Chichester District Council
Agenda, decisions and minutes

Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: Committee Room 2, East Pallant House. View directions

Contact: Graham Thrussell on 01243 534653  Email:  gthrussell@chichester.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

425.

Chairman's Announcements

The chairman will make any specific announcements for this meeting and advise of any late items which will be given consideration under agenda item 13 (a) or (b).

 

Apologies for absence will be taken at this point.

 

Decision:

[DETAILS IN THE MINUTES]

Minutes:

Mr Dignum welcomed the members of the public, the press representative and Chichester District Council (CDC) members and officers who were present for this meeting. He summarised the emergency evacuation procedure.

 

There was one apology for absence, namely Mr Barrow.

 

All other members of the Cabinet were present.

 

There were no late items for consideration at this meeting. Although agenda item 15 (Careline), which was a Part II matter, had been published in the third agenda supplement separately from the agenda and the first agenda supplement (appendices to the agenda), this had taken place within the requisite statutory period for public access to information.  

 

 

[Note Hereinafter in these minutes CDC denotes Chichester District Council]

426.

Approval of Minutes pdf icon PDF 96 KB

The Cabinet is requested to approve as a correct record the minutes of its meeting on Tuesday 3 October 2017, a copy of which is circulated with this agenda.

Decision:

RESOLVED

 

That the minutes of the Cabinet’s meeting on Tuesday 3 October 2017 be approved without amendment.

Minutes:

The Cabinet received the minutes of its meeting on Tuesday 3 October 2017, which had been circulated with the agenda (copy attached to the official minutes).

 

There were no proposed changes to the minutes.

 

Decision

 

The Cabinet voted unanimously on a show of hands to approve the minutes without making any amendments.

 

 

RESOLVED

 

That the minutes of the Cabinet’s meeting on Tuesday 3 October 2017 be approved without amendment.

427.

Declarations of Interests

Members are requested to make any declarations of disclosable pecuniary, personal and/or prejudicial interests which they might have in respect of matters on the agenda for this meeting.

Decision:

[DETAILS IN THE MINUTES]

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interests made by members of the Cabinet.

 

Mrs T Tull, CDC ward member for Sidlesham, was present as an observer and, with the prior permission of Mr Dignum, addressed the Cabinet during agenda 9 (Parking Proposals and Off-street Parking Charges). At the start of her remarks she declared a personal interest as a trustee of Chichester Festival Theatre.

428.

Public Question Time

In accordance with Chichester District Council’s scheme for public question time and with reference to standing order 6 in part 4 A and section 5.6 in Part 5 of the Chichester District Council Constitution, the Cabinet will receive any questions which have been submitted by members of the public in writing by 12:00 on the previous working day. The total time allocated for public question time is 15 minutes subject to the chairman’s discretion to extend that period.

Decision:

[DETAILS OF QUESTIONS AND RESPONSE IN MINUTES]

Minutes:

Two public questions had been received for this meeting, details of which appear below.

 

In addition, a question had been received from Mrs C M M Apel, who was one of the two CDC Chichester West ward members and also the chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Mr Dignum decided that Mrs Apel’s question should be asked at this stage rather than during agenda item 7 (Southern Gateway Masterplan - Adoption) to which it related. As this was not a public question it was not subject to the rules of the public question time scheme.

 

The text of the two aforementioned public questions had been circulated to members, the public and the press immediately prior to the start of this meeting. Mr Dignum invited each person in turn to come to the designated microphone in order to read out his question before an oral response was given by Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services).

 

The text of the question by Mrs Apel was not circulated in advance and the oral response was supplied by Mr Frost (Head of Planning Services).

 

The questions (with the date of submission shown with [ ] at the end of the text) and the answers given by the relevant Cabinet member were as follows.

 

Public Question (1) by Mr Richard Hutchinson

 

‘The level crossings and resulting congestion has been a huge barrier for car drivers, cyclists and pedestrians wanting to enter the City from the south for decades. 

 

The Council’s masterplan is predicated on the basis that the crossings remain, because a brief early study carried out by their consultants showed that a crossing solution was not possible on Stockbridge road or Basin road.  The consultants were told to not look at third party land, so other options could not be investigated.  The whole masterplan was then built from that flawed premise, and the argument constructed that the resulting congestion from making all vehicles go through one crossing would assist in reducing the amount of traffic entering the city.

