DOCSLIB.ORG

Arun and Chichester Agency Agreements for Parking Services

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arun and Chichester Agency Agreements for Parking Services Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure Ref No: HI27 (17/18) February 2018 Key Decision: Yes Arun and Chichester Agency Agreements for Parking Part I Services Report by Executive Director of Economy, Electoral Infrastructure and Environment and Director of Divisions: Highways and Transport All in Chichester and Arun Districts Summary A review of the current Agency Agreements with Arun and Chichester District Councils for the provision of parking services has taken place. The existing Agreements will both expire at the end of March 2018. The County Council will enter into a new (separate) agency Agreement with Arun District Council and Chichester District Council for the procurement, management and operation of Civil Parking Enforcement (CPE), and operational management of the Bognor Regis and Chichester Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ). Recommendation That the Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure authorises the Executive Director of Economy, Infrastructure and Environment to enter into an Agreement with Arun District Council and Chichester District Council for the procurement, management and operation of CPE in Arun and Chichester Districts and operational management of the Bognor Regis and Chichester CPZs, under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 and the Local Authorities (Arrangements for the Discharge of Functions) (England) Regulations 2000/2851. Proposal 1. Background and Context 1.1 West Sussex County Council, in its capacity as highway authority, is responsible for managing all aspects of on-street parking. The County Council has the ability to delegate responsibility for some functions of both on and off street parking management to a Borough or District Council through the use of an Agency Agreement. 1.2 The County Council entered into an Agency Agreement with Arun District Council in July 2010 and Chichester District Council in March 2010. The Agreements, in summary, are for the discharge of the on- street enforcement service, provision of an on-street parking management service in Bognor Regis and Chichester, and management of any local off-street parking assets in the Districts of Arun and Chichester. 1.3 Arrangements under the Agreements have run very successfully, have been extended to their full extent (from 2014), and both are now due to expire on 31 March 2018. 1.4 Approval is being sought from the Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure for the County Council to negotiate and enter into an Agency Agreement with Arun District Council and Chichester District Council. The Agreement will delegate authority for the procurement, management and operation of Civil Parking Enforcement (CPE) and operational management of the Bognor Regis and Chichester Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ), together with management of any local County Council off-street parking assets in the Districts of Arun and Chichester. 1.5 The new agency Agreements will be broadly similar to the current Agreements, although updated to reflect changes to the legislative framework, and current best practice and the new agency Agreements are being drafted and finalised with support from Legal Services. The present division of responsibility for on and off-street management will remain unaltered. 2. Proposal 2.1 It is proposed to enter into an Agency Agreement in each District for an initial period of five years with a facility to extend for a further four years (to a maximum contract period of nine years) by mutual agreement between the parties. 3. Resources 3.1 The new Agency arrangements will not have any significant resource implications since the provisions will be broadly similar to those already in place. The annual costs have been reviewed over the last twelve months and set at £178,000 per annum for Arun and £195,000 per annum for Chichester. The service will be contained within existing budgets and so no budgetary pressures are expected to follow from these proposals. It should be noted that for 2017/18 an additional surplus of up to £0.4m is projected within the countywide parking revenue account. 3.2 In addition, the contracts will be under continuous review as the agreements mature, in order to ensure that every opportunity is taken to reduce costs, and improve the efficiency of the service. Areas for future consideration will certainly include the use of virtual parking permits and cashless parking payments. 