries that appeared on their website. This followed legal advice that whilst elected Members were deemed


to have put themselves into the public domain by standing for office, complainants, many of whom were members of the public, were in a different position in regard to the relevant legislation. The Standards Board had also stated that they believed the greatest disincentive to malicious or trivial complaints was for a decision to be taken for them not to be investigated as soon as possible. The Board currently processed complaints in less than two weeks, and only passed approximately a quarter of complaints for investigation. The Standards Board believed that this rigorous approach was beginning to have the intended impact, and that it was sending a clear message that they were not interested in politically motivated, trivial or vexatious complaints. A number of Members then made statements on Minute 550. It was felt by all these Members that they could understand the protection of a member of the public who made a complaint but they felt that those in public office, as a Councillor, should be prepared to have their name published if they wished to pursue a complaint. It was felt extremely unfair and possibly discriminatory that a Councillor could be complained about by another Councillor, have their name published, and when no complaint was found to be justified still be the only named individual in the case. In view of the deep concerns raised, Councillor Mrs. Brown agreed to raise the issue at the next meeting with Members of Parliament on 19th January 2007. (Councillor Harding declared a prejudicial interest in this issue as the Councillor complained about and left the meeting during its consideration.) 591. AUDIT COMMITTEE : LEISURE TRUST REVIEW – 26TH OCTOBER

2006 (Councillor Dendle declared a prejudicial interest in this item as a Trustee of Inspire Leisure and left the meeting during its consideration. Councillors Dr. Walsh, Mrs. Maconachie, McDougall and Cosgrove declared a personal interest as Members of the Arun Leisure Centre Management Board.) The Chairman, Councillor Rankin, presented the Minutes of the meeting of the Audit Committee on the Leisure Trust Review held on 26th October 2006. The Chairman referred Members to Minute 3 (Future Reporting Arrangements) which sought the Council’s confirmation to the reporting arrangements for the Leisure Trust Review. Members’ attention was drawn to the Minutes of previous meetings on the Leisure Trust Review held on 11th May, 15th June, 6 July, 3rd August, 31st August and 28th September 2006 which set out the progress made to date on the review. In proposing the recommendation, Councillor Rankin explained the background to the work

420 Council Meeting 03.01.07 undertaken so far by the Committee and asked Members to support the recommendation so that the Committee could report into Full Council. Councillor Mrs. Oakley seconded the recommendation. Following discussion, a number of issues were raised about the remit of the review and how the findings would be reported back to Members. Councillor Rankin confirmed that the Committee hoped to draw up its recommendations shortly and present a full report to Council for consideration. The Council therefore

RESOLVED That responsibility for undertaking the Leisure Trust review is transferred to the Audit Committee retrospectively with effect from 3rd May 2006 on the basis of the Terms of Reference agreed on 29th November 2005 and updated on 31st January 2006 and the Minutes from these meetings are reported into Full Council.

592. AUDIT COMMITTEE : LEISURE TRUST REVIEW – 23RD NOVEMBER 2006

The Chairman, Councillor Rankin, presented the Minutes of the meeting of the Audit Committee on the Leisure Trust Review held on 23rd November 2006. 593. LOCAL JOINT STAFF PANEL – 7TH NOVEMBER 2006 The Chairman, Councillor Wilde, presented the Minutes of the meeting of the Local Joint Staff Panel held on 7th November 2006. Members were referred to Minute 17 (Dignity at Work – Update) which sought approval to a new Dignity at Work Policy and Procedure. In accordance with Council Procedure Rules 13.10 and 13.6, Councillor Wilde proposed the following amendment to the recommendation:

“To add the following words to Section 9.14: Where all parties are to be present at an appeal meeting, the procedure for the conduct of an Appeal Hearing will be as set out in Section 13. And to add the procedure for the conduct of an Appeal Hearing, as set out in Section 13.0 of the Policy and Procedure document.”


In proposing the original recommendation and the amendment, Councillor Wilde referred Members to the copy of the revised Policy and Procedure included within the agenda. This included both the amendments made at the meeting of the Panel, as well as those contained in the proposed amendment. Councillor Rankin formally seconded the original recommendation and amendment. On putting the amendment to the vote, it was declared CARRIED. Returning to the substantive recommendation, the Council

RESOLVED That the Dignity at Work Policy and Procedure be approved to replace the Bullying Policy and the Sexual Harrassment Policy to include: “The addition of the following words to Section 9.14: Where all parties are to be present at an appeal meeting, the procedure for the conduct of an Appeal Hearing will be as set out in Section 13. And to add the procedure for the conduct of an Appeal Hearing, as set out in Section 13.0 of the Policy and Procedure document.”

