Agenda item

Chichester Growth Deal 2017-2023

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and its two appendices and to make the proposed recommendation to the Council and also the proposed resolution by the Cabinet set out below:

PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION BY THE CABINET TO THE COUNCIL

That the Cabinet recommends to the Council:

(1) To approve the Growth Deal between West Sussex County Council and Chichester District Council as set out in appendix 1 to the agenda report.

(2) To approve the appointment of the Leader of the Council and one additional member to be recommended by the Cabinet to represent Chichester District Council on the Growth Board.

(3) To dissolve the Infrastructure Joint Member Liaison Group and subsume its role into the Growth Board.

(4) To approve the terms of reference of the Growth Board contained in appendix 2 to the agenda report subject to comments from West Sussex County Council

PROPOSED RESOLUTION BY THE CABINET

That the Cabinet grants delegated authority to the Head of Commercial Services to agree minor amendments to the final Growth Deal document, following consultation with the Leader of the Council.

Decision:

RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNCIL

That the Council:

(1) Approves the Growth Deal between West Sussex County Council and Chichester District Council as set out in appendix 1 to the agenda report, subject to the aforesaid amendments in appendix A to appendix 1 and appendix 2.

(2) Approves the appointment of the Leader of the Council, Susan Taylor and Simon Oakley to be recommended by the Cabinet to represent Chichester District Council on the Growth Board.

(3) Dissolves the Infrastructure Joint Member Liaison Group and subsumes its role and terms of reference into the Growth Board.

(4) Approves the terms of reference of the Growth Board (as amended) contained in appendix 2 to the agenda report subject to comments from West Sussex County Council

RESOLVED

That authority be delegated to the Head of Commercial Services to agree minor amendments to the final Growth Deal document, following consultation with the Leader of the Council.

Minutes:

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

The report was presented by Mr Dignum.

Mrs Hotchkiss was in attendance for this item.

In commending the Growth Deal (GD) to the Cabinet, Mr Dignum said that the GD was between West Sussex County Council (WSCC) and CDC and had its origin in the Chichester Place Plan agreed in 2016 between those two local authorities. The purpose of the GD was to define the agreement between WSCC and CDC on the priority projects for growth within Chichester District. WSCC and CDC officers were recommending that partnership working should be focused on four major projects:

· ChichesterCity Vision: tocomplete a transport feasibility study for the city thatsupported thedelivery ofthe Visionand the Chichester Local Plan.

· ChichesterSouthern Gateway: to enhancethis keygateway tothe cityand delivera mixed-usedevelopment covering 30 acres whichincluded office, retail,residential andleisure uses. The Southern Gateway Masterplan had received Council approval on 21 November 2017.

· ChichesterNorthern Gateway: toenhance this keygateway tothe cityand delivera mixed-usedevelopment whichincludedoffice, retail,residential andleisure uses.

· Gigabit West SussexFibre Broadband project: toimprove digitalconnectivity inChichester. This project would be financed by a government grant specifically restricted to linking central and local government offices.

WSCC and CDC would agreeopportunities for aligningand prioritisingfunding fromall availablefunding streams,eg Business RatesRetention Scheme,Local GrowthFund, Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), section 106 etc, tosupport thedelivery of the four priorities identifiedwithin theGD. It should be understood, however, that the Growth Board possessed no executive decision powers, as was made clear in section 7.2 of the report and section 3 of the terms of reference in appendix 1, which stated that any recommendation of funding allocations would require to be taken through the appropriate CDC and WSCC decision process respectively for approval.

Therefore it was proposed that the role and existing terms of reference of the current Infrastructure Joint Member Liaison Group (IJMLG) would be subsumed into the Growth Board. This would ensure that the existing arrangements for considering spending bids and priorities for CIL as part of the preparation of the annual Infrastructure Business Plan were retained. Decisions about CIL spend would, however, remain with CDC’s Cabinet and Council.

The GD prioritieswould bedelivered througha seriesof associatedprojects broughttogether andmanaged withinan overallGrowth Programmeto beprogressed overthe nextfive years ie 2018to 2023.

The delivery of the GD would be overseen by a Growth Board of WSCC and CDC members and officers.