3.2 Whilst not directly related to the Agency Agreements themselves, it is worth noting that income and expenditure for on-street parking is required by law to be contained within the County Council’s On-Street Parking Account. This account must be self-contained and held separately from the County Council’s other accounts. The purpose for which any surplus might be utilised, should a surplus be generated, is ring-fenced by Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1984 (RTRA) as amended. In summary, these are: • to repay any funds for parking measures that have been borrowed from the general rate fund; • to contribute towards the provision or maintenance of parking facilities; • to contribute towards improvements to passenger transport services or infrastructure; and, • to contribute towards other highway improvements. Factors taken into account 4. Consultation 4.1 Proposed agency arrangements have been discussed, and agreed in principle, with Arun District Council and Chichester District Council. 4.2 Heads of Terms have been exchanged, agreed, and signed by both parties; see Appendix 1. 5. Risk Management Implications 5.1 In the management of on-street parking a balance needs to be struck which shares out a finite amount of kerbside parking space amongst the many competing users and user groups. Management and enforcement of parking provides a key element of the framework within which these competing and conflicting needs are identified, assessed and prioritised. 5.2 The availability and access to both on and off-street parking is important in supporting the economic vitality of town centres and reducing traffic congestion. Achieving the correct level of enforcement is not an exact science and there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach. Instead, many factors need to be balanced in order to arrive at an appropriate level of enforcement. Regular monitoring and performance management will take place across Arun and Chichester Districts. This monitoring and performance management informs officers if parking management and enforcement resources are deployed at an appropriate level to meet published objectives 6. Other Options Considered 6.1 The Department for Transport (DfT) has issued Operational Guidance which sets out the policy framework within which the Government believes that all English local authorities, both inside and outside London, should be setting their parking policies and, if appropriate, enforcing those policies. 6.2 The Operational Guidance says that non-metropolitan District and Borough Councils in England are not able to apply for designation orders (CPE powers). DfT Operational Guidance makes it clear that it is important that there should be very close co-operation between District/Borough Councils and their County Council. The guidance goes on to suggest that the District/Borough Council might, under an agency agreement, carry out enforcement on behalf of the County Council. 6.3 The Secretary of State is aware that in most areas with two tiers of local government it is the District/Borough Council that own and operate most local authority off-street car parks. Where the District/Borough Council also acts as agent for their County Council, there should be significant efficiency gains in having a unified civil parking enforcement operation. 6.4 DfT Operational Guidance notes that in some cases the County Council carries out on-street parking enforcement directly and District/Borough Councils enforce off-street parking. They point out that this approach seems likely to be less efficient than having one enforcing authority; and comment that County Council may wish to consider allowing their District/Borough Councils to carry out on-street enforcement under an agency Agreement. 6.5 If the District/Borough Council is not engaged to deliver these complicated services, the County Council would need to make separate arrangements to manage these functions direct, or use their own contractor. This could result in significant cost and resource implications for the County Council. New teams might need to be established, premises secured, and software systems and equipment purchased. This would duplicate the work of the existing teams within the District/Borough, and the main advantage of integrating on and off-street parking management, would be lost. Whilst this option could be examined in more detail in the near future, pending the development of back office management systems, it is not considered viable or appropriate at this