Agenda and minutes

The opening prayer was read by the Vice-Chairman.

None.

The minutes of the meeting of Council held on 8 December 2021 were agreed as a correct record of the meeting.

With regards to item 8, LGA Code of Conduct, Councillor Bradbury declared an interest as he is Chairman of the Standards Committee at West Sussex County Council and Councillor Gibson declared an interest as he is a Member of the West Sussex County Council Standards Committee.

None.

The Chairman confirmed her preference on how she wishes to be addressed, preferring the term ‘Chairman’.  She spoke of her attendance at recent events, particularly the Chairman’s Civic Service held on 12 December at Trinity Methodist Church and the Royal British Legion AGM attended by the Vice Chairman.

The Monitoring Officer, Tom Clark introduced the report and clarified the number of Members on the Scrutiny Committee in response to a Member’s question.

The Chairman took Members to the recommendations as contained in the report which were agreed.

RESOLVED

The Council agreed that for the year 2021/22:          

i.        The Scrutiny Committees each comprise of 15 members, consisting of 9 Conservative, 4 Liberal Democrat, 1 from the Green and Burgess Hill Independent Group and 1 from the Independent Councillors on the Scrutiny Committee of Leader Finance and Performance and on the Scrutiny Committee for Housing Planning and Economic Growth. The Scrutiny Committee for Community Customer Services and Service Delivery is comprised of 8 Conservative, 4 Liberal Democrat and 2 from the Green and Burgess Hill Independent Group and 1 from the Independent Councillors.

ii.       Two Planning Committees each comprise 12 members, consisting of 8 Conservative on the District Planning Committee and 7 on the Planning Committee, 3 Liberal Democrat on each Planning Committee, 1 from the Independent Councillors for the Planning Committee and 1 from the Green and Burgess Hill Independent Group on each Planning Committee;

iii.      The Licensing Committee comprises 15 members, consisting of 10 Conservative, 3 Liberal Democrat, 1 from the Green and Burgess Hill Independent Group and 1 from the Independent Councillors;

iv.      The Standards Committee comprises 6 Council members consisting of 4 Conservative (other than the Leader), 1 Liberal Democrat and 1 from the Green and Burgess Hill Independent Group and 4 representatives of town/parish councils.

v.       The Audit Committee comprises 7 members consisting of 4 Conservative, 1 Liberal Democrat and 1 from the Green and Burgess Hill Independent Group and 1 from the Independent Group.

Councillor Liz Bennett moved the item as Chairman of the Standards Committee, thanking the Committee and Independent Members for their deliberation and unanimous support for the proposal.  This was seconded by Councillor Bradbury.

Discussion was held on the need to differentiate between social media accounts if Members comment as a Councillor or as a private individual. Members also acknowledged the lack of meaningful sanctions in place if the Code of Conduct is broken, noting that primary legislation is required to put more sanctions in place.

The Chairman took Members to the recommendations as contained in the report which were agreed.

RESOLVED

That Council:

Adopts the LGA Code of Conduct at Appendix 1 to take effect from 1st March 2022 and the Town and Parish Councils in the Mid Sussex District area are advised to also adopt the LGA Model Code of Conduct at Appendix.

The Leader welcomed the unanimous agreement of Code of Conduct. He also confirmed that the Deputy Leader has stood down from the Cabinet this week, and thanked her for her work and commitment, noting that she continues to serve as a Councillor for Bolney Ward.

The Leader acknowledged that the Council is mandated to undertake a 5-year District Plan review and the results have been published. He thanked the Scrutiny Committee for agreeing to pause the review whilst he writes to the Secretary of State to ask that housing targets to be reset to a level more consistent with the District’s environmental and infrastructure constraints. He noted that the timescales are hard to quantify. In response to a question around infrastructure concerns he noted that this will be addressed as part of consultations. In response to questions around the Planning System he confirmed that it is not a barrier to delivering new homes. The key is to ensure that the decisions are right for the District in terms of the need for new homes and the environmental and infrastructure challenges. In response to a Member’s question he also acknowledged the ongoing Gatwick consultation which may have a bearing on future planning decisions.

Regarding unbuilt homes, he noted that the Council continues to work with developers to ensure they progress agreed applications and in terms of empty houses, the Council takes action to charge higher rates of Council tax to bring them back to use, and removed the Council Tax discount on second homes.  A Member asked for confirmation on how many empty homes in the district have been charged double taxation on, how many Care Quality Commission empty bedrooms rooms are there in this District and how many second homes there are in the district. The Leader invited her to email the questions for a written response.

He thanked residents and groups who took part in the independent consultation on the future of Clair Hall where there was a clear majority of 95% who support change on the site. A £100k budget has been agreed for independent advisors to provide an evidenced based proposal for a fit-for-purpose modern community provision to secure the future of the site for years to come. Discussion was held on the provision of community and arts buildings and funding across the District and the Leader noted that the Council has a good track record of supporting community provision across the District, citing a number of buildings due to be provided in Burgess Hill. With regards to the provision at Clair Hall, it is a site that the Council is responsible for and the approach is to find the best solution to benefit the local community and District as a whole.

