Agenda, decisions and minutes

The chairman will make any specific announcements for this meeting and advise of any late items which due to special circumstances will be given urgent consideration under agenda item 11 b).

[LATE ITEM UNDER AGENDA ITEM 11 a) TO BE TAKEN IMMEDIATELY AFTER PUBLIC QUESTION TIME (AGENDA ITEM 4) IN VIEW OF LARGE PUBLIC ATTENDANCE – FOR OTHER MATTERS SEE MINUTES]

Mr Dignum welcomed the large number of members of the public, the two press representatives and Chichester District Council (CDC) members and officers who were present for this meeting.

There was one late item for consideration under agenda item 11 a) namely A27 Chichester Bypass Improvement Scheme Consultation, the report in respect of which had been circulated by way of an agenda supplement (which listed that matter as agenda item 13).

Mr Dignum announced that in view of the significant number of members of the public who were present the aforesaid late item would be taken immediately after the public question time session (agenda item 4) and before agenda item 5 (Southern Gateway) rather than be left until after agenda item 10 (South Downs National Park Authority Extension of Management Agreement).   

Save as aforesaid there were no late items for consideration under agenda item 11.

No apologies for absence had been received and all members of the Cabinet were present.

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

[Note For technical reasons outside the control of CDC the entirety of the audio recording made of this meeting failed]

The Cabinet is requested to approve as a correct record the minutes of its meeting on Tuesday 6 December 2016.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on Tuesday 6 December 2016 be signed and dated as a correct record without amendment.

The Cabinet received the minutes of its meeting on Tuesday 6 December 2016, which had been circulated with the agenda (copy attached to the official minutes).

There were no proposed changes to the minutes.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on Tuesday 6 December 2016 be signed and dated as a correct record without amendment.

Mr Dignum then duly signed and dated the final (fourteenth) page of the official version of the aforesaid minutes as a correct record.</AI1>

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

[DETAILS IN MINUTES]

Mrs Lintill declared a prejudicial interest in respect of agenda item 8 (Petworth Skatepark Project) as the proposed site, Pound Street Car Park, abutted part of her garden. Accordingly she would withdraw from the meeting for the entire duration of this item.

Save as aforesaid there were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary, personal or prejudicial interests made in respect of agenda items for consideration at this meeting.

Mrs Shepherd stated that pursuant to section 33 of the Localism Act 2011 and paras 6 (1) b. and c. and 12 (3) b. and c. of CDC’s Code of Conduct the Monitoring Officer had granted a dispensation to all CDC members to enable them at this meeting and the forthcoming meeting of the Council on 24 January 2017 to participate in the discussion of and a decision on the aforesaid late item, namely A27 Chichester Bypass Improvement Scheme Consultation.

In accordance with Chichester District Council’s scheme for public question time and with reference with 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 noon 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.

[SERIES OF PUBLIC QUESTIONS RE A27 CHICHESTER BYPASS IMPROVEMENT SCHEME CONSULTATION – SEE MINUTES]

A series of questions and representations had been received with regard to the late item ie the A27 Chichester Bypass Improvement Scheme Consultation. Copies of the same and the responses thereto prepared by officers had been circulated prior to the start of this meeting (copies attached to the official minutes).

Mr Dignum summarised the representations (text set out below). He stated that in order to include as many views and questions as possible, he had decided to make available copies of all questions (text set out below) but to take them as read. He then read out the in full each of the answers below to the questions.

The text of the representations, questions and answers is set out below.

Representations and Questions

(1) Representations

(a) North Mundhall Parish Council

‘It has recently become clear that Highways England’s analysis of options for the A27 upgrade were formulated from a study of traffic volumes undertaken in 2010.  This information was used to define the options within the Government’s Road Investment Strategy (RIS), which limited the options presented for consultation last year.  However a more recent and more sophisticated analysis of traffic volumes was completed in July 2014.  We understand that this reveals a much higher percentage of through traffic on the A27 round Chichester.  If these more recent statistics were used, then the potential for relieving the burden on the existing route by constructing a completely new by-pass would be far greater, and the cost benefit would be significantly improved.