time. 7. Equality Duty 7.1 An evaluation of the equality impact is not considered necessary because this report is dealing with procedural matters only. 8. Social Value 8.1 All customers will be positively affected by good management of on street parking, and more integrated management of on and off-street parking, across Arun and Chichester Districts. This will be experienced in the form of: • the greater availability of on-street parking spaces; • less time spent and distance travelled searching for a parking space; • less traffic congestion and pollution arising from ‘searching’ traffic; • encouraging ‘good neighbourliness’ within the local community; • better and easier access for Blue Badge holders; and • better access to loading bays supporting deliveries to local business. 8.2 Greater accessibility of town centre parking will benefit the local economy and support local shops and services. 9. Crime and Disorder Act Implications 9.1 Officers are of the view that there are no foreseeable crime and disorder implications to this proposal. 10. Human Rights Implications 10.1 The proposal has no implications under the Human Rights Act 1998. Lee Harris Matt Davey Executive Director Director Economy, Infrastructure and Highways and Transport Environment Contact: Miles Davy, Parking Strategy Team Manager, 0330 2226688.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Selsey NP Decision Statement July 2020
    F11f Chichester District Council Chichester District Council Local Planning Authority Selsey Neighbourhood Plan 2014 - 2029 DECISION STATEMENT 1. Introduction 1.1 Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), the Council has a statutory duty to assist communities in the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans and Orders and to take plans through a process of examination, referendum and adoption. The Localism Act 2011 (Part 6 Chapter 3) sets out the local planning authority’s responsibilities for Neighbourhood Planning. 1.2 This report confirms that the modifications proposed in the examiner’s report have been accepted, the draft Selsey Neighbourhood Plan has been altered as a result of it and that this plan may now proceed to referendum. 2. Background 2.1 The Selsey Neighbourhood Development Plan relates to the area that was designated by Chichester District Council as a neighbourhood area on 4 December 2012. This area is coterminous with the Selsey Town Council boundary that lies within the Chichester District Council local planning authority area. 2.2 Following the submission of the Selsey Neighbourhood Plan to the Council, the plan was publicised and representations were invited. The publicity period ended on 23 March 2018. 2.3 Mr John Slater was appointed by Chichester District Council, with the consent of Selsey Town Council, to undertake the examination of the Selsey Neighbourhood Development Plan and to prepare a report of the independent examination. 2.4 The examiner’s report concludes that, subject to making modifications recommended by the examiner, the Plan meets the basic conditions set out in the legislation and should proceed to a Neighbourhood Plan referendum.
    [Show full text]
  • Chichester District Council V Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1640 (09 October 2019)
    Case Name: Chichester District Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1640 (09 October 2019) Full case: Click Here Commentary: The Court of Appeal found that an Inspector had not erred in law in his application of paragraph 198 NPFF which states that where a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan it should normally not be granted. The decision of the lower Court was upheld. The Appeal was made by Chichester District Council against the judgment of Upper Tribunal Judge Grubb, sitting as a Deputy Judge in the High Court, who held that a Planning Inspector had not erred in his application of paragraph 198 NPPF in permitting an appeal against the refusal by the Appellant of a planning permission for 34 homes outside of the boundary of the village of Southborne. The Inspector found that the planning application was in conflict with two policies of the Chichester Local Plan and that it would not accord with the aims of the relevant Neighbourhood Plan. However, the development proposals would not conflict with the policies of that neighbourhood plan. As the Appellant could not demonstrate a five-year housing supply the Inspector applied the presumption in favour of sustainable development in paragraph 14 NPPF and allowed the appeal. This decision was upheld by the High Court. The Court of Appeal held that the concept set out in paragraph 198 NPPF is straightforward and does not elevate the status of the neighbourhood plan within the development plan as a whole, nor does it alter the presumption that planning decisions must be made in accordance with a development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
