SERVICE RESOURCE REVIEW: CAR PARKING

REPORT OF: Ian Burton, Head of Outdoor Operations{Environment]

Email: ianb@midsussex.gov.uk Tel: 01444 477373
Wards Affected: All
Key Decision No

1 Purpose Of Report

1.1 The purpose of this report is to introduce the Car Parking function, outline the scope
of the Service Resource Review and invite initial consideration on the future of the
service and its resource requirements. The Sub-Committee’s comments will be
taken into account in preparing a revised Car Parking Strategy and further report for
submission to the Sub-Committee at its meeting on 12 October.

2 Summary

2.1 This review primarily concentrates on those car parks designated as off street car
parks under the parking regulations and the proposals for combined enforcement for
off street and on street car parking. The Council does have other car parks
associated with Council facilities (i.e. leisure centres and sports sites), which could
be considered for certain initiatives aimed at off-setting car park costs and / or
generating additional income (e.g. Clair Hall car park).

2.2 A major review of the Council’s Car Parking Strategy is underway and will be
reported to the Better Environment Policy Sub Committee at its meeting on 12
October. Particular consideration will be given to the environmental and economic
consequences of the strategy. This service review therefore sets out the background
and some of the initial issues that will form part of the review of the Council’s
Strategy.

2.3 A key development for the service will be the adoption of combined off and on street
parking enforcement provided by the District Council in partnership with the County
Council. This is projected to be launched in April 2005 followed shortly after by the
introduction of controlled parking zones (CPZ) in Burgess Hill and Haywards Heath.
This forms a key part of the vision for the service into the future as is the need to
better provide the existing parking stock and respond to the increasing demand for
parking in the three towns. Such a vision is likely to require innovative short term
solutions and in the medium to longer term, town centre redevelopment and disposal
of car park sites that are inappropriately located for the prime users.

2.4 Limited investment in the car park infrastructure over a period of years has left the
existing off street car parks time worn and lacking in the sort of facilities that are
associated with modern and secure car parks. In developing the long-term vision it is
important to consider the need to invest in the asset base of these car parks in order
to ensure the service to users, whether resident or visitor, is to a high standard,
modern and meeting environmental needs. The service has, however, been able to
generate a significant level of income above expenditure as a result of increases in
car park charges. This income has been used to assist the Council meet its overall
budget, although this has been considered by some to be at the economic expense
of the three towns.

2.5 The opportunity exists to consider rural car parks within the context of their needs
and whether enforcement and control of use can be better provided by targeted

3 Better Environment Sub-Ctte –

5th August 2004
 charging. A trial is presently underway with a parish council, which could lead to
measured introduction of this approach in partnership with key parishes.

2.6 The relationship between car park charges and the social and economic
development of the town and village centres needs to be clarified and refined. The
policies adopted for off-street car parks need to work in concert with the on street car
park provision as well as national agendas such as air quality and sustainable
transport. It is this mix and emphasis that will form a key part of the review of the
strategy to be considered this autumn.

3 Issues for Consideration

3.1 The following issues are identified in this report for consideration and possible
inclusion in the Car Parking Strategy:-

3.1.1 Introduce Decriminalisation of Parking Enforcement.

3.1.2 In conjunction with West Sussex County Council, review Traffic Regulation
Orders and introduce Controlled Parking Zones [CPZ’s], with on-street
parking charges.

3.1.3 Increase provision of “off street” parking by:-

i) maximising additional charged car parking on existing off street car

parks.

ii) introducing a charging regime for suitably located ‘free’ Council car
parks in the three towns.

iii) considering introduction of additional parking by “decking over” an

existing ground level car park.

iv) aiming to secure one multi-storey car park in each town

v) rationalising present car park land assets

vi) reviewing the Council’s Car Parking Strategy

vii) reviewing the charging structure in light of short and long stay demand
requirements

viii) redressing the backlog of repair and maintenance of car parks

4 Background

4.1 Work on Service Resource Reviews commenced in the early summer. The aim of the
reviews is threefold:

a) To identify how the Council’s businesses are likely to change over the next
two to three years;

b) To pinpoint pressures and services where additional investment may be

required; and as importantly

4 Better Environment Sub-Ctte –

5th August 2004
 c) To achieve economies and savings to mitigate the demands on the taxpayer
and to provide the financial capacity to meet any additional needs that may be
identified.

4.2 These reviews are not best value exercises. They are short, sharp investigations by
managers of services, guided and directed by Management Team. Directors and
Service Heads are committed to taking a fresh look at their services with the
objective of providing options for new or alternative ways of delivering services which
will provide financial savings and efficiencies.

4.3 Cabinet members and Directors have met to discuss and scope the review process.
The discussion aimed to challenge the norm; and, for each service, to set out the
options to be examined for each review and the parameters within which options
could be explored. For example, guidance has been given that, in principle,
professional services should not be fully outsourced but that some buying-in of
service could be contemplated; subject to a robust business case. This guidance
then sets the overall direction for the review and this is reflected below.