Chris Grayling, the Secretary of State for Transport, has stated recently that he would be prepared to look at the possibility of re-running the A27 consultation subject to the agreement of Councils and the MP.  Clearly there are implications for delaying the project, but it is of such significance that it is important to get it right. 

In its response to the consultation this Parish, along with several others, urged that the exercise be run again with the opportunity to consider options for a northern by-pass.  We believe that it is vitally important that the options for consultation should be informed by the use of the most recent and most reliable data. 

We therefore ask that the Cabinet should support the call for a fresh consultation to include options for a northern by-pass. Cllr. Denia Turnbull will be attending the meeting and representing North Mundham Parish Council.’

(b) Mr Mark Hitchin

I understand that on the 10th Jan CDC's cabinet will be debating a request to Highways England to re run the flawed consultation on the A27 changes with the Northern Options included. I would strong urge the Cabinet to make this request for two reasons:

1) The process has been farcical and the local population have no faith in it.

2) A Northern Route is relatively cheap and solves the problem long term. Anything else will be a conspicuous waste of public money. It will also inconvenience far fewer people.’

(c) Mr Nicholas Reynolds

‘The political prize  ...  view the full minutes text for item 307.

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report (which is to be taken as a late item) with its appendix and (a) to determine whether to request the Secretary of State for Transport to instruct Highways England, first, to undertake a new consultation on improvements to the A27 around Chichester with an extended range of options including the two previously developed northern by-pass options and, secondly, to publish without delay the results of the consultation held between July and September 2016 and (b) subject to (a) to recommend to the Council meeting to endorse such action at its meeting on 24 January 2017.

RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNCIL

That the Council requests the Secretary of State for Transport to instruct Highways England, first, to undertake a new consultation on improvements to the A27 around Chichester with an extended range of options including the two previously developed northern bypass options, and, second, to publish without delay the results of the consultation held between July and September 2016.  

As announced by Mr Dignum at the start of this meeting, this late item, which would ordinarily have been taken at the end of the published Part I agenda business, would be taken immediately after Public Question Time in view of the large number of members of the public present to hear the debate on the late item and that the public questions just answered had related solely to the late item.

The Cabinet received and considered the report circulated with the agenda supplement (copy attached to the official minutes).

The report was introduced by Mr Dignum. On the basis of the outline options left for consultation in summer 2016 (the dropping of the northern by-pass options was done without adequate explanation or justification) the Cabinet and Council decided to give qualified support to option 2 but only on the basis that Highways England (HE) gave serious consideration to important mitigation measures, which included improving the Portfield roundabout; improving east bound access for Manhood residents; and various measures to reduce the environmental impacts. The Council also requestedforpurposesoftransparencyandcommunity cohesionthattheSecretaryofStateprovidethejustificationfordiscounting the previously prepared two offlineroutes tothenorth of the city. Alas CDC had still not had a response to that request. It was clear therefore that in providing a responseto the consultation, theCouncilhad significantreservations about the identifiedoptions; it regretted the absence of northern options; and it had concerns about the extent to which the proposed schemes would bring about the muchneeded long-term improvements to the A27. HE was due to publish, possibly as soon as January 2017, a preferred route selected from the five online options and accompanied by the results of the consultation. However the position had been completely changed by the Secretary of State for Transport, Chris Grayling MP, at a private function on 8 December 2016. This radical change was confirmed in the letter by Louise Goldsmith appended to the agenda report. Mr Dignum said that he was seeking the Cabinet’s recommendation to the Council that  HE should undertake a new consultation on improvements to the A27 around Chichester with an extended range of options including the northern by-pass options and also publish without delay the results of the consultation between July and September 2016. At this stage the priority was to seek transparency of process.

During the ensuing debate the following points among others were made by members, each of whom had received a large number of e-mails on this subject:

·       The questions and representations submitted by members of the public were very helpful.

·       The conduct of the public consultation by Highways England had been a cause for concern at the time, particularly the withdrawal of certain options which had been trailed in the public domain prior to the start of the consultation.

·       The potential opportunity for a re-run of the consultation was to be welcomed.

·       It was very important that if the consultation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 308.