 

This is a completely flawed plan.  There will undoubtably be more frequent train services in the future, and the number of vehicles requiring access to the City will also increase.  Not to constructively plan for the eventuality is an abdication of responsibility by the Council.  They are responsible for looking at infrastructure improvements where required, no other body can do this, and an improvement is desperately required here.  Not to investigate all possible options for removing the crossings is neglecting their responsibilities and letting down Chichester.  We all want a City centre that is pleasant for cyclists and pedestrians to use, but to try and achieve it by turning a blind eye to a situation that exasperates thousands of local residents is not the way to achieve it

 

Network Rail has stated that they want to remove all level crossings for safety reasons.  There is not only the potential for train related accidents, but also the poor air quality caused by queuing vehicles is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 428.

429.

Determination of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme 2018-2019 pdf icon PDF 77 KB

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and its three appendices and to make the following recommendation to the Council:

 

That the proposed Council Tax Reduction Scheme for 2018-2019 be approved.

Additional documents:

Decision:

RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNCIL

 

That the proposed Council Tax Reduction Scheme for 2018-2019 be approved.

Minutes:

The Cabinet received and considered the agenda report and its three appendices in the first agenda supplement.

 

The report was presented by Mrs Hardwick.

 

Mrs Rogers was in attendance for this item.

 

Mrs Hardwick said that Council Tax Reduction (CTR) had been localised for working age people in 2013 and the Council Tax Reduction Scheme (CTRS) applied to them but not to pensioners, who continued to receive support via national rules. Although the CTRS was initially funded out of the central government grant (albeit reduced by 10%), since 2014-2015 government support for CDC’s local scheme had been subsumed into the overall government revenue support. Unlike many other local authorities, CDC had protected its CTRS recipients from that funding cut and instead broadly maintained the same level of support to its communities (Mid Sussex District Council (MSDC) had done likewise). Universal Credit (UC) was due to be rolled out for CDC’s working age residents as from April 2018. In the obligatory CTRS annual consultation (approved by the Cabinet in July 2017) in August and September 2017, CDC consulted on some possible changes to the 2018-2019 CTRS, namely (a) introducing a new category (class F) for claimants in receipt of UC and (b) continuing to support lowest earners (including via discretionary hardship assistance) while ensuring the administration would (i) be as simple and cost effective as possible, (ii) well targeted, (iii) minimise disincentives to work, (iv) provide the best value for money and (v) be as straightforward for the claimants as possible.  There continued to be important protections for war widows, widower pensions and war disablement pensions as well as maintaining work incentives in the form of earned income disregards and a taper for removing support. The full details were in the appendices. Although to date the cost of administering the CTRS local scheme had been funded by the Department for Communities and Local Government, as pointed out in para 6.3 of the report, that funding for administration had fallen by 4.6% to £115,000 for 2017-2018 and the trajectory was likely to continue.  It was incumbent on CDC to react to welfare reforms in a way that mitigated the effects of increased costs. Save for the element of administration, the cost of the CTRS benefit paid to recipients was shared by all precepting authorities (CDC’s share was around 9%). In 2017-2018 the CTRS benefit cost around £6.9m overall.  It had remained fairly constant since 2013 but economic downturns and widespread welfare reform might raise the demand for the CTRS. There were 71 consultation responses and opinion was broadly in favour of the new banded scheme for Class F and the continuation of the discretionary hardship fund. The report proposed to base the CTRS 2018-2019 on the appended draft.  The CTRS needed to be approved by the Council before 31 January 2018, which it was hoped would happen when the Council met on 21 November 2017. This would in turn assist in setting the tax base in December 2017.

 

Mrs Rogers did not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 429.

430.

New Non-Domestic Rates Discretionary Scheme pdf icon PDF 59 KB

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and its appendix and to make the following recommendation to the Council:

 

That the Non-Domestic Rate Discretionary Scheme for 2017 – 2021 as set out in the appendix to the agenda report be approved.    

Additional documents:

Decision:

RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNCIL

 

That the Non-Domestic Rate Discretionary Scheme for 2017-2021 as set out in the appendix to the agenda report be approved.

 

Minutes:

The Cabinet received and considered the agenda report with its appendix.

 

The report was presented by Mrs Lintill.

 

Mr Jobson was in attendance for this item.

