Agenda and minutes

The opening prayer was read by the Vice-Chairman.

The following question was received from Mr Batte

At the recent Stop Cuckstye meeting Jonathan Ash Edwards said, “we need to ensure we are taking account of the Government's changes to the planning system” and cited environmental concerns as a reason for "pausing" the District Plan Review. Please explain why these environmental concerns and the changes to the planning system don't apply to SA12 & SA13 and the DPD?

The following response was provided by the Cabinet Member for Planning:

The District Plan review and the Sites Allocation DPD are at different stages in the plan making process. Plan making is lengthy and complex. All DPDs must go through two rounds of public consultation and an Examination in Public.  The Site Allocation DPD is at the most advanced stage in plan making terms. It has been through two rounds of public consultation and a public examination. The independent planning Inspector has found it sound and legally compliant with legislation. Proposed future changes to the planning system are not yet law, the Sites DPD is therefore unaffected by them.

In examining the Plan, the Inspector reviewed detailed evidence put forward by all parties, including ecological reports and assessments, and concluded that the sites were sound and capable of adoption. Policies SA12 and SA13 include specific requirements regarding Green Infrastructure, conserving and enhancing wildlife value and ensuring a net gain to biodiversity. These will all need to be satisfied at the planning application stage.

It is now up to the Council to either adopt the Sites DPD or not. In comparison the District Plan review is at a very early stage. All the evidence is still being gathered and no decisions have been made. It has not yet been through the first round of public consultation. 

The following question was received from Ms Green

If you as you said in January & again this month, you need to "pause" the District Plan Review - an agreed part of the District Plan process - why can't you pause (not stop altogether) the Site Allocations DPD until the new planning legislation comes in? This would not only benefit the people of Burgess Hill who want to save Sites SA12 & SA13, but residents of all the towns and villages in the district negatively affected by this DPD. Why will you not take this step, when the changes in law are coming soon?

The following response was provided by the Cabinet Member for Planning:

Thank you for your question which provides me with an opportunity to clarify the situation.

Plan making is a very complex area and in fact it never stops. When the Council adopted the District Plan in March 2018 the Inspector stipulated that the Council must also adopt a Site Allocations DPD to account for the additional housing he had imposed.  The Inspector confirmed that the approach to be taken by the Council, to bring forward a Sites DPD at an early date, was sound.

Separate to this, the Council is also required to review  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

The minutes of the meeting of Council held on 27 April and 11 May were agreed as a correct record of the meeting.

Councillor Gibson declared a personal interest in item 7 as he is a West Sussex County Councillor for Imberdown Division. Councillors Hillier, Bradbury and Liz Bennett also declared that they are West Sussex County Councillors.

None.

The Chairman noted that the nomination period for the Mid Sussex Applauds Awards is open and encouraged Members to put forward nominations in order to recognise the hard work of residents within the District. She also highlighted the Chairman’s Charity Fundraising Concert taking place on October 20^th noting that all Members are invited to help support the Kangaroos Disability Clubs charity.

Councillor Salisbury moved the item noting that at District Plan examination, the Inspector raised the housing numbers significantly and allowed the Council time to incorporate it into the District Plan through the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (Site Allocations DPD). He noted that the document provides greater certainty for the Council’s five-year housing land supply and although he acknowledged there are concerns, the Inspector found the sites to be sound, and each will still have to go through the formal planning application process before proceeding.  He highlighted the difference between this document and the District Plan. He also noted  that the Site Allocations DPD is a binary decision for Council to agree or reject. If rejected it could result in a worst-case scenario for the Council with no five-year housing land supply and sites being put forward by developers on an ad hoc basis with limited scope for the Council to refuse. This was seconded by Councillor Ash-Edwards.

Councillor Eggleston proposed an amendment to the recommendations due to the sensitivities around sites SA12 and SA13 on ecological, strategic and traffic grounds. The amendment also takes into consideration a letter sent to the Secretary of State from the Member of Parliament for Mid Sussex. This was seconded by Councillor Alison Bennett who highlighted the need for perception that the political and democratic process has been sound in this decision making. At her request, clarification was also provided by the Head of Regulatory Services that if the Council agreed a deferral was possible. He noted that if the document was agreed, the Secretary of State has call-in powers, and it could be open to Judicial Review, but it will have been approved by this Council.