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and its appendix and to make the following recommendation to the Council (para (1)) and resolutions (paras (2) to (5)):

(1)  That the Council is requested to allocate £75,000 capital reserves to fund specialist consultancy support for the implementation of the Southern Gateway project.

(2)  That the Cabinet authorises the acquisition of the property known as 45 Basin Rd Chichester subject to terms being reported to a future meeting of the Cabinet.

(3)  That the Cabinet authorises the Head of Commercial Services or her authorised officer to enter and survey or value the land in connection with the proposal to acquire an interest over the land as provided for under section 172 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 on notice to the owner or owners of the land.

(4)  That the Cabinet authorises Legal and Democratic Services Manager to seek a court warrant or warrants to enter and survey the land as provided for under section 173 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 if access to the site is refused by the owner/s or occupier/s.

(5)  That the Cabinet authorises the Executive Director to make payments in compensation for damage as a result of the exercise of the power conferred by section 172 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016.

RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNCIL

That the Council allocates £75,000 capital reserves to fund specialist consultancy support for the implementation of the Southern Gateway project.

RESOLVED

(1)  That the acquisition of the property known as 45 Basin Road Chichester be authorised subject to the terms being reported to a future meeting of the Cabinet.

(2)  That the Head of Commercial Services or her authorised officer be authorised to enter and survey or value the land in connection with the proposal to acquire an interest over the land as provided for under section 172 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 on notice to the owner or owners of the land.

(3)  That the Legal and Democratic Services Manager be authorised to seek a court warrant or warrants to enter and survey the land as provided for under section 173 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 if access to the site is refused by the owner/s or occupier/s.

(4)  That the Executive Director be authorised to make payments in compensation for damage as a result of the exercise of the power conferred by section 172 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016.

The Cabinet considered the agenda report and the appended plan (copies attached to the official minutes).

This item was introduced by Mrs Keegan. The masterplanning work was commissioned and was underway with a view to adoption of a supplementary planning document later in 2017. In order to ensure its successful implementation there was now a need to acquire funding to engage specialist work at the earliest opportunity, to include the issues of partnership funding eg the Local Enterprise Partnership and the development of a potential compulsory purchase strategy with respect to 45 Basin Road.

Mr Dignum added that the current uncertainty as to the future of the magistrates’ court building, given its location on the periphery of the development site, would not affect the Southern Gateway project.

Mr Over emphasised the importance of this major project for CDC and so the need to undertake the preparatory work in as efficient and timely fashion as possible in readiness for a further report to the cabinet in July 2017. He said that as to the bungalow at 45 Basin Road, CDC’s objective was to purchase it by agreement if at all possible but if that could not be achieved the powers set out in recommendations 2.3 to 2.5 in the report would be used. A significant amount of land was currently allocated for highway purposes; it was in various ownerships. Officers were looking to see if the adjoining land which it owned could be incorporated into this scheme.

At Mr Dignum’s invitation Mr Shaxson addressed the Cabinet as the Leader of the Opposition. He said that this was a very promising project but he wondered about the wisdom of undertaking the work until the uncertainty about the court building could be resolved, with the risk that the funds requested in para 2.1 of the report could be wasted.

Mr Over replied that it was very important for the work to be carried out now and in a major scheme such as this one there would always be unknown factors but these would be resolved over time. Complete certainty in significant development schemes could never be ensured in advance and to try to achieve it would mean such projects were never realised.

Mrs Keegan endorsed Mr Over’s advice. She underlined the need to seek specialist advice at the earliest opportunity. She and Mrs Plant said it was imperative to move forward with the project.

Mr Shaxson expressed his gratitude for the explanation given. He remarked that the report plan (page 19) did not identify the boundaries of the Southern Gateway development site, a point noted by Mr Over.   

In the discussion members acknowledged the significance and exciting potential of this project.

Decision    

At the end of the debate members voted unanimously on a show of hands to make the following recommendation and resolutions.

RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNCIL

That the Council allocates £75,000 capital reserves to fund specialist consultancy support for the implementation of the Southern Gateway project.

RESOLVED

(1)  That the acquisition of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 309.