 

Mrs Lintill summarised section 3 of the report, which set out the background details of the national discretionary fund of £300m over four years which had been established by the government in March 2017 to provide assistance to businesses facing non domestic rates (NDR) increases as a result of the 2017 revaluation. CDC’s total allocation for the four years 2017-2018 to 2020-2021 was £786,000. The details of how the scheme would operate to benefit eligible businesses over the four-year period and the conditions for remaining entitled were set out in section 3. Any surplus from 2017-2018 would have to be returned to the government. This local scheme would complement the national scheme by reducing further the increase limits set by the government. The consultation details were set out in section 8 of the report. Immense gratitude was due to Mr Jobson for his hard work in the challenge he faced in devising this scheme.

 

Mr Jobson commented on the complexity of the scheme he had to create and how Chichester District had been particularly affected by the increases in business rates. Over 1,200 customers would be assisted by the scheme. 

 

Mr Dignum remarked that the scheme would help to sustain and promote the growth of CDC’s local businesses.

 

Decision

 

The Cabinet voted unanimously on a show of hands in favour of making the recommendation set out below.

 

RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNCIL

 

That the Non-Domestic Rate Discretionary Scheme for 2017-2021 as set out in the appendix to the agenda report be approved.

431.

Southern Gateway Masterplan – Adoption pdf icon PDF 83 KB

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and its five appendices and to make the following recommendations to the Council and also the resolution below:

 

A – RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNCIL

 

That the Cabinet recommends to the Council that it:

 

(a)   Approves the recommended responses to the representations made as part of the public consultation on the draft masterplan (set out in appendix 1 to the agenda report).

 

(b)   Adopts the Southern Gateway Masterplan (set out in appendix 2 to the agenda report) as a Supplementary Planning Document, thereby replacing the existing Southern Gateway Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Guidance 2001.

 

(c)   Delegates authority to the Head of Planning Services, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning Services, to make minor amendments to the document prior to publication.

 

B – RESOLUTION BY THE CABINET

 

That the use of part of the residual budget from the now adopted Local Plan to meet the remaining cost (£51,000) of the Southern Gateway Masterplan project be approved.

Additional documents:

Decision:

RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNCIL

 

That the Council:

 

(a)   Approves the recommended responses to the representations made as part of the public consultation on the draft masterplan (set out in appendix 1 to the agenda report).

 

(b)   Adopts the Southern Gateway Masterplan (set out in appendix 2 to the agenda report) as a Supplementary Planning Document, thereby replacing the existing Southern Gateway Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Guidance 2001.

 

(c)   Delegates authority to the Head of Planning Services, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning Services, to make minor amendments to the document prior to publication.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the use of part of the residual budget from the now adopted Local Plan to meet the remaining cost (£65,000) of the Southern Gateway Masterplan project be approved.

 

Minutes:

The Cabinet received and considered the agenda report and its five appendices in the first agenda supplement.

 

The report was presented by Mr Dignum.

 

Mr Allgrove and Mr Frost were in attendance for this item.

 

Mr Dignum commented as follows.

 

TheCabinet had approved the draft Southern Gateway Masterplan (SGM) for publicconsultation in June 2017. The responses to the public consultation had been analysed and various changes to the draft document had been made as a result. The SGM had been prepared within the context of the Chichester Local Plan (CLP) and the Chichester Vision (adopted in July 2017). The SGM had been endorsed by West Sussex County Council (WSCC) and it featured in a Memorandum of Understanding with the Homes and Communities Agency and WSCC. The SGM enabled the councils to (a) identify the opportunities for development; (b) plan for new homes, jobs, retail and leisure facilities; (c) recognise key constraints such as listed buildings and conservation area restrictions; (d) co-ordinate the development of a number of different sites; (e) co-ordinate proposals which were the subject of different bids for funding to facilitate development; and (f) give clear guidance to assist in the preparation and assessment of planning applications.

 

The SGM proposals were designed to deliver sixkey objectives: (1) making sure first impressions count; (2) reinforcing a mix of city uses; (3) conserving and enhancing the historic environment; (4) contributing towards a sustainable movement strategy; (5) providing a flexible framework; and (6) achieving design quality.