5 The Car Parking Function

Off–Street Parking

The core business is :-

5.1 The District Council is the main provider of “off” street car parks in Mid Sussex [70%]
and the service is managed in house. Other providers are National Car Parks, retail
businesses and the rail operators. Car Parks are also provided at the Council’s
Leisure Centres, Civic Halls, and most Leisure Parks, Sports sites and Conservation
sites.

5.2 There are key actions within the Corporate Plan which the service can deliver as
follows:-

i) Adopt the programme to decriminalise parking enforcement and operate a co-

ordinated enforcement role for both off street and on street parking.

ii) Implementation of the Car Parking Strategy.

iii) Generation of income to support the Revenue Budget.

iv) Robust and consistent enforcement regime.

v) Reduction in anti-social and dangerous on street car parking.

5.3 Charged Council car parks are regulated in the three main towns under the “off
street” parking regulations. Parking is free elsewhere although charging is applied to
some Leisure Centre car parks to limit non-facility users. “On-street” parking is
controlled by the County Council.

5.4 The predominantly rural nature of the District makes alternatives to the car limited,
although there are good rail and road networks giving easy access and egress to the
District.

5 Better Environment Sub-Ctte –

5th August 2004
5.5 The dispersed nature of the towns and villages and the lack of a comprehensive
public transport system within and between the settlements makes car ownership
important for many.

5.6 Just under 1800 charged short stay spaces are available in the three towns with just
over 2110 long stay spaces. The availability of car parking varies considerably
between the towns for both short stay and long stay car parks. In Haywards Heath
and East Grinstead where the stations are located near the main office centres the
demand for commuter parking results in only small numbers of long stay spaces
being available for local businesses.

SHORT STAY LONG STAY

Total MSDC Total MSDC
Burgess Hill 825 459 340 340
East Grinstead 485 285 748 440
Haywards Heath 509 509 1024 144

5.7 In all three towns there is concern about the lack of available spaces in the right
places for both retail visitors and office workers . Several long stay car parks remain
under utilised.

5.8 Overall the view is that public parking is inadequate for the demand.

5.9 The Council’s off street car parks are at ground level with the exception of one multi
storey facility. They represent a significant Council land asset, in many cases being
in prime development locations.

5.10 Just over £850,000 is budgeted for car parks expenditure. The service is projected
this year to generate just over £1,483,000 in income making a contribution towards
balancing the Councils budget of £633,000. It is therefore an important service for the
Council both in terms of its function and its contribution to the Council’s budget. At
the time of the service being brought in house in 1997 the service was a break even
service.

5.11 The budget expenditure consists of 31% being allocated for staff salaries and support
costs and 21% for operational expenditure [contracts for fixed plant, cleansing,
grounds maintenance, repairs, ticket printing, transport, insurance and statutory
services]. The remainder of the budget [48%] is accounted for by notional interest
depreciation and NNDR costs.

5.12 Four staff are employed to undertake both cash collection from the machines and
enforcement duties, resulting in the serving and processing of about 2400
enforcement charge notices per year. A management staff of two operate and co-
ordinate the service with a member of staff for car park administration. The dispersed
nature of the car parks in three towns and a district covering 120 square miles does
impact on the available time for enforcement duties.

5.13 The car parks generally are adequate in terms of their facilities and condition.
However they are generally out of date, time worn and have suffered from a general
lack of investment in the infrastructure required to bring the facilities up to modern
standards.

5.14 It is estimated that £490,000 repair and refurbishment is required to bring the
facilities up to a reasonable standard. This does not allow for any improvement or

6 Better Environment Sub-Ctte –

5th August 2004
 more modern provision which would enable the car parks to meet the Secure Car
Parking Standard [SCPS].

5.15 New car parks have been provided as part of re-development where SCPS
standards are being meet [e.g. East Grinstead Resource Centre, Brown Twins
Hurstpierpoint, Church Road Burgess Hill]. However, such improvements have been
opportunist and have not formed part of an overall strategy to provide comprehensive
and appropriate car parking across the District.

5.16 There has been little town centre redevelopment for a substantial time and thus little
opportunity to redress the deficiencies of the car parking stock and its location.

5.17 Council car parks are expansive in their use of Council land assets and some are not
in the best locations to serve the needs of users. This leads to several car parks
being under utilised at certain times of the day and week [i.e. Queens Crescent
Burgess Hill, Chequer Mead East Grinstead, Franklyn Road Haywards Heath].

5.18 A few problems exist in rural areas particularly in the larger villages where long stay
parkers are denying access to parking for short stay visitors.

5.19 A trial is to be introduced shortly with a parish council, to tackle inappropriate use of a
village car park by long-term parkers. This will be based on a “time clock” system
that will introduce charging beyond a free period of parking. It is hoped this will
provide a simple and effective way to deal with the problems in the car park near the
village centre, provide a better enforcement mechanism and generate a small income
to off set the costs of providing the service. It is anticipated this could have wider
application to other village centres where this problem exists, and the outcome will be
evaluated with a view to rolling out its introduction in other areas where appropriate.

On–Street Parking

5.20 The County Council provides parking on street. This is either free or is charged by
way of controlled parking zones[CPZ]. East Grinstead is the only town in the District
for which a CPZ is currently in operation.