Councillor Wells asked a question on Minute 15 (Pay and Grading Review) in relation to the use of consultants and why existing staff were not being used to carry out this review. Councillor Wilde responded that whilst he accepted that Members were concerned at the use of consultants, they were employed when the relevant expertise was not available within the Council. This was the case here.

594. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK SUB-COMMITTEE – 9TH

NOVEMBER 2006 The Chairman, Councillor Bower, presented the Minutes of the meeting of the Local Development Framework Sub-Committee held on 9th November 2006. Councillor Dixon asked a question on Minute 32 (Arun District Strategic Transport Study) on whether the survey was available on the website as he had not been able to find this. Councillor Bower agreed to check this and ensure that the survey was available.

422 Council Meeting 03.01.07 595. BOGNOR REGIS REGENERATION WORKING PARTY – 28TH

NOVEMBER, 12TH DECEMBER AND 21ST DECEMBER 2006 (Before the Minutes were presented, Councillor Cosgrove re-declared his prejudicial interest in view of his involvement with Arun Arts Ltd and left the meeting during their consideration. Councillor Mrs. Daniells also declared a prejudicial interest in the Minutes as a volunteer at the Hotham Arts Centre and because her son was employed at the Centre and left the meeting during their consideration.) It was agreed that the Minutes from all three meetings of the Working Party would be dealt with together. The Chairman, Councillor Dingemans, therefore presented the Minutes of the meetings of the Bognor Regis Regeneration Working Party held on 28th November, 12th December and 21st December 2006. The Chairman referred Members to the recommendations at Minutes 50, 56 and 61 which all related to the continuing negotiations with St Modwen on the Heads of Terms. Firstly, Councillor Dingemans formally proposed recommendation (1) at Minute 61 which proposed that the recommendations at Minutes 50 and 56 from the meetings held on 28th November and 12th December were withdrawn as they had been superseded by the continuing negotiations with St Modwen. Councillor Mrs. Brown seconded the recommendation. The Council therefore

RESOLVED That the recommendations from the meetings of the Working Party held on 28th November 2006 and 12th December 2006 be withdrawn as they had been superseded by the continuing negotiations with St. Modwen.

Councillor Dingemans then proposed that the meeting moved into exempt business in view of the confidential nature of the information contained in the Heads of Terms. This proposal was seconded by Councillor Mrs. Brown. The Council therefore

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 item of business on the grounds that it may involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act by virtue of paragraph 3 – supply of goods and services.

Councillor Dingemans then proposed recommendation (2) in Minute 61, which was seconded by Councillor Mrs. Brown. Councillor Dingemans explained that an amendment was required to the recommendation for clarification of the actual terms used for the documents to be agreed with St. Modwen. He therefore proposed an amendment to the 1st line in recommendation (2) to read:

“ Delete the word “including” and replace with “for the Development Agreement and outline for …..” Councillor Mrs. Brown seconded the amendment.

(To assist Members in understanding the wording of the amendment in the context of the documentation, the Chairman called a brief adjournment.) On resuming the meeting, the amendment was put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

Councillor Dingemans then introduced the substantive recommendation (2) outlining the progress made on the negotiations with St. Modwen and referring to the outline Heads of Terms and the latest version of the confidential status report as circulated in the Chief Executive’s letters of 13th December and 21st December 2006.

In discussing the recommendation, Members were supportive of the

progress that had been by the Working Party and particularly through the partnerships within the Bognor Regis community. However, a number of Members expressed their deep concern at the proposals for a theatre/entertainment centre within the Heads of Terms as they believed this was a fundamental element of the regeneration of the town. The status report explained the work to be undertaken to carry out a feasibility study and identify the best location for a theatre/entertainment centre. The concern was that, if this did not identify a viable solution, without the Council’s support there would be no theatre/entertainment centre provision within the re-development.


Other issues raised related to car parking income and how this would

be managed; and also opportunities to maximise car parking provision. A request was made that the continuing negotiations should explore the introduction of additional toilet facilities as this could lead to savings in the Council’s provision. Clarification was also sought on the proposals for closing The Esplanade as it was felt this was only needed if the theatre/entertainment centre remained on the Regis Centre site. There was concern at the impact a road closure would have on the traffic routes within the town centre. It was suggested that further traffic surveys should be undertaken to review traffic patterns.

