Agenda and minutes

Special, Overview & Scrutiny Committee
Tuesday 26 November 2019 9.30 am

Venue: Council Chamber, West Sussex County Council, County Hall, West Street, Chichester

Contact: Katherine Davis on 01243 534674  Email:  kdavis@chichester.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

1.

Chairman's Announcements

Any apologies for absence will be noted at this point.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Mr Johnson.

2.

Urgent Items

The Chairman will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances are to be dealt with under the agenda item below relating to late items.

Minutes:

There were no urgent items.

3.

Declarations of Interests

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

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interests.

4.

Public Question Time

The procedure for submitting public questions in writing no later than 12:00 on 17 September 2018 is available upon request from Democratic Services (the contact details for which appear on the front page of this agenda).

Minutes:

There were no public questions.

5.

Parking Proposals and Off-Street Parking Charges pdf icon PDF 81 KB

The Committee is asked to consider the Parking Proposals and Off-Street Parking Charges report considered by Cabinet on 5 November 2019 and the draft resolution:

 

RESOLVED

1.     That the proposal be approved as set out in 5.1 of this report to increase car parking charges with the additional amendment of a £2 per hour rate for both Little London and Baffins Lane car parks, which subject to consultation responses be implemented from 1 April 2020 for a two year period.

2.     That the Director of Growth and Place 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 2018 and Road Traffic Act 1984.

3.     That the consolidation of all Parking Orders since 2012 into one document be approved. This document will further clarify the provision for electric payments and the exemption from daily charges for Blue Badge holders (with the exception of Pay on Foot parking) which subject to consultation be implemented from 1 April 2020.

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered the Parking Proposals and Off-Street Parking Charges report considered by Cabinet on 5 November 2019 and the draft resolution circulated with the agenda.

 

The Chairman welcomed the speakers who had been invited to today’s meeting to provide their views and those of the organisations they represented on the parking proposals.  He explained that the Committee was responding to the consultation on the car parking proposals.

 

Mrs Murphy reported that the public consultation was currently underway and ran from 21 November 2019 until 16 December 2019.  Notices had been displayed in the Council’s car parks and in a local newspaper.  Key stakeholders were currently being consulted and all feedback would be collated and presented to Cabinet on 7 January 2020.  Once the final decision was made on the proposals, notification would take place advising the public of the changes to come into effect on 1 April 2019.

 

The Chairman invited the following representatives to present their views:

 

Mr Hicks, Chairman, Chichester BID: Mr Hicks commented on the concessions made in the rural towns concerning free 1 hour parking in Petworth, the 7% drop in footfall drop last year and the 13% drop this year and advised that the Christmas footfall increase was not guaranteed.  The BID had been working with the District Council on schemes designed to improve “dwell time”.  The BID was aware that although there were less visitors to Chichester, retail sales were rising.  Businesses felt parking should be free with 70% blaming parking charges for fewer visitors.  Mr Hicks stated that 20% of car park users raise parking as an issue.  The District’s charges compared with some other council compared favourably.

 

Incentives proposed:

·         Car Less: Discourage car use by increasing charges to reduce car use in Chichester City Centre.  Consider effect on rural car parks as lack of public transport.

·         Bike, foot, bus and train: Lack of inner city transport doesn’t assist.

·         Blue badge scheme extended.

·         Promotion of the City: Working with visit Chichester to promote the City.

·         Suggested ring fencing parking fee income.

·         Free 1 hour parking at end of parking pay and display ticket period – suggested that no penalty parking charges would be issued during this time.

·         Avenue de Chartres car park should be promoted more as it was underutilised.

·         Season ticket scheme: Good scheme but should be promoted more efficiently.  MiPermit was more popular with the younger generation.

·         One off events:  Free parking should be considered.

 

Mrs Murphy provided details of the incentives that the Council continued to promote to encourage the use of its car parks.  The Council worked with Mipermit to promote the District Council’s scheme nationally.  The Council wanted visitors to arrive in the District with the Mipermit app already installed on their mobile phones, which would enable them to extend their stay if necessary. The Council ran a Park and Ride scheme during the Christmas period which visitors attending free events could use. 

 

With regard to the suggestion of an extra hour granted after a parking ticket  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

Exclusion of the Press and Public

The Committee is asked to consider in respect of agenda items 7 and 8 whether the public, including the press, should be excluded from the meeting on the grounds of exemption, namely Paragraphs 3 (Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)) and 5 (Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings) under Parts I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as indicated against the item 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 the information. The reports dealt with under this part of the agenda are attached for members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and senior officers only (salmon paper).