He proposed that there should be an amendment to the terms of reference to allow three rather than two representatives from each of the authorities, the three CDC members being Mrs Taylor, Mr Oakley and himself, each of whom were the current CDC members of theI JMLG.

CDC would lead on the Southern Gateway major project and WSCC would lead the other three major projects.

The projects were self-evidently focused on Chichester city but this was because of the scale of those projects. WSCC naturally wished to focus on major projects with the greatest benefits. There were no projects of such a scale in prospect for the rural towns. It was also important to recognise that all Chichester District’s residents would also benefit from the economic growth of the city and from investment returns on the District’s assets in the city.

Mrs Hotchkiss did not wish to add to Mr Dignum’s introduction.

During the debate members supported the GD. They welcomed the confirmation given by Mr Dignum that the Growth Board would not be a decision-making body, that its recommendations as to funding allocations would be considered by CDC’s Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel (DPIP), the Cabinet and the Council (clause 3.0 of the terms of reference), that the annual review of its decisions (clause 4.0) would be undertaken by CDC’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Cabinet, and that the current three CDC members of the IJMLG would (if approved) transfer to the Growth Board and so afford continuity of their experience and involvement. The transport feasibility study to support delivery of the Chichester Vision (page 10) was welcomed and should be undertaken at the earliest opportunity. Notwithstanding that the Gigabit project was unavoidably city-centric due to the government’s requirement that it must be for the benefit of local government and also to EU funding rules, it was recognised that the county’s district and borough councils needed to promote the extension of the project to the rural areas which often had poor broadband connections.

With the prior permission of Mr Dignum, Mr Oakley addressed the Cabinet. He said that whilst he agreed in principle with the GD and the Growth Board he sought certain reassurances:

· Given the city-centric focus of the GD and the final sentence of para 5.6 in the report, the pursuit of meritorious projects elsewhere in Chichester District could be compromised.

· How the governance arrangements would apply to WSCC’s Chichester South County Local Committee (CSCLC) and the reason for not mentioning its North equivalent.

· How the IJMLG’s role would function after it had been subsumed into the Growth Board given that the Board itself would concentrate on priority projects and CDC’s DPIP’s focus would be on the Chichester Local Plan. There was a concern that the IJMLG’s input might be eclipsed. Infrastructure needs outside the city existed and would require CIL funding.

In reply, Mr Dignum said (with contributions also from Mrs Shepherd and Mrs Hotchkiss):

· The GD’s focus was on the city because that was where the scale of projects existed. The Growth Board would be concerned only with joint projects which required WSCC funding. Since WSCC would take the lead on projects (except the Southern Gateway regeneration), if CDC did not follow suit it would have to lead its own projects unaided. Mrs Shepherd advised that if the GD was not signed there would be neither WSCC support nor funding from the region’s Local Enterprise Partnership.

· Officers had been requested to liaise with WSCC about inclusion of the reference to the CSCLC since that committee was irrelevant to the GD process. Mrs Hotchkiss added that having discussed the point with her opposite number at WSCC it had been agreed that the paragraph that refered to the CSCLC would be amended to say that the CSCLC would have a purely consultative role.

· As to the monitoring and scrutiny of CIL projects, the decision-making structure for CIL expenditure was CDC’s DPIP, the Cabinet and the Council and the Growth Board would continue to exercise the IJMLG’s current scrutiny function.

At the close of the debate the need to make the following amendments was noted and agreed by the Cabinet.

First, textual corrections to the documents in the two appendices as follows:

(1) In appendix A to appendix 1 on page 13 the reference to ‘Adur & Worthing’ in the fourth bullet point in the final (Outcomes) section of the Gigabit table should be replaced with ‘Chichester District’.

(2) In the terms of reference in appendix 2 on page 14, the first para in clause 1.0, there should be inserted ‘and the Council’ after ‘Cabinet’ in the first line.

Secondly, the recommendations in section 2.1.2, 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 of the report should be amended as advised by Mr Over in a sheet circulated to the Cabinet by (a) referring to two (instead of only one) additional members in 2.1.2; (b) adding ‘and terms of reference’ after ‘role’ in 2.1.3; and (c) insert ‘(as amended)’ in 2.1.4.

Decision

At the end of the debate the Cabinet voted unanimously on a show of hands to support the recommendations in their amended form to be made to the Council and in addition the resolution (which had not been amended).