In responding to the concerns and questions raised, Councillor

Dingemans explained that the Feasibility Study on the entertainment provision was due to be received in three to four months time and would be reported to the Working Party. The re-development would be aiming for creating a multi-use facility to provide not just a theatre but an entertainment centre. In terms of the proposed road closure, the aim of developing the Regis Centre site was to open up the seafront to the town centre and this was seen to be the best way of achieving this. Councillor Dingemans explained that the next stage in the negotiations would be to produce the Development Agreement by the end of July and this would give Members the opportunity for further debate on the detail of the regeneration proposals.

The Council

RESOLVED That all clauses within the Heads of Terms with St Modwen for the Development Agreement and outline for the Head Lease relating to the Regis Centre and Hothamton Sites in Bognor Regis, as set out in the updated confidential status report considered at the meeting, be approved.

Councillor Dingemans then proposed Minute 62 (Extension of Exclusivity Agreement with St. Modwen) which recommended that the Agreement be extended until 31st July 2007. Councillor Mrs. Brown seconded the recommendation. The Council

RESOLVED That the Exclusivity Agreement with St. Modwen be extended until 31st July 2007.


As the meeting was in exempt business, the Chairman then invited Councillor Biss to continue his statement on Minute 471 (Butlins, Bognor Regis – Agreement in Principle to Disposal of Freehold). Councillor Biss asked that in future letters of the nature sent on this occasion should be circulated to all Members. Councillor Dr. Walsh also made a statement on Minute 471 agreeing with Councillor Biss’ comments. The Council then agreed to resume the meeting in public session. 596. REPORTS OF JOINT ARRANGEMENTS There were no items for this meeting. 597. ANY OTHER BUSINESS SPECIFIED IN THE SUMMONS TO THE

MEETING

There were no items for this meeting. 598. MOTIONS RECEIVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL

PROCEDURE RULE 11.1 No motions had been received. 599. QUESTIONS/STATEMENTS FROM MEMBERS PURSUANT TO

COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULE 10.2

Notice of questions as listed below had been received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10.2, full details of which, together with the response given, are attached to the Minutes:

1. Cllr Biss to the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Community Safety re: contact with the Police

2. Cllr. Lury to the Leader of the Council re: the Government’s proposals for computerised National Health Service records

3. Cllr. Wells to the Leader of the Council re: closure of public toilets over the festive period

4. Cllr. Butler to the Cabinet Member for Economic and Cultural Development re: the French Market in Littlehampton precinct

5. Cllr. Butler to the Cabinet Member for Economic and Cultural Development re: the cleaning up arrangements from the French Market

6. Cllr Butler to the Cabinet Member for the Environment re: the siting of trader concessions

426 Council Meeting 03.01.07 600. REPORTS FROM OFFICERS OF THE COUNCIL (i) Local Government White Paper The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government had now published the White Paper on Local Government entitled “Strong and Prosperous Communities”. Members considered a report from the Chief Executive which provided a summary of the White Paper and highlighted the County-wide discussions held so far. In presenting the report, Councillor Mrs. Brown referred to the Chief Executive’s letter of 21st December 2007 which had provided additional guidance. This had explained that since the report had been drafted, the Local Government Bill had been published and West Sussex County Council ha agreed their approach to local government in West Sussex. There were two important issues raised in the Local Government Bill about which the Council needed to agree a response. Firstly, the Bill omitted to identify any upper limit on the number of performance targets to be set; and secondly, it provided Central Government with the ability to impose restructuring on two/three tier council areas.

West Sussex County Council, at its meeting on 15th December, had agreed that its response to the White Paper should be based on a new approach to local government in West Sussex which would:

(1) produce significant savings which can be used to reduce council tax levels and/or increase investment in service delivery;

(2) reduce the back office costs of local government in whatever

ways worked and delivered savings to allow for investment in front line services;

(3) work ever more closely with communities and bring decisions

closer to the people and communities affected; (4) continue the work to provide a seamless access for residents to

the services they need, whoever is responsible for them, including with our partners in other public services;

(5) improve services to residents by promoting greater integration of

planning and delivery of services; and (6) build on the successful partnerships the county already has and

particularly use the Public Service Board and Local Area Agreement to drive improvements in services to residents and communities.


(7) continue to work through the multi-tier structure, but radically

enhance the partnerships between the tiers to achieve better and more integrated services for residents, and deliver significant cost savings, over and above those required by the Government. This is underscored by a statement of intent subscribed to by the County, Borough and District Councils of West Sussex.