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

(1)  That the consultation draft of the Chichester Vision be approved for public consultation.

(2)  That further funding of up to £15,000 be released from Council reserves to cover the final project delivery costs.

RESOLVED

(1)  That the consultation draft of the Chichester Vision be approved for public consultation.

(2)  That further funding of up to £15,000 be released from Council reserves to cover the final project delivery costs.

The Cabinet considered the agenda report and its appendix (the draft document Chichester Tomorrow … A Vision for Chichester (the Vision)) circulated with the agenda supplement appendix bundle (copies attached to the official minutes). The listed background papers were published in a separate agenda supplement which was available online only.

Mr Oates was in attendance for this item.

The report was introduced by Mr Dignum. The Vision was for Chichester District’s residents, workers, visitors and students. The production of the draft had involved in particular an extensive listening exercise through a variety of methods as well as a range of studies and research. The Vision’s aim was to establish a framework in which the essence of the past was protected while enhancing the city’s future vitality as the cultural capital of West Sussex, a place of learning and a leading retail and commercial centre. The key organisations and local authorities which served the city were united in agreement to adapt to change and direct their policies to enhance the city’s future. Consulting widely on the Vision was very important; this would take place between 30 January 2017 and 12 March 2017. The consultation draft would be available online with an accompanying questionnaire. There would be two public exhibitions. The consultation responses would be considered and the final version of the Vision will be prepared for adoption (in, it was hoped, late spring 2017) by CDC, West Sussex County Council, Chichester City Council and partner organisations and businesses. Citing many examples, he said that throughout the centuries the city had always embraced the inevitability of change in an innovative way. Change involved challenges but also opportunities eg currently within the city centre prime sites were emerging for new retail outlets, hotels, leisure and cultural attractions, affordable homes, and business space; enjoyment and enhancement of the city’s streets, public spaces heritage and cultural assets could be developed. Three major themes to define the Vision had been identified: An Accessible and Attractive City; A Vibrant and Growing Economy; A Leading Visitor Destination.

Mr Oates said that the key task for the Vision project was to ask and address how the future of Chichester city was to be conceived; it was thus far as aspirational vision. The Vision was a template against which to test a range of exciting concepts, ideas and projects. He summarised the process whereby the steering group and project partners would consider the consultation feedback and make appropriate revisions to the Vision document; substantial changes might require further work to be undertaken prior to adoption.    

During the discussion members commended the Vision draft document for its excellent and exciting quality; this was a very positive and a living document, which would evolve over time; its importance and relevance would be multifarious, for example in considering planning applications.

Mr Oates responded to members’ questions on points of detail. He advised for example that the consultation (which would be available on CDC’s website) would be publicised as widely as possible  ...  view the full minutes text for item 310.

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

(1)           That following consideration of the representations made in respect of the proposal to amend the Chichester District Council (Off Street Parking Places) (Consolidation) Order 2012, the Chichester District Council (Off Street Parking Places) (Consolidation) (Variation No 1) Order 2017 to include reference to the charges detailed in paragraph 5 below, such changes to come into effect from 1 April 2017.

(2)           That the Head of Commercial Services be authorised to give appropriate notice of any revised charges pursuant to the Off-Street Parking Places (Consolidation) Order 2015 and the Road Traffic Act 1984.

RESOLVED

(1)  That having considered the representations made in respect of the proposal to amend the Chichester District Council (Off Street Parking Places) (Consolidation) Order 2012, the Chichester District Council (Off Street Parking Places) (Consolidation) (Variation No 1) Order 2017 to include reference to the charges detailed in paragraph 5 below (as amended in sub-para (a)) shall come into effect with effect from 1 April 2017.

(2)  That the Head of Commercial Services be authorised to give appropriate notice of any revised charges pursuant to the Off-Street Parking Places (Consolidation) Order 2015 and the Road Traffic Act 1984.

The Cabinet considered the agenda report and its appendices (copies attached to the official minutes).

Mrs Murphy was in attendance for this item.