 

The SGM proposed a range of different landuses and provided design guidance for development siteswithin the Southern Gateway area. It set out proposals for (a) significant changes to the highway network around the existing one-way gyratory; (b) the restriction of the Stockbridge Roadlevel crossing to pedestrians, cyclists and buses; (c) the re-routing of Basin Road to the rear of the Royal Mail sorting office site; (d)providing opportunities to bring development forward and  to co-ordinate that development; and (e) improving the public realm, not least in thearea around the railway station, leading up to South Street and the main city centre shopping.

 

Officershad given the Freeflow proposal careful consideration but were unable to recommend that it be pursued because from a detailed assessment carried out by the masterplan and transport consultants it (i) appeared to be neither technically feasible nor financially viable and (ii) would have a significant negative impact on the historic environment and conflict with the aimsof the Chichester Vision and the objectives of the SGM.  The updated version of Freeflow shared many of the same weaknesses as the original one: (a) cost: at least doubling the funding needed to prepare the site (from £10m to at least £20m); (b) loss of development value; (c) adverse amenity impact: the bridge with four-storey buildings over much of the site and bi-section of site; (d) additional car traffic brought into centre; (e) loss of north-south bus access; and (f) development delays  ...  view the full minutes text for item 431.

432.

Southern Gateway Chichester Masterplan Implementation pdf icon PDF 64 KB

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and its two appendices and to make the following resolution:

 

That subject to the Southern Gateway Masterplan being adopted by the Council the Project Initiation Document attached at appendix 1 to the agenda report be approved.

 

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED

 

That subject to the Southern Gateway Masterplan being adopted by the Council the Project Initiation Document attached at appendix 1 to the agenda report be approved.

Minutes:

The Cabinet received and considered the agenda report and its two appendices in the first agenda supplement.

 

The report was presented by Mr Dignum.

 

Mr Over was available to comment and answer questions on this item.

 

Mr Dignum referred to the report and the PID in appendix 1 in the first agenda supplement. He said that the Southern Gateway was the largest regeneration project in the city within living memory. The site had long been recognised as presenting an opportunity to make better use of the southern approach to the city, which would now include the Chichester magistrates court, crown court and county court and the Kingsham First and Middle School, following the announcement of their closure. The area included the Bus Station and Depot, the Basin Road car park, the Police Station and the Royal Mail depot.  Among the many project outputs and outcomes were (a) a successful Local Growth Fund bid and other funding which would secure an estimated £83m private sector investment; (b) some 1,454 new jobs; (c) the protection of existing jobs (Stagecoach and Royal Mail); (d) new homes and student accommodation; (e) two hectares  of business/retail and leisure floor spaces; (f) potential new community health facility; (g) return on CDC investments; and (h) improvements to the public realm, the transport system and the appearance of the townscape and buildings in the area. The PID contained a timetable of key milestone dates, at the end of which the best way to implement should have been identified.

 

Mr Over pointed out that implementation was entirely subject to the adoption by the Council meeting later in the month of the Southern Gateway Masterplan. It was difficult to be precise at this time as to which parts of the site would be delivered at particular times but any further CDC funding opportunities or commitments beyond those identified in the PID would be notified to the Cabinet as they arose.  In the meantime CDC was working closely with the two key businesses which would need to be relocated in readiness to proceed expeditiously once, if approved by the Council, the SGM was adopted. Stage reports would be periodically presented to the Cabinet. Key milestones were set out in the PID project plan timetable (section 11). This was an exciting time and venture for CDC with the prospect of considerable benefits being delivered. Many of the concepts in the Southern Gateway Framework 2001 had been implemented by the private sector. It was now time for the remaining parts of the development (including the major relocations required) to be delivered with public sector financial support.       

 

Mr Dignum drew attention to the proposed Growth Deal agreement which CDC hoped to conclude with West Sussex County Council in due course.

 

Mr Over responded to questions by Mrs Hardwick, Mr Wilding and Mrs Taylor with regard to (a) managing effectively corporate risks (sections 7.2 and 9 of the agenda report and section 13 of the PID); (b) achieving the challenge of an 80% public satisfaction  ...  view the full minutes text for item 432.

433.

Parking Proposals and Off-street Parking Charges pdf icon PDF 69 KB

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and its four appendices and to make the following resolutions:

 

(1)  That the charges set out within appendix 1 of the agenda report which, subject to consultation responses are to be implemented from 1 April 2018, be approved. 

