Agenda and minutes

Any apologies for absence that have been received will be noted at this point.

Mrs Apel welcomed members and officers. Mr Dignum, Mrs Hamilton, Mrs Knightley, Mrs Lintill and Mrs Purnell were all present.

Apologies had been received from Mrs P Plant.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 10 May 2016.

To consider progress against recommendations.

In reference to minute 75, paragraph five, bullet point two Mrs Dignum requested that the answer was amended to read ‘Cabinet agreed to purchase seven electric vans which are on order. It made a bid for extra charging points in car parks as part of the government scheme where 75% of costs are paid for by CDC’.

In reference to minute 75, paragraph five, bullet point nine Mrs Dignum requested that the answer read ‘All stallholders will be required to use the same reasonably sized gazebo stalls. The market will run one day a week. There will be no selling from vehicles and traders.’

In reference to minute 75, paragraph five, bullet point 12 Mrs Dignum requested that the word ‘there’ be added to the end of answer.

In reference to minute 77 paragraph two, bullet point one Mr Shaxson requested that the letter to the Police be sent. Mr Hansford advised that he was due to meet representatives from Sussex Police shortly but agreed to send the request for information to Sussex Police. Mr Ransley asked that future wording show a clear recommendation requiring action.

Members discussed the use of the audio recording which provides an opportunity to clarify wording for the minutes. 

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the OSC held on Tuesday 10 May are approved as a correct record subject to the additions above.

Accordingly, Mrs Apel signed and dated the official version of the minutes.

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.

There were no urgent items.

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.

Mrs Apel declared a personal interest in relation to agenda item 7 as a trustee of Stonepillow.

The procedure for submitting public questions in writing no later than 12:00 on Monday 13 June 2016 is available upon request to Member Services (the contact details for which appear on the front page of this agenda).

There were no public questions.

Following the attendance of the Leader of the Council at the last meeting of this committee to present the Cabinet strategy for 2016/17, the Planning and Housing Portfolio Holder is invited to present her priorities and areas of focus over the next year and to answer questions from the committee on progress towards achieving the aims and targets of the Council’s Corporate Plan priorities.

Mrs Taylor had been invited to present her priorities and areas of focus over the next year and to answer questions from the committee on progress towards achieving the aims and targets of the Council’s Corporate Plan priorities.

The recommendations from the previous meeting of the committee were answered as follows:

1.     Request the Planning and Housing Services portfolio holder to develop the Council's own local planning performance standards (as the national standards are not considered to be a useful measure on their own any longer). Planning used to have localised targets but these were removed following national changes. Government are also tightening the planning designation criteria as discussed at Planning Committee and the Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel (DPIP).

2.     Request the Planning and Housing Services portfolio holder to add an additional bullet point to the key priorities in the Housing Strategy to read 'Provide development which has a positive impact on the area in which it is built and in the wider district'.

Mrs Taylor explained that drafting the Housing Strategy had been challenging due to changing government legislation. The strategy does however aim to be proactive to meet future challenges such as the Local Plan review in July 2019 and the A27 consultation.

Mrs Taylor acknowledged that the Government has put emphasis on home ownership which is difficult for first time buyers in the district as house prices are high and wages low. Mrs Taylor has discussed the provision of affordable housing with the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) as 40% of the park is within the district and CDC are the housing authority.

Members asked the following questions:

·       Are the 2500 planning applications handled by Development Management every year majors and minors? The figure of 2500 is inclusive of both majors and minors.

·       How many planning officers make up the Development Management team? Roughly 17-18 full time planning officers.

·       Is there evidence that the pre-application process speeds up the formal application process? A Planning Task and Finish Group are currently considering this issue. Pre-application work is likely to lead to better quality applications. The findings of the group will be shared with OSC.

·       Can local performance indicators be considered? Until the government finalises its proposals to extend designation criteria, it would be premature to introduce further local indicators. Designation is the term describing government powers to enable applicants to bypass the local planning authority in relation to the planning application process and applies where the timescales for determination of planning applications falls below set thresholds. Planning Services operate local targets for planning appeals, pre-application enquiries and Planning Enforcement. Development Management exceeded government targets for planning application performance last year.

·       What is the timespan of the continued progress in meeting affordable housing targets? The targets (achievements) were measured until 31 March 2016 and the new priorities relate to 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017.

·       How many market/affordable homes are there in the district? There are just over 50,000 properties.

·       How will the district deliver more  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

The committee is asked to review the process achieved by Chichester in Partnership in 2015/16, to make any recommendations it considers appropriate to the partnership and to endorse the revised Community Strategy 2016-2021 and recommend that Cabinet that it is adopted by the Council.