The report was introduced by Mrs Keegan. She referred to sections 3 and 8 of and appendix 2 to the report, reminding members how this matter had been referred back to the Cabinet and giving a summary of the consultation responses. The city had 17 car parks and the proposed charges (section 5 of the report) reflected the different nature and usage of those car parks. It was recognised that increased car park charges was never an easy matter but it should be appreciated that (a) the income generated thereby was significant in the support of CDC’s key services and (b) insofar as the proposed evening charges were concerned, para 5.1 (a) of the report stated that these would apply only to two car parks for six days a week, leaving the other 15 for free parking after 18:00. It was not considered that the evening charges would have a negative impact on the night-time economy or cause deflection onto adjoining residential roads. Those charges would be for a trial period of one year (not stated in para 5.1 (a)) and the outcome reported to CDC’s Chichester District Parking Forum.

Mr Over advised that a 12-month long trial period was required in order to take due account of seasonal fluctuations.

During the discussion the following points in particular were made.

·       Mrs Plant wished the Cabinet to consider the comparative impact of the evening charges on the two car parks in question in para 5.1 (a). She was concerned that the increase would penalise users of the facilities at both the New Park Centre (NPC) and Chichester Festival Theatre (CFT), particularly NPC. 

·       Mrs Hardwick echoed Mrs Plant’s concerns. She had noted especially what was said in the consultation responses with regard to the impact on users of the New Park Centre (NPC) and was inclined to favour it being treated separately. 

·       Mr Barrow said whilst he understood the points made by Mrs Plant and Mrs Hardwick he felt that the important principle was the customer should pay. This happened during the day at NPC and should do so likewise in the evening. Car parks were a valuable asset and appropriate use should be made of them. The evening charges were for a trial period and would be reviewed.

·       Mrs Lintill inclined to Mr Barrow’s point of view. She wished to know whether if on a review of the trial it was considered successful evening charges would or might then be applied to all city carparks.  

·       Mrs Purnell wondered whether in the light of the point made by Mrs Plant a flat rate evening parking charge could be introduced. She felt that the charge was a significant amount to expect NPC customers to pay in order to use what were community facilities at NPC. She asked whether a fairer rate should be considered for evening parking at NPC.

·       Mrs  ...  view the full minutes text for item 311.

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

(1)  That it considers the results of the Options Appraisal of potential sites for a skatepark undertaken by Petworth Town Council and the consultation responses set out in the report.

(2)  That it considers whether it should give agreement (subject to the replacement of any lost parking spaces) to Petworth Town Council to develop detailed plans for the provision of a skate park at the identified site in Pound Street Car Park.

(3)  That subject to its decision in (2) above then:

(a)   It approves that subject to planning consent and other necessary requirements being obtained appropriate agreements are entered into to enable construction and use of the skatepark on Council land and

(b)   It provisionally confirms the availability of a contribution of up to £70,000 towards the project being £50,000 from the Petworth Leisure Fund and up to an additional £20,000 (subject to detailed costings).

RESOLVED

(1)  That the results of the Options Appraisal of potential sites for a skatepark undertaken by Petworth Town Council and the consultation responses set out in the report be noted.

(2)  That agreement be given, subject to the replacement of any lost parking spaces to at least seven spaces (in a scheme that estimates losing 11 spaces) so as to ensure no more than four spaces are lost, to Petworth Town Council to develop detailed plans for the provision of a skate park at the identified site in Pound Street Car Park.

(3)  That:

(a)   Subject to planning consent and other necessary requirements being obtained appropriate agreements be entered into to enable construction and use of the skatepark on Council land and

(b)   A contribution of up to £70,000 be made available towards the project being £50,000 from the Petworth Leisure Fund and up to an additional £20,000 (subject to detailed costings).

[Note Immediately prior to the start of this item Mrs Lintill withdrew from the meeting in accordance with her declaration of a prejudicial interest made earlier and she did not return until this item had been concluded]

The Cabinet considered the agenda report and its appendices circulated in the agenda supplement appendix bundle (copies attached to the official minutes).

During the course of the Cabinet member’s introduction a copy of the aerial photograph in appendix 3 (page 73) was circulated showing (for ease of identification) the site in question outlined in red (copy attached to the official minutes).