 

(2)  That the Head of Commercial Services be authorised to give appropriate notice of any revised charges or changes as set out within this report pursuant to the Off-street Parking Places (Consolidation) Order 2015 and the Road Traffic Act 1984. 

 

(3)  That the use of Regulation 10 Penalty Charge Notices within Chichester District from 1 April 2018 be approved.

 

(4)  That the inclusion of Florence Road car park (subject to agreement from West Sussex County Council as the Highway Authority) onto the Parking Order for Chichester District and implements a maximum stay as indicated in section 4.13 of the agenda report be approved.

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED

 

(1)  That the charges set out within appendix 1 of the agenda report which, subject to consultation responses are to be implemented from 1 April 2018, be approved subject to the following amendments: (a) the parking charge as at present for long-stay car parks on Sundays be retained and (b) that parking in the Sylvia Beaufoy car park continues to remain free as at present. 

 

(2)  That the Head of Commercial Services be authorised to give appropriate notice of any revised charges or changes as set out within this report pursuant to the Off-street Parking Places (Consolidation) Order 2015 and the Road Traffic Act 1984. 

 

(3)  That the use of Regulation 10 Penalty Charge Notices within Chichester District from 1 April 2018 be approved.

 

(4)  That the inclusion of Florence Road car park (subject to agreement from West Sussex County Council as the Highway Authority) onto the Parking Order for Chichester District and implements a maximum stay as indicated in section 4.11 of the agenda report be approved.

Minutes:

The Cabinet considered the agenda report and its four appendices in the first agenda supplement.

 

The report was presented by Mr Dignum, Mrs Murphy and Miss Jardine.

 

Mrs Murphy and Miss Jardine were in attendance also to answer members’ questions and comments on points of detail.  

 

Mr Dignum summarised in particular section 4 (paras 4.1 to 4.4) of the report with regard to the background and the proposals for the proposed car park charges to come into force with effect from 1 April 2018 subject to the outcome of the required consultation. He informed the Cabinet that he sought its agreement to make two amendments to the charges proposed by officers namely: (a) the Sylvia Beaufoy car park in Petworth should remain entirely free of charge instead of introducing the charges set out in the table on page 258 of the first agenda supplement and (b) charges in the city’s long-stay car parks on Sundays should remain as they were currently and not be increased in line with section 3 in appendix 1 on page 257 of the first agenda supplement ie he advocated the alternative option in the last para of that section.

 

Mrs Murphy said that the parking proposals had been considered by CDC’s Chichester District Parking Forum which was comprised of representatives of all the relevant groups and interests. The aim was that CDC’s off-street charges complemented West Sussex County Council’s (WSCC) on-street charges. The charges agreed by the Cabinet at this meeting would be made the subject of a public consultation.

 

Mrs Lintill welcomed Mr Dignum’s proposal to retain the current no-charging regime at the Sylvia Beaufoy car park. She said that Mrs J Duncton, the other CDC Petworth ward member, agreed with her. 

 

Mrs Kilby said that she fully supported Florence Road car park being brought into the parking order in view of the current commuter use being made of it.

 

Mrs Murphy summarised the proposal in respect of the Florence Road car park in paras 4.10 and 4.11 of the report including the need to consult WSCC despite the fact that the car park belonged to CDC. The more efficient and effective enforcement option was for a free ticket for a maximum stay of three hours to be issued by a machine rather than rely on monitoring by patrol officers.

 

Miss Jardine summarised and explained the proposal to introduce the service of penalty charge notices pursuant to regulation 10 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Directions 2007. If implemented, full training would be given to CDC staff and the new procedure would be given appropriate publicity.

 

Members supported the regulation 10 proposal.

 

Mrs Hardwick referred to the first two paras on page 259 of the first agenda supplement which justified the introduction of charges in the Sylvia Beaufoy car park and questioned the impact on turnover of Mr Dignum’s proposal to retain free car parking.

 

Mr Dignum explained that due account had been taken of the views of the two  ...  view the full minutes text for item 433.

434.

Consultation on South Downs Local Plan Pre-Submission pdf icon PDF 137 KB

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report with its two appendices and to make the following resolutions:

 

That the South Downs National Park Authority be advised:

 

(1)  That the South Downs Local Plan Pre-Submission is broadly supported.

 

(2)  That Chichester District Council does not intend to make any formal representations in response to the Pre-Submission consultation.