    [Show full text]
  • Midhurst Sense of Place
    Midhurst Sense of Place Produced as part of the Midhurst Vision by the Sense of Place Working Group September 2009 Cover image courtesy of Michael Chevis www.michaelchevis.com Contents 5 Foreword 6 Introduction 9 Context 12 Sense of Place Aims 13 Sense of Place Process 15 Activity 17 Physical Setting 20 Meaning 23 Sense of Place Definition 26 Place Making 31 Place Reading 36 Place Marketing 38 Potential Actions and Projects 39 Next Steps 40 Summary 42 Acknowledgements 43 Appendix 44 Key Design Principles 50 Terms of Reference 5 Foreword Like may towns throughout the UK, Midhurst has a range of unique qualities. Yet as a result of social and economic change it faces competition from neighbouring destinations like Chichester, Petersfield, Haselmere and Guildford. Chichester District Council recognised this problem and through a series of projects (aimed at supporting the local economy), engaged with the community to help identify key areas of development and regeneration. Whilst residents may have strong emotional links to their town or village, it is becoming increasingly important to understand and reveal the innate qualities and character of a place to attract visitors and compete with other towns in their region. However, it may be difficult to express what defines a ‘place’, but it is important to do so, to ensure that any support given by way of physical improvement or economic development, is appropriate and does not lead to the loss of individuality and regional identity. Understanding that Midhurst’s future prosperity is dependent on finding a way to manage change whilst maintaining a genuine and authentic sense of place, it became clear that a process was required to capture and articulate these unique aspects to help develop plans for the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Notice of Variation On-Street Parking Charges 2021 Chichester District
    WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL NOTICE OF VARIATION: ON-STREET PARKING CHARGES 2021 CHICHESTER DISTRICT NOTICE is hereby given that West Sussex County Council in exercise of its powers under Section 46A Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Regulation 25 of the Local Authorities Traffic Order (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 proposes to vary the Charges and Tariffs detailed in the Second Schedule of the West Sussex County Council (Chichester District) (Parking Places and Traffic Regulation) (Consolidation) Order 2010. The charges below will be changed as shown below from 4 January 2021: Parking Permits in CPZ Zones: Old Charge New Charge Chichester CPZ Centre Zone 1st Resident Annual Permit £164.00 £168.00 Subsequent Resident Annual £205.00 £210.00 Permit 1st Resident 6-month permit £87.00 £90.00 Subsequent Resident 6-month £109.00 £112.00 Permit Non-Resident Annual Permit £275.00 £282.00 Non-Resident 6-month Permit £145.00 £149.00 Chichester All Day Zone 1st Resident Annual Permit £44.00 £46.00 Subsequent Resident Annual £88.00 £92.00 Permit 1st Resident 6-month Permit £24.00 £25.00 Subsequent Resident 6-month £48.00 £50.00 Permit Non-Resident Annual Permit £275.00 £282.00 Non-Resident 6-month Permit £145.00 £149.00 Chichester Part Day Zone 1st Resident Annual Permit £38.00 £39.00 Subsequent Resident Annual £76.00 £78.00 Permit 1st Resident 6-month permit £20.00 £21.00 Subsequent Resident 6-month £40.00 £42.00 Permit Non-Resident Annual Permit £165.00 £169.00 Non-Resident 6-month Permit £87.00 £90.00 All Chichester CPZ Zones
    [Show full text]
  • Chichester District Council Planning Committee Wednesday 6 January
