Agenda and minutes

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

Mrs Apel welcomed members, officers, the press and guests Mr Andrew Finnamore, Mr Colin Hicks and Ms Charlotte Wickens from Chichester Business Improvement District (BID).

Apologies had been received from Mrs Tassell and Mr Thomas.

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

The procedure for submitting public questions in writing no later than 12:00 on Monday 4 July 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.

The committee is requested to review the ‘Renewal Business Proposal’ prepared by Chichester Business Improvement District (BID) and to recommend its views to Cabinet.

Mr Oates explained that the BID had been established four years ago and had achieved success in a number of areas. The BID acknowledges that some aspects of the first term did not go to plan but this was common around the country.

Regulations require the Council to request a renewal ballot for the BID every five years. All BID levy payers are invited to take part.

Mr Oates introduced Mr Finnamore the outgoing Chairman of Chichester BID and Mr Colin Hicks the proposed incoming Chairman.

Mr Hicks outlined some of the areas the BID had seen first term success:

·       Public realm

·       Access

·       Christmas lights

·       ChiBac – businesses against crime

Mr Hicks acknowledged the importance of the BID’s relationship with Chichester District Council (CDC), Chamber of Commerce and other local authorities.

Eight focus groups have been established since April 2016 to establish the opinion of a variety of business owners. Feedback suggests a need for greater marketing of the city promoting a clearer understanding of what the city has to offer in order to raise Chichester’s profile.

The BID propose a 25% levy increase with the increase ring-fenced for promotion of the city centre. To date around £250,000-£270,000 levy monies has been raised. The BID aims to increase this to £340,000-£350,000. BID levy payers will receive a detailed proposal.

Mr Finnamore explained that the city has fared well during economic uncertainty with most shop sites full. The BID would like to focus on other aspects of the city to draw visitors. To help with this Visit Chichester could be moved into the BID offices to work alongside the BID and the Chamber of Commerce. The BID is encouraging of a joined up approach. Mrs Wickens explained that a second term needs a greater strategic focus to create a brand for Chichester.

Members asked the following questions:

·       Have the BID established the future availability of PSCO’s from Sussex Police? Conversations have taken place and a contract is being reviewed. Funding is provided to ChiBac for business owners to receive handheld devices with a direct line to report problems. ChiBac has a proactive rather than reactive approach.

·       What is the BID’s view on car parking in the city? The BID sends a representative to CDC’s Parking Forum. BID would like greater pay on foot facilities in Northgate and the Cattle Market car parks. The BID would encourage a regular late night shopping evening although acknowledge this would require changes to car park payment machines. Chichester is an appropriate size for a walk and ride scheme or a BID electric shuttle bus. Other BID’s have electric shuttle buses. Visitors have commented that they would stay longer if car park pre-payment is not a problem.

·       Is there a lack of cultural events? There is a lack of transparency of events to businesses. Many businesses work off an Intranet rather than the Internet and therefore only see flyers or articles in the local paper. Many shop staff are unaware of events until they have happened.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

The committee is requested to review the progress to date in preparing a Vision for Chichester City, to suggest any items for inclusion, and to make any recommendations with regard to the project work so far.

Mr Oates explained some key points the Vision project hopes to address:

·       The impact of activities in and around the city centre

·       The reduction in footfall due to online retail.

·       Socialisation activities.

·       Underutilised city centre assets.

·       Employment and jobs.

The Vision will set out how the city of Chichester should look in 20 years’ time.

Mr Oates explained the importance of high level of analysis from the right type of research. So far there have been workshops and focus groups and satisfaction surveys. A public consultation will begin in September.

Mrs Shepherd added that the vision is a partnership project working with WSCC, the BID, Visit Chichester, Goodwood, the University of Chichester and Chichester College.

Members asked the following questions:

·       Why is there little reference about the need for overnight accommodation? There is a lack of accommodation in the city and during large events all accommodation is booked. There is a need for more overnight accommodation which will provide an increase in visitor spend. Tourism South East Research are considering options.

·       What is being done about the insufficient hotel accommodation? Within the city walls there is a 36 bed hotel. There are also two branded hotels. To attract hotel chains to the city there needs to be serious intent on increasing the value of the visitor economy. The city should attract people from a 50/60 mile radius for short breaks. More events are needed throughout the year.

·       How will access to the city be addressed? Stagecoach and Southern Railways are involved in project groups. The WSCC Road Space Audit will provide greater information on travel routes in and out of the city. It will also be important to consider how visitors will find their way around once they are in the city and how accessible the city is.

·       Will the final decision be taken by Cabinet or Council? A draft Vision will be considered at Cabinet before being approved Full Council.

·       Why is there no mention of the A27 impact? The vision is concerned with attracting people to the city. It is not possible to take into account the A27 at present as it is a changeable entity.

·       Can the need to develop a night time economy be clarified? The evening or night time economy could be bigger and better than it already is. There is a lack of linkage between large numbers of visitors to the theatre and visitors to the city. There are no jazz clubs, comedy clubs, concert halls or late meal eateries. There is also a lack of provision for students, although this does not have to mean a nightclub. Late night shopping is also a possibility. There are smaller centres than Chichester which are more vibrant.

·       Which towns and cities have Vision’s in place relevant to Chichester? Canterbury, Dorchester, Ipswich, Leeds, Sheffield, St Albans, Winchester, Worcester and York either have areas of similarity or strong Vision processes which Chichester can learn from.