 

(3)  That the comments in appendix 1 to the agenda report will be forwarded for its consideration with regard to possible modifications to the Pre-Submission Local Plan.

Decision:

RESOLVED

 

That the South Downs National Park Authority be advised:

 

(1)  That the South Downs Local Plan Pre-Submission is broadly supported.

 

(2)  That Chichester District Council does not intend to make any formal representations in response to the Pre-Submission consultation.

 

(3)  That the comments in appendix 1 to the agenda report will be forwarded for its consideration with regard to possible modifications to the Pre-Submission Local Plan.

Minutes:

The Cabinet considered the agenda report with its two appendices.

 

Mrs Taylor introduced the report.

 

Mr Davidson and Mr Allgrove were in attendance for this item.

 

Mrs Taylor explained that the report was to agree CDC’s formal response to the Pre-Submission consultation of the South Downs National Park Authority’s (SDNPA) draft Local Plan (LP) which had been subject to consultation for an eight-week period which was due to end on 21 November 2017. The focus of the current consultation was whether the LP was sound and whether it met legal and procedural requirements. At present the SDNPA was subject to all the saved Local Plan policies within the SDNP including those of the Chichester District Local Plan 1999. Work had been in progress on the LP for a number of years and officers had responded to two previous consultations in 2014 and 2015. Many of those recommendations had been accepted and incorporated into the current draft LP, which set out the planning framework for the SDNP for 2014-2033. 

 

Unlike the Chichester Local Plan which was development-led, the SDNPA LP was landscape-led. Officers had not identified any major concerns relating to the draft LP’s soundness and so did not propose making any formal representations to the SDNPA. However, a number of minor issues had been identified and modifications suggested, which were set out in appendix 1. Inaccuracies in the housing figures, for example, had been discussed with the SDNPA, which had informally amended the housing figures in appendix 2. The projected delivery in that appendix equated to an average housing delivery of 84 net dwellings per year for Chichester District over the LP period, which exceeded the target of 70 homes per year that had been previously assumed for the SDNP within Chichester District. In accordance with The National Parks Vision and Circular (2010), there was a strong focus on the delivery of affordable housing. No target was set for affordable housing but on sites of 11 or more homes there would have to be a minimum of 50% affordable housing with a minimum 75% affordable rent, whereas on sites of three to ten homes a sliding scale would apply. There could be practical difficulties with very small sites and a modification from four to ten had been suggested. SD 27 was a new policy which specified a broad mix of housing for both affordable and private dwellings. Further clarification of this policy had been requested. It had been agreed that, as contended by officers in their response to the previous Preferred Options consultation, (a) potential loss of employment land to residential use should only be after evidence had been provided that there was no market demand for that employment land and (b) there should be a marketing period of at least 12 months or, in the case of key employment land, 18 months. Officers had suggested that the 18-month marketing period should apply to tourist accommodation. After the end of the consultation, the formal examination  ...  view the full minutes text for item 434.

435.

Chichester Road Space Audit pdf icon PDF 81 KB

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and its appendix and to make the following resolution:

 

That the feedback to the Road Space Audit consultation document as set out in para 6 of the agenda report be provided.

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED

 

That the feedback to the Road Space Audit consultation document as amended in section 6.1 of the agenda report be provided.

 

[Note The amendments made to section 6.1 are denoted in bold below:

 

6.1   The Audit has been considered by relevant officers of Chichester District Council.  Officers recommend that the Council provides the following feedback to WSCC:

 

6.1.1     The findings of the report are consistent with the objectives within the approved Vision for Chichester.

6.1.2     The report suggests potential closure of some of the key car parks within the city. Any closure is for the district council to determine if appropriate and the district council wish to make it totally clear that there are no current plans for closure of car parks in the city (with the exception of Basin Road car park which is being considered as a result of the Southern Gateway Project). 

6.1.3     Off Street car park income is the revenue source for assisting with covering costs of car park provision and any surplus is used to support other Council services.  Should there be a reduction in the number of off-street parking places there would be a significant reduction in the income generated which would not be acceptable in the foreseeable future.

6.1.4     The continuation of a phased extension to the Controlled Parking Zone could be welcomed, subject to sufficient resources and significant consultation and consideration of the impact on the public.