Councillor Mrs. Brown therefore formally proposed recommendations (i) and (iii) from the Chief Executive’s report. She explained that recommendation (ii) was not required as the response from the County Council had now been received. In addition, in view of the latest developments and the request from West Sussex County Council that all Districts and Boroughs support their approach, she proposed the following additional recommendations:

that this Council supports West Sussex County Council’s resolution on its response to the Local Government White Paper; and

that the Council writes to Arun’s Members of Parliament and

relevant Ministers to express its concern about the omission form the Local Government Bill of an upper limit on performance targets and to oppose the inclusion in the Bill of the ability for central government to impose restructuring on two/three tier council areas.

Councillor Elkins seconded the four recommendations. Following discussion, there was a view from some Members that a restructuring of local government in West Sussex was needed but that this would not be an easy task. The important issue was how to ensure that the needs of the community were addressed and that the public were more able to understand who to contact for assistance. The success of achieving Quality Status by a number of Parish Councils in the District was highlighted and the benefits this had brought to helping develop services within the community. The Council

RESOLVED – That (1) the use of the discussion points, attached as Appendix C to the report, be used to provide the basis of the Council’s general response to the Local Government White Paper;


(2) the Leader of the Council and Chief Executive should continue discussions with West Sussex authorities about innovative approaches to shared services, based on the over-riding principle of working jointly to achieve what is best for our residents in terms of democratic principles, service efficiency and value for money and report back to the Council when appropriate; (3) this Council supports West Sussex County Council’s resolution on its response to the Local Government White Paper; and

(4) the Council writes to Arun’s Members of Parliament and relevant Ministers to express its concern about the omission form the Local Government Bill of an upper limit on performance targets and to oppose the inclusion in the Bill of the ability for central government to impose restructuring on two/three tier council areas.

(In relation to the issue raised of Quality Councils, Councillor Dr. Walsh declared a personal interest as a member of Littlehampton Town Council.)

(ii) Calendar of Meetings 2007/08 In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 2.0, the Council needed to

agree a programme of dates for Council Meetings prior to the commencement of the new municipal year. Members therefore considered a report from the Head of Democratic Services which proposed the arrangements for the Calendar of Meetings for 2007/08. This had been prepared in consultation with the four Group Leaders and relevant Lead Officers.

Having been formally proposed by Councillor Mrs. Brown and seconded by Councillor Elkins, the Council

RESOLVED That the Calendars of Meetings for 2007/08 be approved.

(iii) Representation on Outside Bodies The Council’s approval was sought to two changes in representation on outside bodies. Having been proposed by Councillor Mrs. Brown and seconded by Councillor Elkins, it was


RESOLVED That the following changes in representation on outside bodies be noted: (a) Councillor Patel has replaced Councillor Weston as a

Trustee on the Leisure Trust; and (b) Councillors Dendle and Dingemans will be the Council’s

representatives on the Task Force set up by Arundel Town Council.

(iv) Committee Memberships

There were no changes to report. 601. SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING – 22ND JANUARY 2007 The Chairman advised Members that as all the business had been agreed on the Bognor Regis Working Party and the Local Government White Paper, the Special Council Meeting planned for 22nd January 2007 would be cancelled.

(The meeting concluded at 9.35 p.m.)

COUNCIL MEETING – 3 JANUARY 2007

QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS PURSUANT TO COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULE 10

QUESTIONS UNDER RULE 10.2 (i) Councillor Biss to the Deputy Leader of the Council: Q. I received a letter dated 11th August 2006 and signed by you entitled

Contact with Local Police, which stated that both you and Chief Inspector Bracher would be writing to all Councillors explaining how Members would be able to make easy contact with Police when necessary. Almost five months later I have received no such letter. When will this letter be forthcoming?

R. Councillor Biss will be aware, as are other Members, that I am

personally keen to ensure that there are good and effective contact arrangements in place by which we can raise any concerns we or residents may have with local police.

At the time of writing the letter to Members, Chief Inspector Bracher had hoped to be in a position to provide named contacts for us at an appropriate local level. However, changes in police personnel over the course of the next few months meant that the details supplied would have been incomplete, so negating the value of the information. Since then, as was discussed at the Community Safety Seminar, held on 23rd November, which Councillor Biss attended, new local policing arrangements are being introduced which should strengthen our local contacts. I was pleased to hear, at that Seminar, that Members generally felt that contact arrangements had improved and can assure the Council that I will be continuing to work with Chief Inspector Bracher to keep the new local policing arrangements under review.

Supp Q. Can you tell me the name of the Police Sergeant and PSO in your

Ward? R. Yes although there has been a recent change. Please can I refer

Members to use the Police website where you can identify the Sergeant and PSO for your Ward.