The amendment is as follows:

To delete items 1-3 and replace with ‘Defer the adoption of the Site Allocations DPD to allow the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to reconsider the inclusion of SA12 and SA13 in the plan document as requested by the Member of Parliament for Mid Sussex on 29 June 2022.’

Members discussed the reasons for delaying the adoption of the document, and the potential impacts this may have. A number of Members raised concern over the decisions taken by the cross-party working group in choosing the sites to be included and the lack of opportunity for some Members to revisit those decisions. Those Members felt that the process and the document was therefore flawed and needed a pause to reconsider the options available.  Issues relating to biodiversity net gain were also raised as were issues relating to housing oversupply and infrastructure pressures.

Several Members countered by noting that the requirement for extra housing was determined by the Inspector and the proposals now being considered had been through a cross party working group and two public consultations resulting in it being found to be sound in the Inspector’s final conclusions. It was noted that if the amendment to defer was agreed, it would have an impact on proposed employment sites  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Councillor Ash-Edwards moved the item asking Members to vote on the recommendations as per column 1 of the report. This was seconded by Councillor Webster.

The Chairman took Members to a vote on the recommendations as contained in the report which was approved with 39 in favour and 3 abstentions.

RESOLVED

Council approved the nominations to outside bodies listed in paragraph 4 of this report.

Councillor Anthea Lea moved the item noting that in October 2020 the Council undertook to be a slavery free community and remove slave-based labour from its supply chains. In March 2022 the Scrutiny Committee reviewed the statement and unanimously agreed it.  The item was seconded by Councillor Webster who thanked the Scrutiny Committee for the way in which they debated and supported it.

The Chairman took Members to a vote on the recommendation as contained in the report which was approved unanimously.

RESOLVED

Council adopted the attached draft Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking Transparency Statement for 2022/2023.

Councillor Ash-Edwards moved the item noting it is an annual report. This was seconded by Councillor de Mierre who noted that it was a requirement of the Localism Act 2011 and reflects current practice.

A Member asked whether  any  payment above £100k was to be referred to Council and sought clarity on whether that includes all exit payments for a post holder. The Leader explained that recent Government Guidance clarified the existing legal position. The Guidance defined clearly what constituted ‘special severance payments’ and what the recommended governance was for such payments. He also confirmed that payments required contractually or under enactments did not constitute ‘special severance’ and did  not count towards the £100k  threshold. Special Severance were largely discretionary payments .

The member suggested the Council could chose to adopt a £100k threshold regardless and the Leader advised that the Council should instead continue to follow legal requirements.

The Chairman took Members to a vote on the recommendations as contained in the report which was approved with 35 in favour and 8 against.

RESOLVED

Council agreed the Pay Policy at Appendix A, to comply with the requirements of the Localism Act.

Councillor Webster moved the item noting that the changes reflect the agreed portfolio changes as reflected in the constitution. This was seconded by Councillor Ash-Edwards.

Discussion was held on items such as sport and leisure which are now split between two committees. It was noted that Members could attend other Scrutiny Committees if the wish. A Member requested that the Scrutiny Committee for Planning, Economic Growth and Net Zero should meet as planned and the working group with regards to the District Plan should proceed. In response to a question on the subject, Councillor Webster confirmed that the recent Governance Review was taken into consideration when the changes to these committees were considered.

The Chairman took Members to a vote on the recommendations as contained in the report which was approved with 39 in favour, 2 against and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED

The Council agreed:

(i)           Three Scrutiny Committees entitled (1)Scrutiny Committee for Leader, Deputy Leader and Housing and Customer Services dealing with the work carried out by the Leader, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Housing and Customer Services,(2) Scrutiny Committee for Planning, Economic Growth and Net Zero to shadow the work of the Cabinet Member for Planning and the Cabinet Member for Economic Growth and Net Zero and (3) the Scrutiny Committee for Community, Leisure and Parking to shadow the work of the Cabinet Member for Community and the Cabinet Member for Leisure and Parking.

(ii)          The three Committees will meet at 7 pm in the Council Chamber unless otherwise agreed by the relevant Committee Chairman.

Councillor Ash-Edwards moved the item. This was seconded by Councillor John Belsey who highlighted the three additional projects added to the Capital Programme including works to bring temporary accommodation to East Grinstead at Swan Mead, works to Bedelands and work to finalise arrangements to the toilets at the Orchards Shopping Centre.