    Chichester District Council Planning Committee Wednesday 6 January 2021 Declarations of Interests Details of members’ personal interests arising from their membership of parish councils or West Sussex County Council or from their being Chichester District Council or West Sussex County Council appointees to outside organisations or members of outside bodies or from being employees of such organisations or bodies are set out in the attached agenda report. The interests therein are disclosed by each member in respect of planning applications or other items in the agenda which require a decision where the council or outside body concerned has been consulted in respect of that particular planning application or item. Declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests, prejudicial interests or predetermination or bias are to be made by members of the Planning Committee or other members who are present in respect of matters on the agenda or this meeting. Personal Interests - Membership of Parish Councils The following members of the Planning Committee declare a personal interest by way of their membership of the parish councils stated below in respect of the items on the schedule of planning applications where their respective parish councils have been consulted: Mr H C Potter – Boxgrove Parish Council (BG) Rev J-H Bowden – Chichester City Council (CC) Mr R E Plowman – Chichester City Council (CC) Mrs S M Sharp – Chichester City Council (CC) Mr P J H Wilding – Lurgashall Parish Council (LG) Mr G V McAra - Midhurst Town
    [Show full text]
  • CLC Boundary Map April 2011
    CRAWLEY ELECTORAL DIVISIONS 51 Langley Green & West Green HORSHAM ELECTORAL DIVISIONS 52 Northgate & Three Bridges 24 Storrington 53 Worth & Pound Hill North 25 Bramber Castle 54 Gossops Green & Ifield East 26 Pulborough 55 Bewbush & Ifield West West Sussex County Local Committees 27 Henfield 56 Broadfield 28 Billingshurst 57 Southgate & Crawley Central 29 Southwater & Nuthurst 58 Tilgate & Furnace Green With effect from April 2011 30 Warnham & Rusper 51 59 Maidenbower & Pound Hill South 31 Horsham Tanbridge & Broadbridge Heath 32 Horsham Hurst 53 62 33 Horsham Riverside CRAWLEY East 34 Roffey NWorth o r61 t h 35 Holbrook 52 Grinstead Rusper 54 BOROUGH Ashurst M i d 63 Wood 30 57 59 North Horsham 55 Warnham 58 East Crawley 56West Crawley TurnersS Hill u s s e x CHICHESTER 35 60 ELECTORAL DIVISIONS Rudgwick Broadbridge Colgate West 1 The Witterings Heath 34 Hoathly 2 Selsey Slinfold Linchmere Plaistow & Ifold 32 3 Chichester South Loxwood Horsham Balcombe Ardingly 4 Chichester East 31 33 5 Chichester West Northchapel 6 Bourne Linch 64 North Horsham Horsted 7 Chichester North Lurgashall Itchingfield MID SUSSEX DISTRICT Lower Slaugham Keynes 8 Midhurst Southwater 9 Fernhurst Milland Fernhurst Beeding Ebernoe 29 10 Petworth Kirdford Nuthurst Central Mid Sussex Lindfield 10 Billingshurst Ansty & 28 Staplefield Cuckfield Urban Woolbeding 66 Rogate 67 Lodsworth HORSHAM DISTRICT Haywards Lindfield Heath 65 Rural North Chichester Wisborough Green Bolney 8 Stedham Easebourne Shipley Midhurst Cowfold with Tillington Petworth Chithurst Iping Trotton
    [Show full text]
  • Lamberts Lane, Midhurst
    TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER (TRO) CONSULTATION CHN9005RC – Lamberts Lane, Midhurst 28/3/19 – 18/4/19 Contents Notice Page 2 Statement of Reasons Page 3 Draft Order Page 4 Plan “c_chichestersu8821nen_2” - existing restrictions Page 5 Plan “c_chichestersu8821nen_2” - proposals Page 6 WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL ((CHICHESTER) (PARKING PLACES AND TRAFFIC REGULATION) (CONSOLIDATION) ORDER 2010) (LAMBERT’S LANE AMENDMENT) ORDER 201* NOTICE is hereby given that West Sussex County Council propose to make a permanent Order under the provisions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the effect of which will be to introduce lengths of prohibition of waiting at all times (double yellow lines) on the western side of Lambert’s Lane at the access to the Wyndham Mews development site. Full details of the proposals in this Notice can be viewed on our website www.westsussex.gov.uk/tro. The website includes a response form for comments or objections. The documents may be inspected at West Sussex County Council, County Hall, Chichester during normal office hours, and at the Chichester Public Library, Tower Street, Chichester PO18 8HN during normal library opening hours. Any objections or comments about the proposal must be received by 18 April 2019. These may be sent via the response form on the website, in writing to: TRO Team, West Sussex County Council, The Grange, Tower Street, Chichester, PO19 1QJ; or by e-mail to: [email protected]. Library staff will NOT be in a position to answer questions on the proposal and all correspondence should be addressed to the undersigned, quoting reference no. TRO/CHN9005/RC.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Animal Licences Held 5 February 2020