(ii) Councillor Lury to the Leader of the Council: Q. Does the Leader of the Council believe that the Government’s

proposals for computerised National Health Service Patients records might conflict with both civil liberties in terms of patients privacy and the current Data Protection Act?

R. Yes

Supp Q. Given the ability of hackers to access almost anything, does the Leader

accept that GPs data could be accessed? A. I accept anything is possible.

(iii) Councillor Wells to the Leader of the Council: Q. Does the Leader agree that although the bureaucratic systems shut

down for the festive break, the general public still have a need to go to the loo on bank holidays and that the closure of our public toilets over parts of the festive period was not very helpful to the people visiting our seaside resorts who were in need of spending a penny?

R. The current combined Cleansing Contract allows for closure of public

toilets on just two days per year - Christmas day and New Year's day. Accordingly, toilets are locked at 8.00 p.m. as normal on the evening before and opened at 8.00 a.m. the day after these two Bank Holidays.

These are the only two days that Verdant staff as a whole do not work and, therefore, if left open, the toilets would be unsupervised and remain uncleaned. As a result, any vandalism or other defect would go unremedied, which could lead to potentially more serious problems arising. In addition, needles or "sharps", if used and abandoned in the toilets, would remain there for an unacceptable period of time. Regrettably, vandalism is still a significant factor in the maintenance budgets of public toilets. For these reasons, toilets have been allowed to close on these two days. To my knowledge, only one complaint regarding lack of available toilets has been received, and that only relates to this year (this being the second year of this Contract). The Council could take the risk and leave the toilets open right through from 8.00 p.m. Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, or we could try to negotiate a variation in the Contract with Verdant. Both of these have potential cost and management implications and might pose problems in terms of potentially insanitary or dangerous conditions remaining unchecked. Whilst it is accepted that this practise might be inconvenient for those who do venture out on these two holidays, it is the result of a Contract developed following wide-ranging consultation and considerable Member involvement. However, changes can be made if Members wish; however, clearly, the expenditure for this will need to be found.

Supp Q. As referred to in the last sentence, can this go to Scrutiny to review

expenditure and possible opening? R. The Chairman of both Scrutiny Committees are present and have

heard your plea so will review if they wish to. (iv) Councillor Butler to the Cabinet Member for Economic and

Cultural Development (In asking his question, Councillor Butler declared a personal interest

as he has a shop in the town, although this is not in the Precinct.) Q. Following complaints from several traders can you please confirm who

was responsible for booking the French Market in the precinct of Littlehampton prior to Christmas? Many traders have suffered a drop in trading and are feeling aggrieved that outsiders have taken away much needed trade during their busiest period running up to Christmas.

R. The Littlehampton Town Centre Action Group was responsible for

organising the French Market which took place in the centre of Littlehampton on Thursday, Friday and Saturday the 21st, 22nd & 23rd December. The Town Centre Action Group is a partnership which includes representatives from Arun District Council, Littlehampton Town Council, West Sussex County Council, and the Town Traders Partnership.

Supp Q. I was called by a trader after midnight on Saturday to advise that the oil

and grease had been poured over the precinct on Saturday night. Please can you advise who will pay for its removal?

R. This will be funded by the Town Centre Action Group who organised

the Market. (v) Councillor Butler to the Cabinet Member for Economic and

Cultural Development Q. Could you please also confirm who will be paying for the cost of

cleaning up after the French market traders? There was trade waste left behind which had not been placed in bins (not sure if any trade waste bins had been provided for them). Also there was oil/fat discarded in the precinct and up the capstan which will also need cleaning off.

R. I can confirm that the cleansing team were approached on Thursday

afternoon with a request to arrange clearance from the precinct following the French market. It was agreed that the traders would bundle their waste and store it in Duke Street from where it was collected by Verdant on Friday and Saturday. I am unaware of oil or fat being discarded in the precinct and our inspections on Thursday and Friday showed no problems of this sort.

In future, we may ask for a trade waste agreement to be signed as part of any letting arrangement so that an appropriate waste bin can be provided on site.

(vi) Councillor Butler to the Cabinet Member for the Environment Q. Following the decision to place the Doughnut trader in Littlehampton

precinct. In future would it be advisable to have a site inspection prior to any decisions being made by the Licensing committee in order to ascertain the siting for any similar applications?

R. The decision to authorise the donut trader was made by the Licensing

and Enforcement Committee. Within existing procedures and protocols, they are at liberty to ask for a site inspection if they consider it appropriate. I do not believe it is necessary for a site inspection to be made prior to all decisions. The option is available to Members if they wish it and so I can see no benefit in changing present processes.

minutes of a meeting of the arun district council … · meeting of the arun district council held...

Documents