Minutes:

RESOLVED

 

That the public, including the press, should be excluded from the meeting on the following grounds of exemption in Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, namely Paragraphs 3 (Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)) and 5 (Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings) 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 the information.

7.

Southern Gateway Task and Finish Group Final Report

To receive the report of the Southern Gateway Task and Finish Group following the final meeting to be held on 21 November 2019.

Minutes:

Members considered the confidential report circulated to officers.

 

Mr Palmer, Chairman of the Southern Gateway Task and Finish Group, introduced the item and presented the findings of the Task and Finish Group on the progress of the Southern Gateway project and the final submissions in respect of a development partner.

 

He stated that it was important that going forward members should have a handle on progress of the Southern Gateway project going forward, which was likely to last eight years.  It was considered that there had not been sufficient engagement with members during the process.  With regard to the future roll of the Committee in the Southern Gateway process, he suggested quarterly progress meetings should take place between the developer and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

 

He thanked the members of the Task and Finish Group for their contribution and congratulated officers on the work they had carried out, as well asthe quality of Developer A’s bid.  

 

Mr Sutton thanked Mr Palmer for taking on board all the views of the Task and Finish Group members in the final report.

                                                                                                                                                                                                         

RESOLVED

 

That the findings of the Southern Gateway Task and Finish Group be noted.

 

8.

Southern Gateway - Appointment of a development partner

1.  That the Committee, after considering this report and receiving the views from the Southern Gateway Task and Finish Group, consider the following proposals which will be placed before Cabinet at their meeting on 3 December:

1.1 following “standstill” and dealing with any issues arising, and confirmation that WSCC have cleared their own governance processes, including call-in, that the Council select Developer A on Heads of Terms shown in Appendix 1 to deliver the Southern Gateway Masterplan regeneration project pursuant to the outcome of the Evaluation Report at Appendix 2 once matters of detail are finalised with the bidder.

2 That the Committee indicate the nature of the role they wish to play in the future monitoring of this project.

 

Copies of the final submissions will be available for inspection from 19 November 2019 to 3 December 2019. Please contact Zofia Howe on 01243 521063 or email zhowe@chichester.gov.uk to book an appointment to view them.

Minutes:

Members considered the confidential report circulated to officers.

 

Mr Bell, Cabinet Member for Growth, Place and Regeneration, introduced the report.

 

The Council’s consultants Mr Roberts of Jones Lang LeSalle and Mr Matthew of Browne Jacobson LLP were in attendance to provide advice concerning the property and legal aspects.

 

Mr Over presented the report and took members through the Final Tender Evaluation (Appendix 2) and the reasons for recommending preferred Developer A.  The Evaluation before the Committee today differed slightly to the report being presented to Cabinet, but were solely presentational changes with the scores remaining the same. He explained the differences between the final bidders in their approach and the reasons for how each of the scores were reached.  He advised that ‘Appendix 8’ referred to in paragraph 4.25 of the report should read ‘Appendix 2’.  A lengthy background to the project had been included in the report due to the number of new members following the District Council election, which set out all the previous approaches and the delegated powers given to officers with full consultation with the Leader of the Council.  It was important not to lose sight of the objective to deliver jobs, housing, business space and public realm.  Officers would, through dialogue, be flexible when working with the chosen developer on their proposals and want to provide something that the Council can be proud of.

 

During the ensuing discussion Mr Over, Mr Roberts and Mr Matthew answered members’ questions.  If for any reason it was not possible to reach agreement with the chosen developer on the development agreement, including the land values then a further report would be considered by members. However, dialogue meetings had concluded with the bidders to resolve any issues and the next stage would be to negotiate the terms once the bidder was chosen.  To ensure a Design Panel was provided by the preferred developer if chosen, this could be made a requirement in the development agreement.  With regard to zero hours contracts, the preliminary questionnaire completed by the bidders concerning equal opportunities and employment matters had been addressed.  With regard to the nature of the role the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s wished to play in the future monitoring of the project, there would be a whole consultation process designed with the developer.  The Committee must clearly have a role but it should be proportionate.   

 

Mr Bennett reminded members that the scrutiny function, under the Local Government Act 2000, was primarily to hold the executive to account by developing and reviewing council policies.  Section 9F(5) of the Act specifically prohibited scrutiny committees from trying to discharge executive functions.   

 

As requested by the Southern Gateway Task and Finish Group, it was agreed that the Committee should receive quarterly progress meetings on the project with the selected developer.

 

RECOMMENDED

 

1.  That Cabinet are recommended following “standstill” and dealing with any issues arising, and confirmation that West Sussex County Council have cleared their own governance processes, including call-in, that the Council select Developer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.