Agenda item

The material relevant to this item is the report at pages 31 to 34 of the agenda and its nine appendices* at pages 109 to 135 of the (main) agenda supplement considered by the Cabinet at its meeting on Tuesday 8 January 2019.

*During the meeting amendments were made to seven of the nine of the appendices and accordingly all of the appendices as amended are being circulated with this agenda.               

In addition to resolutions made by the Cabinet, the following recommendations were made to the Council:

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNCIL

(1)  That it be agreed that the Corporate Plan approved in January 2018 shall remain unchanged for the year 2019-2020.

(2)  That the release of £206,000 from Chichester District Council’s General Fund Reserve to fund the feasibility work and small projects identified in para 5.2 (as amended) of the agenda report for 2019-2020 be approved and that £30,000 of this funding be released with immediate effect to allow for the Novium business plan feasibility work.

[Note Para 5.2 (f) of the agenda report was amended by the deletion of the second bullet point namely ‘Branding (Chichester) - £40,000 for consultants’]

The Council considered the recommendation made to it by the Cabinet at its meeting on Tuesday 8 January 2019. The relevant Cabinet papers were as follows: (a) the agenda report at pages 31 to 34, (b) its nine appendices at pages 109 to 135 of the agenda supplement, (c) an amended version of those appendices circulated with the Council agenda (some amendments were made during the Cabinet’s meeting); and (d) a summary of those amendments, which was circulated within the Council Chamber as a single double-sided sheet prior to the start of this meeting.

The agenda explained in a note the nature of the amendment mentioned in the second of the Cabinet’s two recommendations, namely a deletion from para 5.2 of the agenda report of one of the Emerging Vision projects with a resulting saving of £40,000.

Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place) formally moved the Cabinet’s recommendation and this was seconded by Mrs E Lintill (Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Community Services).

Mr Dignuminitially presented this matter. He explained that whilst it was proposed that the Corporate Plan 2018-2021, approved by the Council in January 2018, should remain unchanged for 2019-2020, there were several new initial project proposal documents (IPPD) being recommended together with the release of funds to enable the requisite feasibility work in respect thereof to be undertaken. He referred members to the amended versions of the appendices in the Council agenda. He also drew attention to the aforesaid summary sheet which set out the amendments made by the Cabinet to the IPPDs: (a) changes prior to its meeting with respect to the IPPDs in appendices 2, 3, 5, 7 and 9 and (b) a change made at its meeting with respect to the IPPD in appendix 3. 

The nine IPPDs were each considered in turn with an introduction, any proposed amendments and officers’ responses to members’ questions as summarised below. During the presentations of the various IPPDs members expressed their support for them.

(1)  Resurfacing and Improved Drainage at Westhampnett Depot (Appendix 1)

This was introduced by Mr R Barrow (Cabinet Member for Residents Services).

Mr Barrow and Mrs J Dodsworth (Director of Residents Services) replied to members’ questions and comments on points of details with respect to (a) the adequacy of the proposed foul drainage link (third bullet point in the In scope sub- section on page 35) to cope with volume and chemical content; (b) the opportunity for commercial use after installation of the foul drainage link; and (c) the need to undertake archaeological investigations as part of this project.

(2)  East Beach Selsey Land/Asset Opportunities(Appendix 2)

This was introduced by Mr J Connor (Cabinet Member for Environment Services).

Mr J Connor replied to a member’s question about CDC exploring with Selsey Town Council the potential for, say, a commercial use of the site.

(3)  East Wittering and Bracklesham Vision(Appendix 3)

This was introduced by Mrs S Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services).

Members did not ask any questions.

(4)  Review of Chichester District Parking Strategy (Appendix 4)

This was introduced by Mr Dignum, who said that this IPPD (a ten-yearly review) was not about parking charges but parking provision ie infrastructure which would ensure that Chichester District’s car parks were fit for the future.