The Chairman took Members to a vote on the recommendations on both items as contained in the report which was agreed with 42 in favour and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED

FINANCIAL OUTTURN 2021/22

Council approved:

(i)         that grant income as set out in paragraph 12 to 25 of the Cabinet report be transferred to Specific Reserves;

(ii)        that requests totalling £82,000 be transferred to Specific Reserves as set out in Table 1 of the Cabinet report;

(iii)       that balance of interest totalling £174,111 as set out in paragraph 27 of the Cabinet report is transferred to the General Reserve;

(iv)       that the shortfall in Dividend income totalling £19,232 as set out in paragraph 31 of the Cabinet report is met from the General Reserve;

(v)        that the 2022/23 capital programme be increased by £5,215,000 as a result of slippage of some 2021/22 capital projects as detailed in Table 2 of the Cabinet report;

(vi)       that the revenue underspend in 2021/22, totalling £144,000, be transferred to General Reserve.

CAPITAL PROGRAMME AND REVENUE PROJECTS UPDATE

Council approved:

(i)         the variations to the Capital Programme and Revenue Projects 2022/23 contained in paragraph 17 of the Cabinet report in accordance with the Council’s Financial Procedure rule B3.

The Leader confirmed that the interim report on the Clair Hall site will be reported to Cabinet in July to set out work carried out by the Steering Group. A report will also be published that outlines the significant challenges of the existing building. In response to a question on when it will be presented to a Scrutiny Committee, he reiterated that it will be presented to Cabinet in July. 

The Leader also confirmed that the Council continues to receive positive feedback from the Government regarding the Levelling Up Fund for Burgess Hill and is preparing for submitting a bid in round two. More details will follow in due course.

In response to a question from a Member regarding standards, the Leader noted that Councillors have an obligation to set a good example in their role.

Deputy Leader

The Deputy Leader noted that work continues to progress the food waste trial and participating residents will be written to in July and Members will have a briefing on the subject, with further comms being issued soon after. He confirmed that it will be a ‘3-2-1 trial’ with food collected weekly, recycling collected fortnightly, and the residual waste collected every 3 weeks. The food waste will be taken to Basingstoke to be bio digested. Further composition analysis and benchmarking will also take place and the Council is continuing to push important alternatives such as home composting and alternative plastic recycling. In terms of garden waste, the Council is nearing 23000 users which is the current capacity so ways to expand this are being investigated.

Cabinet Member for Economic Growth and Net Zero

The Cabinet Member provided feedback from his attendance at the West Sussex Joint Climate Change Board Meeting where key items being discussed included an update on how West Sussex Local Authorities are proceeding towards the decarbonisation of their estates, and how we can work together on carbon off-setting and sequestration. He reported that Mid Sussex will be looking to our prospective refreshed District Plan to feature new and enhanced policies in this area. During the meeting he also suggested that work was needed to look at what reasonable measures we all should be taking to make our areas more resilient to climate change. For example, flooding, water resilience, increased temperatures affecting homes and workplaces and energy consumption, and its impact upon our species. In response to a Member’s request to work with the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA), he confirmed that SDNPA is part of the West Sussex Joint Climate Change Board.

Regarding the Burgess Hill Growth Area, he confirmed that the Green Circle is 99% done and the Green Links are 97% done, both due to complete this month and reflecting a huge investment into Burgess Hill and partnership working with West Sussex and Homes England resulting in a superb network of cycling and walking pathways around and into the town. West Sussex are now about to commence their large projects to enhance the linkages and sustainable transport experience around some of the town centre.  He acknowledged a Member’s concern that there will be disruption in Burgess Hill when the roads are dug up for the place and connectivity programme and noted comments that West Sussex County Council needed to be better at the communication around this disruption. However, he noted the long-term gain to be had from the works.

In relation to the Economy, he confirmed that the Micro Business Grant scheme is open for bids and urged Members to promote them to local businesses. He also noted that  the Council supported the Burgess Hill Business Park Association’s STEM week with local schools and will be supporting the forthcoming Haywards Heath STEM challenge.

Cabinet Member for Leisure and Parking

The Cabinet Member noted that the three leisure centres are increasing their membership  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

Two questions received were withdrawn by the Member who posed them.