6.1.5     The impact of performance pricing in on-street bays and how this relates to off-street car parks has not been fully considered and will require a full assessment to understand demand, capacity and effect on income.

6.1.6     There may be concerns from residents regarding the increase of commuter parking in residential streets.  It is clear that access for residents and deliveries must be preserved and this must be carefully communicated to those affected.

6.1.7     The full impact of the proposals on the retail sector has not been considered at this stage and this will require careful assessment to understand the potential loss of any retailers as a result which could be significant on footfall.  If any of the proposals were accepted a full consultation with the retail sector should be undertaken.

6.1.8     The demands for parking provision from the larger employers and organisations in the city will require consideration as part of any on-street and off-street parking provision.

6.1.9     The opportunity to use under-utilised road space for coach and lorry parking could be investigated and implemented if practicable.  If successful this would release the existing coach/lorry park for more appropriate use to support the local economy.

6.1.10  The report proposes a change to the process undertaken to allow commuters to park on-street. Operational costs, time and policy associated with introducing amendments to on-street permits have not been considered at this stage, and will require further assessment and understanding.  

6.1.11  The implications of the result of the A27 project must be considered, particularly in relation to the ‘to, not through’ element of  ...  view the full decision text for item 435.

Minutes:

The Cabinet considered the agenda report and its appendix in the first agenda supplement.

 

The report was presented by Mr Dignum.

 

Mrs Murphy was in attendance for this item.

 

Mr Dignum explained that the Road Space Audit (RSA) was a West Sussex County Council (WSCC) undertaking, the purpose of which was set out in para 4.1 of the report. The RSA had four key themes and these were addressed in para 4.2 of the report. Insofar as the officers’ recommended CDC feedback to the RSA was concerned, Mr Dignum proposed certain revisions to the comments set out in section 6 of the report. He had circulated that section with certain suggested amendments in bold. For ease of reference para 6.1 with Mr Dignum’s revisions up to and including sub-paras 6.1.7 is replicated as follows (the remaining sub-paras were unaffected and so are not set out below) :

 

6.1   The Audit has been considered by relevant officers of Chichester District Council.  Officers recommend that the Council provides the following feedback to WSCC:

 

6.1.1     The findings of the report are consistent with the objectives within the approved Vision for Chichester.

6.1.2     The report suggests potential closure of some of the key car parks within the city. Any closure is for the district council to determine if appropriate and the district council wish to make it totally clear that there are no current plans for closure of car parks in the city (with the exception of Basin Road car park which is being considered as a result of the Southern Gateway Project). 

6.1.3     Off Street car park income is the revenue source for assisting with covering costs of car park provision and any surplus is used to support other Council services.  Should there be a reduction in the number of off-street parking places there would be a significant reduction in the income generated which would not be acceptable in the foreseeable future.

6.1.4     The continuation of a phased extension to the Controlled Parking Zone could be welcomed, subject to sufficient resources and significant consultation and consideration of the impact on the public.

6.1.5     The impact of performance pricing in on-street bays and how this relates to off-street car parks has not been fully considered and will require a full assessment to understand demand, capacity and effect on income.

6.1.6     There may be concerns from residents regarding the increase of commuter parking in residential streets.  It is clear that access for residents and deliveries must be preserved and this must be carefully communicated to those affected.

6.1.7     The full impact of the proposals on the retail sector has not been considered at this stage and this will require careful assessment to understand the potential loss of any retailers as a result which could be significant on footfall.  If any of the proposals were accepted a full consultation with the retail sector should be undertaken.

 

……..]’

 

Mrs Murphy said that although the RSA consultation had closed the previous week, WSCC had agreed that CDC’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 435.

436.

Provision of a Parking Enforcement Service pdf icon PDF 57 KB

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and to make the following resolutions:

 

(1)  That the continuation of the Agency Agreement for on-street parking enforcement plus the additional duties set out in para 3.2 of the agenda report with West Sussex County Council for a further six years commencing on 1 April 2018 be approved.

 

(2)  That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Commercial Services to agree on the final terms of the Agency Agreement. 

 

 

Decision:

RESOLVED

 

(1)  That the continuation of the Agency Agreement for on-street parking enforcement plus the additional duties set out in para 3.2 of the agenda report with West Sussex County Council for a further six years commencing on 1 April 2018 be approved.

 

(2)  That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Commercial Services to agree on the final terms of the Agency Agreement. 