    CHICHESTER DISTRICT COUNCIL - Current Animal Licences Held 5th February 2020 Animal Boarding Animal Boarding (1 to 25 animals) Parish: Linchmere Ward: Fernhurst Date of Issue : 27-Sep-19 Trading As : Chums Address : Woodend Cottage Gillhams Lane Linchmere Haslemere West Email [email protected] Business Tel Animal Boarding (26 to 75 animals) Animal Boarding (75+ animals) Parish: Linch Ward: Fernhurst Date of Issue : 4-Jan-2019 Trading As : Just Cats Address : Just Cats Iron Hill Farm Hollycombe Lane Linch Liphook West Email [email protected] Business Tel Parish: Westbourne Ward: Westbourne Date of Issue : 21-Dec-18 Trading As : Amberley Kennels Ltd Address : Amberley Kennels Limited Woodmancote Lane Woodmancote Email [email protected] Business Tel Home Boarding (up to 6 animals) Parish: Special Code For BLPUs Outside CDC Area Ward: Special Code For BLPUs Outside District Date of Issue : 12-Jul-19 Trading As : Scamps and Champs Address : 80 Longfield Avenue Fareham PO14 1JR Email [email protected] Business Tel Parish: Midhurst Ward: Midhurst Date of Issue : 16-Jan-19 Trading As : Dog Vision Address : 19 Elmleigh Midhurst West Sussex GU29 9EZ Email [email protected] Business Tel Parish: East Wittering And Bracklesham Ward: The Witterings Date of Issue : 02-Jan-19 Trading As : Lisa's Dog Walking And Boarding Address : 4 Bracklesham Close Bracklesham Chichester West Sussex Email [email protected] Business Tel Parish: Rogate Ward: Harting Date of Issue : 29-Jan-19 Trading As : Allywags
    [Show full text]
  • Post 16 Re-Engagement & Training Opportunities
    Post 16 Re-engagement & Training Opportunities Employability support for young people 16-25 - Find It Out Centres, Children & Family Centres, Education & Skills Careers Advisers, Job Centres, Housing Associations Organisation Activity Location Age Frequency Contact Asphaleia MAKE TRAX Worthing area 15-25 On-going [email protected] or 01903 1-1 mentoring or small group 823546 workshops to support move into education or training Asphaleia On Track2Work Worthing area 16-18 15 weeks [email protected] or 01903 Employability skills, English & 2-3 days a 823546 maths plus work placement week (travel paid) Asphaleia On Track Worthing area 16-18 [email protected] or 01903 Functional Skills EL-L2 823546 Employability skills ESOL Outset Work4Me West Sussex 16-25 6-12 weeks www.outsetyouth.org.uk/work4me Employability activities, Coastal West Sussex team building, social action [email protected] projects, vocational tasters, Horsham/Mid Sussex mentoring [email protected] Crawley [email protected] YMCA Downslink Positive Placements Mid Sussex DC 16-25 On-going [email protected] 1-1 mentoring support to 07881013758 build confidence & employability YMCA Downslink Positive Placements Horsham DC 16-25 On-going [email protected] 1-1 mentoring support to (finishes soon- 07392879247 build confidence & seeking further employability funding) YMCA Downslink Positive Placements Crawley 16-25 On-going [email protected] 1-1 mentoring support to (Fridays)
    [Show full text]
  • 1 CHICHESTER DISTRICT COUNCIL FORWARD PLAN for the Period 1
    CHICHESTER DISTRICT COUNCIL FORWARD PLAN For the period 1 October 2020 to 31 January 2021 An outline of the decisions expected to be made by the Council’s Cabinet Published 04 09 2020 1 CHICHESTER DISTRICT COUNCIL FORWARD PLAN FOR THE PERIOD 1 OCTOBER 2020 TO 31 JANUARY 2021 This Forward Plan outlines the decisions which are expected to be made by the Council’s Cabinet during the period of four months from 1 October 2020 to 31 January 2021. On occasions the timetable for reports may change due to unforeseen circumstances. Additionally the Forward Plan also identifies decisions which are likely to be taken by the Cabinet in the coming year beyond the four month period covered by the Plan. Parts of these meetings may be held in private if the Cabinet considers it likely that there will be disclosure of confidential information or exempt information of a description specified in Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972. The Forward Plan includes key decisions, which are those which if taken by the Cabinet will have significant financial implications or significant impact in the District, and other decisions which may be of interest to the public. The Forward Plan includes information on the person to contact to inspect relevant documents. The Cabinet may also consider other documents or items which are not included in the Forward Plan due to changing circumstances. The membership of the Cabinet is currently as follows: Councillors Mrs E Lintill (Chairman), Mrs S T Taylor (Vice Chairman), Mr R Briscoe, Mr A Dignum, Mrs P Plant, Mr A Sutton, Mr P Wilding, The Forward Plan will be revised each month and rolled forward to the next four monthly period.