Mr Hansford, Mr Hyland and Mrs Hotchkiss were in attendance for this item.

The report was introduced by Mrs Keegan. She summarised the background to the proposal now before the Cabinet for a skatepark in Petworth, as set out in section 4 of the report, and the resource details in para 8.1 of the report. She referred to the aforesaid aerial photograph and identified the main features of its location. The loss of car parking spaces as a result of implementing this proposal was a cause for concern and was the subject of comment in the letter in appendix 4; it was hoped that the deficit could be reversed by a consequential revised layout of spaces in the car park. If approved, the proposal would require planning permission and full health and safety risk assessment.   

Mr Hansford, and Mr Hyland did not wish to add to Mrs Keegan’s presentation.

Members acknowledged the balancing exercise involved in this matter namely that the proposal was on the one hand an expression of local democracy and the desire to provide this recreational facility in the town centre rather than in an outlying area for young people who lived in Petworth and its rural environs and did not have many leisure opportunities but on the other hand it gave rise to concerns as to impact of the loss of parking spaces on local businesses and tourism.

At Mr Dignum’s invitation Mrs Graves addressed the Cabinet and expressed reservations about the proposal. She said that she had ascertained that local parishes had not had their views sought by Petworth Town Council. The loss of parking spaces was a cause for concern as was the lack of any or any obvious alternative parking provision in the town. She felt that the sum of £20,000 to be contributed by CDC towards a project that would not be used by a significant proportion of the local population was a further reason to doubt the merits of the proposal.

At Mr Dignum’s invitation, Mr Shaxson addressed the Cabinet. He asked about the liability for the ongoing maintenance of the skatepark.  

Mr Hyland answered members’ questions on points of detail, which included the design of the skatepark eg whether it would have fencing around it; community survey work about the proposal which ahd been carried out by Petworth Town Council both within and outside the town including other parishes and that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 312.

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

That Chichester District Council does not enter into a shared services arrangement with Arun District Council and Horsham District Council. 

RESOLVED

That Chichester District Council does not enter into a shared services arrangement with Arun District Council and Horsham District Council.  

The Cabinet considered the agenda report (copy attached to the official minutes).

Mrs Dodsworth and Mr Mildred were in attendance for this item.

The report was introduced by Mrs Plant. She explained that over the last 12 months, Chichester, Arun and Horsham district councils had been working together to explore the possibility of delivering certain services on a fully-shared basis: (a) Audit, Human Resources and Legal between all three councils and (b) Revenues and Benefits, Customer Services and ICT (Arun District Council and CDC). One of the key drivers for considering shared services had been to reduce operational costs. In February 2016, the Cabinet had first considered the idea of shared services; in July 2016 it considered the outline business cases, after which officers had been asked to prepare fully detailed business cases. Those were to be based on the key principles of one employer, one host location, one manager and one way of working and were required to investigate investment costs, payback periods, service location, methods for shared savings, the operating model and the staff implications. The full business cases were considered by the chief executives, leaders and the cabinet members for all three councils in mid-December 2016 and they all agreed that the risks of the proposed way of delivering the projected savings outweighed the potential benefits and therefore their recommendation was that no proposed shared service should  proceed. Para 3.3 of the report set out a summary of CDC’s projected annual savings with risks and assumptions for each of the services which had been the subject of the shared services project.  Although the full business cases did predict significant savings at the end of five years for all three councils, those were limited by significant risks and restricted by assumptions made for the five-year delivery period.  For CDC this would reduce the theoretical savings of £936,000 per year quoted in the table in para 3.3 to a more realistic figure nearer £500,00 per year. The information gathered by comparing ways of working with two other nearby councils had proved very valuable. The shared services project has demonstrated that CDC would be able to achieve its savings target in-house without degrading services to the customer and at nil risk. The savings were deliverable within three to five years, compared to the five-year model for shared services.  On this basis, senior officers were confident that the £400,000 per year savings target would be achieved by 2019-2020 (not 2018-2019 as stated in para 3.5 of the report) and it was included in the deficit reduction plan. The concept of sharing services has been left open for re-consideration in the future.