In terms of projects in the new calendar year, work will progress on the food waste trial, full fibre infrastructure, Clair Hall and improvements to flagship parks and open spaces as well as day-to-day services. Work also continues to monitor the Council’s financial position  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The Leader had no business to report under the Deputy Leader Portfolio.

Cabinet Member for Economic Growth

The Cabinet Member confirmed he had signed a delegated decision regarding car park changes which should conclude at the end of March. The draft Investment Strategy Initial Proposals Report is due at the end of March which will be shared with Members and the Scrutiny Committee.  With regards to car parks, the Council has supported the National Covid effort by making carparks in East Grinstead and Haywards Heath available for mobile testing and also providing vaccination volunteers ABC with permits at the Queens Road car park which has just been renewed.  He noted that the Council continues to support traders in a number of ways, both through successful processing of Covid Grants and through the Independent Retailers Support Programme which has £73k of external funding and provides retailers with access to a range of business support. The Council also expects to relaunch the Microbusiness Grants later in April.

The Cabinet Member confirmed the West Sussex Retail Hub continues to run until March 2024, as well as the West Sussex Hothouse Programme which has 48 businesses signed up. He noted that the Council has also recently been supporting a Start-Ups workshop.

Cabinet Member for Customer Services

The Cabinet Member confirmed the Government support for businesses to combat Omicron, including the Omicron Hospitality and Leisure Grant (OHLG), the Covid Additional Relief Fund, Additional Restrictions grant and the Covid Additional Relief fund. She noted that the Council was the first Council to go live with the OHLG grant in December and encouraged Members to direct local businesses to apply for these grants.  In response to a Member question, she also provided reassurance on the systems in place to combat grant fraud.

She provided an update on the work of the Customer Services, Comms and Economic Development team and noted that the next edition of Mid Sussex Matters will be delivered in March.  Regarding the Full Fibre project, the Rural Connectivity Programme is halfway through and Physical Infrastructure Access (PIA) will be used. This will help to accelerate the number of internet providers who can provide connection to business and residents as where available existing poles and ducts can be used. In response to a Member’s question on customer take-up she confirmed that there have been several high value companies expressing an interest and in commercial negotiations with digital service providers. A Member asked for a commitment for when full fibre broadband will become commercialised for small businesses and domestic residents. The Cabinet Member agreed to respond once the website linked to the project has gone live. A Member workshop is also scheduled for 14 March to provide further information.

Cabinet Member for Environment and Service Delivery

The Cabinet Member provided an update on the Leisure Centre financial details noting that there is an expected adverse financial effect for the last quarter due reduced income from less visits as a result of Omicron and increased costs. However  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The following questions were received from Members:

1.  Question from Councillor Gibson:

In the four years since the Council first published the draft Sites DPD the Residual Housing Need has consistently fallen from the figure of 2,439 in 2017 which prompted the District Plan Inspector to require the Council to prepare the DPD. The latest published figure is 797 (November 2021) and if this trend continues (see Figure), the Residual Housing Need can be projected to decline to zero by summer 2023, even if the DPD is not adopted.

Is the Leader aware of any reasons why the Residual Housing Need should not be expected to continue to decline as it has done for the past 4 years?

Does the Leader agree that this calls into question the need to adopt the draft Sites DPD?

The Leader has recently supported the pausing of the draft District Plan 2021 – 2038 and undertaken to write to the Secretary of State to call for “our housing targets to be reset to a level more consistent with our environmental and infrastructure constraints”.  Does he agree that, for consistency in approach, the same balance needs to be struck for the proposed 1,704 new housing sites in the DPD? and will he support the pausing of the DPD as he has supported the pausing of the draft District Plan 2021 – 2038?

The following response was provided by the Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning

The numbers you quote are correct but the difficulty is in the second sentence ‘if this trend continues’. We cannot just extend the downward drift on a graph. One of the issues on how these numbers are absorbed due to permitted development. There is a lot of permitted development going on which are drying up as well as brownfield sites which are drying up too so this is reason for the decline.

The residual housing need figure has reduced year on year as sites are allocated in new neighbourhood plans (such as at Handcross and Slaugham Neighbourhood Plan), on brownfield sites, conversions of office to residential and, a number of applications where the yield on the sites have increased which already had planning permission. This figure fluctuates and supply from these sources is finite, therefore it is wholly incorrect to assume that the residual figure will decline as you have illustrated.

The correct position regarding how Mid Sussex will continue to meet its housing requirement is set out in the Housing Trajectory included as Appendix C of the Sites DPD Main Modifications. This illustrates the importance of the allocations in the Sites DPD in maintaining supply over the plan period.

I disagree with your view that the work on the Sites DPD should be paused, for two clear reasons. 

Firstly, as noted above, the allocations in the Sites DPD are important to ensure we maintain housing supply over the plan period. The District Plan Inspector instructed the Council to prepare a Site Allocations DPD to ensure the residual housing need  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.