    [Show full text]
  • Chichester District Council
    OPEN SPACE, SPORT AND RECREATION STUDY 2014 - 2030 Part 1: Open Space Study Final Report Crawley Open Space, Sport & Recreation Study Part 1: Open Space Study Crawley Open Space, Sport & Recreation Facilities Study Part 1: Open Space Study Contents Section Title Pages 1.0 Introduction 4 – 8 2.0 Methodology 9 - 13 3.0 Policy Context 14 - 15 4.0 Assessment of local need 16 - 33 5.0 Audit of local provision 34 - 54 6.0 Application of standards 55 - 64 7.0 Future requirements for open space 65 - 66 8.0 Neighbourhood profiles 67 - 109 9.0 Strategic recommendations 110 - 118 10.0 Developer contributions 119 – 123 Appendix 1 Local Needs Assessment 2 Crawley Open Space, Sport & Recreation Study Part 1: Open Space Study Study and report structure This report is part 1 of the Crawley Open Space, Sport and Recreation facilities study. The study is presented in the following parts: Part 1: Open space study. An assessment of the current and future needs for open space across the borough. Part 2: Playing pitch study. An assessment of current and future supply and demand for playing pitches across the borough. The two parts of the study have been developed jointly and there is much interlink between the two reports. Glossary of Terms Term What it means ANGSt Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard CIL Community Infrastructure Levy DPD Development Plan Document FIT Fields In Trust (originally known as the ‘National Playing Fields Association’) GIS Geographic Information Systems LAP Local Area for Play LDD Local Development Document LDF Local Development
    [Show full text]
  • West Sussex Association of Local Councils Limited
    WEST SUSSEX ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL COUNCILS LIMITED Minutes from the Board Meeting of West Sussex Association of Local Councils Limited held via a Zoom video/audio conference on Thursday 24th September 2020 at 11am Directors Present Terry Oliver Horsham District Association and Chair Lilian Richardson Arun District Association Tony Nicklen Adur District Association Mike Beal Chichester District Association Phil Baxter Horsham District Association Rodney Jackson Mid Sussex District Association Michael Warden Arun District Council David Ribbens Chichester District Council Mark Mulberry Mulberry and Co Presidents and Vice None Presidents Present Also in attendance Joanna Cadman Administrator 1. Apologies for absence: Apologies were received and accepted from Roger Taylor, Weller Hedleys. 2. To approve the minutes of meeting held on 13th August 2020. The minutes were approved as a true record of the meeting, after the following amendments: 4c: ‘for’ should read ‘from’. AirS should be spelled out as Action in rural Sussex (AIRS). SCAP&TC should be spelled out as Surrey County Association of Parish and Town Councils. 4e: ‘these surplus’ should read ‘these surpluses’. Penultimate line paragraph 4: ‘this disappointment by endorsed by all directors’ should read ‘this disappointment was endorsed by all Directors’. Paragraph 6, line 6: ‘Terru Oliver’ should read ‘Terry Oliver’. Penultimate line: ‘consider and pursue value for money project’ should read ‘consider and pursue WEST SUSSEX ALC LTD’s own value for money project’. Paragraph 8, fourth line: ‘before he starts writing his brief’ should read ‘during preparation of the brief’ Proposed by Mike Beal, Seconded by Lilian Richardson, all in favour. Terry Oliver requested that all amendments be sent to Joanna, who will amend all typographical errors but circulate factual errors for agreement before amending the minutes.
    [Show full text]