Mrs Dodsworth and Mr Mildred did not wish to add to Mrs Plant’s presentation.

Mrs Dodsworth and Mrs Shepherd clarified short points of details raised by members.

Members noted the outcome and said that they felt notwithstanding the consensus outcome by all three councils not to proceed for the stated reasons, a valuable piece of work had been undertaken  ...  view the full minutes text for item 313.

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

 (a) That the position and progress that is being made in relation to the negotiations with the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) in connection with potential new delegated arrangements from 1 April 2017 onwards be noted;

(b) That, in principle, it is agreed that the Council enters into a new Agreement with the SDNPA under section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 to enable the Council to continue to provide a development management service for up to three years initially until 31 March 2020 and thereafter for a further two years up until 31 March 2022 if the arrangements are working effectively and agreeable to both authorities.

(c) That it agreed to extend the current agency arrangement on the current (2016-2017) payment terms for a period of up to six months (to 30 September 2017) in order to complete the above negotiations.

RESOLVED

(1)  That the position and progress that is being made in relation to the negotiations with the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) in connection with potential new delegated arrangements from 1 April 2017 onwards be noted.

(2)  That in principle it is approved that Chichester District Council enters into a new Agreement with the SDNPA under section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 to enable it to continue to provide a development management service for up to three years, initially until 31 March 2020 and thereafter for a further two years up until 31 March 2022 if the arrangements are working effectively and agreeable to both authorities.

(3)  That it be agreed to extend the current agency arrangement on the current (2016-2017) payment terms for a period of up to six months (to 30 September 2017) in order to complete the above negotiations.

The Cabinet considered the agenda report (copy attached to the official minutes).

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

In her presentation Mrs Taylor summarised sections 3 and 5 of the agenda report. She reviewed the overall outcomes of the two agency agreements to date, the proposal to renew the agency agreement arrangement for a further three to five-year period with an interim six-month renewal period pending completion of negotiations and the current time-recording exercise being undertaken by CDC officers at the request of the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA).

Mr Frost said that there were now only seven of the original 14 local authorities who were in and wished to continue with these SDNPA agency arrangements. The agency agreement was beneficial to CDC financially and in in terms of staff retention. CDC was nearing the end of the time-recording exercise.

At Mr Dignum’s invitation Mr Shaxson in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition, addressed the Cabinet in support of the renewal of the agency agreement and commented on some points of detail.

In response to Mr Shaxson, Mr Frost said that it was for the SDNPA and not CDC to consult other bodies on the SDNPA’s performance; officers would seek to negotiate the best possible renewal terms (the time-recording exercise was relevant in that regard); CDC had undertaken all of the SDNPA’s development management work save for 13 cases which had been called in; CDC was able to interrogate the SDNPA’s system to check how CDC was dealing with the SDNPA’s delegated applications.

In reply to Mrs Keegan’s enquiry as to why other local authorities had decided not to continue their agency arrangement with the SDNPA, Mr Frost said that there were various reasons.

Decision

At the end of the discussion the Cabinet voted unanimously on a show of hands in favour of the recommendations in para 2.1 of the report.

RESOLVED

(1)  That the position and progress that is being made in relation to the negotiations with the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) in connection with potential new delegated arrangements from 1 April 2017 onwards be noted.

(2)  That in principle it is approved that Chichester District Council enters into a new Agreement with the SDNPA under section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 to enable it to continue to provide a development management service for up to three years, initially until 31 March 2020 and thereafter for a further two years up until 31 March 2022 if the arrangements are working effectively and agreeable to both authorities.

(3)  That it be agreed to extend the current agency arrangement on the current (2016-2017) payment terms for a period of up to six months (to 30 September 2017) in order to complete the above negotiations.

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

[SAVE FOR THE ITEM TAKEN AT AGENDA ITEM 5: NONE]

There had been one late item for consideration by the Cabinet at this meeting and it was taken immediately following Public Question Time, as recorded in minute 308 above.

There are no restricted items for consideration at this meeting.

[NO PART II ITEMS SO NOT APPLICABLE]

There were no Part II items on the agenda for consideration at this meeting and so the need to exclude the press and the public did not arise.