Mr Dignum replied to members’ questions and comments on points of details with respect to (a) the extent to which consultants could realistically be briefed to address future-proofing against technological innovations such as electric (self-charging) cars and automation; (b) introducing a five-year review as a decade was too long; (c) examining the scope for park and ride; (d) how to involve councillors and the community in preparing the consultants’ brief (principally via CDC’s Chichester District Parking Forum); (e) ‘future development on underused car parks’ (section 3 page 48): the city’s car parks most suitable for development were in fact those most intensively used by customers; (f) the potential for a car-free Sunday in Chichester once a month: that issue was relevant to the next review of parking charges and not this project; (g) the calculation basis for the £35,000 cost quoted; (h) the need to retain well-used city centre car parks to safeguard and promote the economic welfare of the retail and tourism sectors versus conserving an historic city centre, promoting pedestrian use of streets and preserving it against additional traffic; (i) the need to take into account the results of West Sussex County Council’s road space audit (especially with regard to the reduction of the turnover of on-street commuter spaces to an all-day basis) before proceeding with this IPPD and so this might affect the timescale; and (j) the selection of the consultants.

(5)    Priory Park – Phase Two Option Appraisal(Appendix 5)

This was introduced by Mr Dignum. The café had now been excluded from the IPPD. The principal emphasis was on refurbishment of existing buildings rather than new development as well as restoration of the Coade stone statute. He would liaise with Mr R Plowman (Chichester West), who was the former chairman of the Friends of Priory Park and had recently addressed the Cabinet on this subject. 

Members did not ask any questions.

(6)  Novium – Business Plan Feasibility Work (Appendix 6)

This was introduced by Mrs E Lintill (Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Community Services).

In reply to a member’s question about the need, as raised at the recent meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, for the IPPD to address reduction of the costs of the Novium, Mrs Lintill drew attention the threefold remit of the feasibility appraisals set out in section 3 of the IPPD. Mrs Hardwick (Fernhurst) remarked that section 7 of the IPPD covered the costs point.  

(7)  Expanding the Gigabit project to achieve a ‘lit up’ city (Appendix 7)

This was introduced by Mr P Wilding (Cabinet Member for Corporate Services). 

Mr Wilding and Mrs D Shepherd (Chief Executive) replied to members’ questions and comments on points of details with respect to (a) the need to involve Midhurst and Petworth ward members in the extension of the Gigabit project to those towns in due course (this request was noted); (b) the extension of the Gigabit to the rural towns and areas in the north and south of Chichester District was imperative; (c) a pre-Council member briefing on Gigabit should be arranged; and (d) a more precise figure on the cost would be provided after the business case work had been undertaken and the PID had been prepared. 

(8)  Working with Hyde on Asset Management (Appendix 8)

This was introduced by Mrs J Kilby (Cabinet Member for Housing Services).

Mrs Kilby replied to members’ questions and comments on points of details with respect to (a) the potential to examine in CDC’s new strategic partnership with Hyde issues of service performance as well as asset management; (b) the need to work closely with Hyde to ensure adherence to the timescales set out in section 5 of the IPPD; (c) examine the scope for facilitating the role of community led trusts; (d) discuss with Hyde CDC’s scrutiny role with respect to the mooted changes and outcomes in the last bullet points in each of sections 2 and 4 of the IPPD; and (e) raise with Hyde the issue of communication, something which Hyde itself had recognised as a matter it needed to address on a national level as well as locally.       

(9)  Emerging Vision Projects and Resources (Appendix 9)

This was introduced by Mr Dignum.

There were no questions.

Decision

On a show of hands the members voted in favour of the Cabinet’s recommendation with no votes against and no abstentions. 

RESOLVED

(1)  That it be agreed that the Corporate Plan approved in January 2018 shall remain unchanged for the year 2019-2020.

(2)  That the release of £206,000 from Chichester District Council’s General Fund Reserve to fund the feasibility work and small projects identified in para 5.2 (as amended) of the agenda report for 2019-2020 be approved and that £30,000 of this funding be released with immediate effect to allow for the Novium business plan feasibility work.

[Note Para 5.2 (f) of the agenda report had been amended by the Cabinet by the deletion of the second bullet point namely ‘Branding (Chichester) - £40,000 for consultants’]

[Note After the end of this item there was a short adjournment from 15:56 to 16:06]