Miss Loaring explained that since 2012 there had been no duty to retain a Sustainable Community Strategy or have a Local Strategic Partnership but the Council along with their partners have agreed to continue with Chichester in Partnership (CIP)as it has been delivering useful projects. CIP is active and has continually increased its links with additional partners. Every year CIP produces an annual report and forward plan which outlines the chosen priorities for the year ahead. The Community Safety Partnership (CSP) also reports to CIP. The Sustainable Community Strategy has been reviewed and refreshed as more concise and focussed document for 2016 – 2021 will be taken to Cabinet in July (now called the Community strategy). Some of CIP’s achievements in the past year are:

·       The Choose Work project has been successfully running for three years focussing on helping those without employment. It is now jointly funded until March 2017

·       Working with new organisations such as Hyde Martlet, Christians Against Poverty and the Citizens Advice Bureau on tackling financial exclusion

·       Selsey Works now has a full time worker funded and hosted by Selsey Town Council A successful Living with Dementia Arts Festival

·       A successful showcase event in the Novium for partner organisations which received positive feedback from particpants and was attended by over 80 different organisations

Members asked the following questions:

·       Will meetings of the partnership be held in the northern part of the district? Historically they have but attendance from partners was reduced when held elsewhere. A venue such as the Grange or SDNP could be considered the idea will be put forward to the partnership.

·       What is a Community Assessment Tool? Information from data and statistics held about communities and projects and developed into a succinct “weather report” on the area. It is a way of finding out the impact work has had on the communities involved.

·       Which areas of public transport will be discussed as part of the Sustainable Community Strategy? This was discussed at the last core group and the decision was made to focus on access to services which we will be scoping in the near future.

·       How much personnel time is available for community hubs? Services are already supplied in some local areas. A service in Chichester South is in the development stage.

·       What happens during a structured drop in session such as the one at St Pancras, Chichester? This particular session is run by the Richmond Fellowship and is referred to as a ‘tea and chat’ community support event. Chichester Mind also run events in Midhurst which provide an opportunity for people to discuss a number of problems. Members are welcome to attend these open sessions.

·       How can communities initiate their own gardening projects? Lots of gardening projects are set up in communities. Advice and guidance is available for those wanting to start a new project. A new project would require clear support from the community to be sustainable.  

·       How has CIP survived where other authorities have failed? Are responsibilities being  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

The committee is asked to consider and agree the 2015/16 Annual Report and to recommend it to Council for noting.

The committee is also asked to delegate powers to the committee’s Chairman to sign off the final version of the report prior to its presentation to Council.

Mrs Apel announced some amendments to the Annual Report as follows:

·       There were 17 recommendations

·       15 recommendations had been agreed by the committee

·       One recommendation was not agreed by the Community Safety Partnership

·       One recommendation is yet to be considered by Council

Members agreed the report inclusive of the amendments above.

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL

That the 2015/16 Overview and Scrutiny Committee Annual Report be noted.

Members are asked to consider the latest Forward Plan (attached) and to consider whether it wishes to enquire into any of the forthcoming decisions.

Mrs Apel invited the committee to comment on the Forward Plan and members made the following comments:

·       When discussing the cultural grant for the Pallant House Gallery will the major repairs taking place be considered? The two aspects of Pallant House Gallery are very separate and will be treated as such.

·       Does the Pallant House Gallery lease recognise the needs of the building? The lease recognises the special need of the older part of the building.

·       The A27 now has a 10 week consultation period. This will be fed back so the Forward Plan can be amended accordingly.

·       When will the Shared Services business case be discussed? The business case will come to the special OSC on 5 July.

·       The committee needs to be aware of the A27 delivery, delivery of affordable housing, the Local Plan and how these interlink. Linkage can be considered at the point of discussion for each relevant item.

·       Can the A27 effects on public transport, tourism, emission fumes and jobs be considered? Again the linkage can be considered at the point of discussion for each relevant item.

Mrs Apel informed the committee that if any new items are added to the OSC work programme that existing items may need to be removed.

Consideration of any late items as follows:

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 reported at the meeting.

Members discussed the nomination process that had taken place for an OSC representative to sit on the Novium Task and Finish Group, which will commence its work following the options appraisal. Some members were unhappy that the nomination had been discussed and agreed with the Leader of the Council prior to this meeting. It was explained that the appointment of the OSC member was subject to ratification by the committee at this meeting. Not all members took part in the vote to approve Mr Galloway’s appointment.

RESOLVED

That Mr N Galloway be appointed as the committee’s representative on the Novium Task and Finish Group.

There are no restricted items for consideration.

There were no restricted items for consideration.