Minutes:

The Cabinet considered the agenda report.

 

At Mr Dignum’s invitation, the report was introduced by Mrs Murphy, who also answered members’ questions on points of detail.

 

Mrs Murphy summarised sections 3, 4 and 5 of the report.

 

In reply to questions, Mrs Murphy explained (a) the nature and extent of CDC’s on-street and back-office functions under the agency agreement, with CDC able to contribute to the manuals and guidance documents produced and to meet regularly with WSCC to discuss issues (WSCC set the charges), (b) the appeal process, (c) blue badge holders and (d) the exercise of discretion by enforcement officers as to whether or not to issue a ticket.   

 

Decision

 

The Cabinet voted unanimously on a show of hands in favour of making the resolution set out below.

 

RESOLVED

 

(1)  That the continuation of the Agency Agreement for on-street parking enforcement plus the additional duties set out in para 3.2 of the agenda report with West Sussex County Council for a further six years commencing on 1 April 2018 be approved.

 

(2)  That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Commercial Services to agree on the final terms of the Agency Agreement. 

437.

Late Items

a)    Items added to the agenda papers and made available for public inspection

 

b)    Items which the chairman has agreed should be taken as matters of urgency by reason of special circumstances to be reported at the meeting

Decision:

[NONE DESPITE ITEM 15 HAVING BEEN CIRCULATED SEPARATELY FROM THE MAIN AGENDA]

Minutes:

There were no late items for consideration at this meeting, although agenda item 15 (Careline), which was a Part II matter, had been published in the third agenda supplement separately from the agenda and the first agenda supplement (appendices to the agenda). The later publication was nevertheless within the statutory period for the public access to information.    

438.

Exclusion of the Press and Public

None of the foregoing matters listed for consideration at this meeting is a restricted item and they do not, therefore, require a resolution for the exclusion of the press and public. 

 

Decision:

[PART II RESOLUTION (PARAS 1 AND 3) MADE FOR AGENDA ITEM 15]

Minutes:

Decision

 

It was proposed, seconded and unanimously supported that the following resolution should be passed to exclude the press and the public from the meeting during the consideration of agenda item 15 (Careline), which was Part II matter exempt from the public domain.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the public and press be excluded from the consideration of the confidential Part II report and its appendix for agenda item 15 (Careline) circulated to members and relevant officers only in the third agenda supplement on the grounds that it is likely that there would be in respect of that item a disclosure to the public of ‘exempt information’ of the description specified in Paragraphs 1 (information relating to any individual) and 3 (information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)) of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 and because in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exemption of that information outweighs the public interest in disclosing that information. 

439.

Careline

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and its appendix, both of which are Part II* confidential material with a restricted circulation to Chichester District Council members and relevant officers only (printed on salmon-coloured paper), and to make the following resolutions:

 

(1)  That the Head of Community Services be authorised to proceed in accordance with the proposal contained within para 5 of the agenda report.

 

(2)  That a report be brought by officers to a future meeting of the Cabinet once a provisional position has been reached.

 

 

*[Note The grounds for excluding the public and press during this item are that it is likely that there would be a disclosure to them of ‘exempt information’ of the description specified in Paragraphs 1 (information relating to any individual) and 3 (information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information) of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972]

Decision:

RESOLVED

 

(1)  That the Head of Community Services be authorised to proceed in accordance with the proposal contained within section 5.1 of the agenda report.

 

(2)  That a report be brought by officers to a future meeting of the Cabinet once a provisional position has been reached.

Minutes:

The Cabinet considered the confidential Part II agenda report and its appendix which were circulated to members and relevant officers only in the third agenda supplement.

 

The report was presented by Mrs Lintill.

 

Mrs Dodsworth was in attendance for this item.

 

After Mrs Lintill’s introduction, Mrs Dodsworth made brief comments.

 

During the discussion Mrs Dodsworth and Mr Dignum responded to members’ questions and comments on points of detail.

 

Decision

 

The Cabinet voted unanimously on a show of hands in favour of making the resolution set out below.

 

RESOLVED

 

(1)  That the Head of Community Services be authorised to proceed in accordance with the proposal contained within section 5.1 of the agenda report.

 

(2)  That a report be brought by officers to a future meeting of the Cabinet once a provisional position has been reached.

 

Top of page