·       How can we get more young people into the city given the lack  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

The committee is requested to consider the efficiencies, benefits and indicative savings identified in the outline business cases for shared services with Arun and Horsham District Councils and to make recommendations to Cabinet as appropriate on whether to progress all or some of the work streams to a detailed business case.

Mrs Dodsworth explained that a final report on Shared Services will go to Cabinet in February. There are six services being considered:

·       Audit

·       Customer Services

·       HR

·       IT

·       Legal

·       Revenues and Benefits

The three authorities involved are Chichester, Arun and Horsham although Horsham already has shared arrangements in some of the service areas.

The key principles of the projects are:

·       One employer.

·       One system.

·       One manager.

·       Innovation in service design.

·       A consistent or improved service for the customer.

·       Learning from best practice.

If Shared Services are progressed high level business cases will be established which will require some initial investment. A Joint Board will also be created as part of the governance arrangements. At this stage it appears that savings can be made. There are already examples of some CDC services working with Arun such as Estates, Procurement and Printing. Shared services would retain an element of control over services being provided for CDC regardless of whether it remained the employing authority.

Mrs Dodsworth explained that all affected staff and Union representatives have been briefed.

Mrs Shepherd explained that she had been attending Steering Boards with relevant Cabinet members from all authorities and the other Chief Executives.

Mr Mildred explained one of the key reasons for undertaking the project is to establish ways to continue to provide good service in difficult economic times.

Members asked the following questions:

·       Would the savings be for Chichester or split with the other authorities? Savings will be split fairly between the three authorities. The detailed business case will finalise the method of recharges to each authority.

·       Are the three local authorities the right local authorities and should more be included to maximise savings? Specialist consultants confirmed that three is the advised maximum. The project started with Arun and Chichester. Horsham later showed interest. Adur and Worthing already have shared working and East Hants is part of bigger partnerships.

·       Has outsourcing (in a similar way to printing) been considered? The printing service agreement with Arun is not a tendered outsourcing contract it is based on a service level agreement and Chichester pays for what it uses. How successful has Census been and has it provided other authorities with savings? Horsham is part of Census and has arrangements with IT and Revenues and Benefits. It is important to have a robust business and good governance in place are two of the key lessons to be taken from the Census partnership.

·       Due diligence is key when will this be apparent to members? Due diligence will be at the next stage of the project.

·       Consideration needs to be given to where a manager and service will be located. If the upfront costs out way a possible return then Shared Services will not go ahead. One employer and one set of accommodation for a service should provide rental potential for spare accommodation.

·       The greatest costs are staff costs, are the figures credible? A model will be built based upon the workloads now and in the future. Time recording takes place  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.

The committee is requested to note and make any comments on the ongoing work including options appraisal to investigate the business case for a shared Building Control service with Arun and Horsham District Councils and Crawley Borough Council.

Mr Frost explained that Building Control is a regulatory service. The purpose of the report is to outline the progress on preparation of a full business case to see if a shared service is appropriate. Currently Horsham and Crawley authorities provide a joint service. The main reason for considering a shared service arrangement is due to the difficulty in attracting and retaining suitably qualified staff and a shared service would give greater resilience for the future. The project is at the early stages of analysing data and options. A workshop will take place later this week to consider what a shared service could mean and what the preferred option would be. There are three options:

·       Stay as is.

·       Join a shared service.

·       Become a local authority trading company.

Once decided the full business case will be reported to Cabinet.

Members asked the following questions:

·       What percentage of work goes to private businesses? CDC has a market share of around 75%. A high percentage of work is carried out by private companies who can choose which work to take on. The council is obliged to not make a profit over a three year period which makes it difficult to compete. Approved inspectors have no enforcement powers so the council has to carry out this work but no fee can be charged.

·       Why were the local authorities selected? Crawley and Horsham already provide a shared service as Sussex Building Control and together with Arun have shown an interest in working together. As two of the authorities adjoin Chichester and we already share some services with Arun, it was considered appropriate to explore the potential in relation to Building Control. As the project progresses one or more authorities may decide not to continue. Other nearby local authorities already have shared service arrangements in place.

·       What is the current status of CDC recruitment? There has been one vacancy since June 2016 but previous vacant posts have now been filled.

·       Have Arun and Horsham had similar recruitment problems? It is understood that both have unfilled posts.

·       Do officers record jobs on a case by case basis? Separate timesheets are kept for fee earning and non-fee earning work.

·       Is it cost effective using inspectors from out of area? It is common practice for many companies to use inspectors from far afield who visit infrequently.

RESOLVED

That the committee notes the ongoing work (including options appraisal) to investigate the business case for a shared Building Service with Arun and Horsham District Councils and Crawley Borough Council.

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.

Mr Lloyd-Williams asked the committee to consider a response to the recent news that Southern Rail is cancelling 341 trains a day.

Members discussed sending a letter of concern requesting an explanation of how the matter will be resolved.

RECOMMENDED TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL

That a letter be written to the Government Minister and to the two local Members of Parliament expressing the Council’s concern at the recent decision to reduce Southern Rail services, highlighting the impact on residents, businesses and visitors and seeking an explanation of how the situation will be resolved.

There are no restricted items for consideration.

There were no restricted items for consideration.