5.21 There is minimal police enforcement in Burgess Hill and Haywards Heath resulting in
widespread illegal parking on yellow lines and in the free “time limited” “on-street” car
parking spaces. Presently one traffic warden is employed to provide parking
enforcement in the two towns and the villages [the post is not provided with vehicular
transport]. The practical result is that there is no enforcement in villages unless
serious incidents such as difficulties with emergency vehicles are experienced.

5.22 Police Community Support Officers are occasionally used for enforcement where
they have the appropriate powers. It is not a police priority with the result that the use
of this option is very limited and is applied on an occasional “ blitz” basis.

5.23 The on-street parking is primarily provided in the town centres for short stay half an
hour to 2 hour use. However, unauthorised long stay use severely restricts this
resource.

5.24 A review of on-street traffic regulation orders (TRO’s) is overdue. This is to be

addressed as part of adopting the traffic enforcement legislation [Decriminalisation of
Parking Enforcement] by April 2005, but will not entail any changes to the existing car
parking allocation on street nor the location of yellow lines.

7 Better Environment Sub-Ctte –

5th August 2004
5.25 Effective enforcement will ensure the present allocation on-street for car parking is
used for the purposes intended.

5.26 Retail visits are affected in Burgess Hill and Haywards Heath by the use of short stay
on-street spaces by long stay parkers due to the lack of any effective on-street
enforcement by the County Council and Sussex Police .

6 Service Trends

The main service trends identified are:-

6.1 Government policy to reduce reliance on the car is in conflict with the pressures for
car use and parking space demands in rural districts.

6.2 Increasing car ownership is producing increased demand for car parking in many
locations. In Great Britain car ownership is estimated to grow by a third by 2020.

6.3 Levels of car ownership in Mid Sussex are higher than the national, regional or
county average At a local level, prior to April 2002 [when charges were significantly
increased], demand for Council car parking increased by 6-10% per annum (based
on an analysis of ticket sales from 1997). Initial research also indicates that there are
less public car parking spaces per capita in Mid Sussex, compared with other similar
Districts.

6.4 Increasing on-street parking problems are being experienced as demand increases
and enforcement remains so limited in Burgess Hill and Haywards Heath.

6.5 Existing car park stock remains vulnerable to car crime and theft although this is
presently not a significant problem in the District.

6.6 There are increasing user expectations for high standards and secure car parking.

6.7 Revitalising Town Centres will increase demand for additional car parking.

6.8 Inadequate public transport and cycle routes with links to car parks is limiting
opportunities for alternative travel.

6.9 There is a strong pressure from the town councils for a more equitable allocation of
charges by extending charging to villages in the District. For their part, some villages
feel that the introduction of parking charges without a “free” period, which raises
enforcement problems, would further damage retail and commercial activity already
under increasing competition from large out of town supermarkets.

7 Options to be considered / Business changes

The following options are suggested for further consideration:

7.1 Introduce Decriminalisation of Parking Enforcement legislation to properly enforce on

street and off street car parking.

7.2 Review Traffic Regulation Orders to improve on-street parking provision and controls
and introduce charged Controlled Parking Zones [CPZs] to assist in enforcement and
appropriate use of the car parking spaces which will assist retail businesses, visitors
and residential property. This will need to be done in conjunction with West Sussex

8 Better Environment Sub-Ctte –

5th August 2004
 County Council which, as the highway authority, is responsible for traffic regulation
and CPZs.

7.3 Increase the number of “off-street” parking spaces to address displaced “on-street”
medium to long term parking needs in towns by: -

i) maximising the opportunity for additional charged car parking on existing off
street car parks. Costs to be provided through a business case being made.

ii) introducing a charged regime for suitably located free council car parks in the
three towns [e.g. Clair Hall car park]. Costs to be provided through a business
case being made.

iii) consider introducing another parking tier on an existing ground level car park
in each town by 2007. Based on a 100 car additional capacity the estimated
development cost would be in the region of £6-800,000. Funding to be
provided by a business case being made.

iv) aiming for one multi-storey car park in each town with increased car parking
capacity and located to serve both business and visitors needs by 2008.
Based on a 500 unit multi-storey car park the estimated development cost
would be in the region of £5-6million per town without land value. Costs to be
borne by town centre redevelopment and disposal of car park assets surplus
to requirements.

7.4 Rationalise present car park land assets to assist in town centre redevelopment.

7.5 Review the Council’s Car Parking Strategy and in particular reconsider the role of the
service with regard to economic development and the impact of charges within
communities.

7.6 Review charging structure in relation to short and long stay demand requirements

7.7 Seek to redress the backlog of repair and maintenance of car parks to repair and
refurbish car park surfacing and drainage , lighting, signage and boundary treatments
in order to provide appropriate standards and customer service, to address security
and safety, disabled facilities and provide appropriate information for visitors to the
area. Cost £360,000 for urban car parks, £130,000 for rural car parks

8 Options Considered but Not Advised

8.1 The following options are not advised:-

8.1.1 Park and ride - the size and dispersal of the three towns does not make this
option a viable opportunity without substantial subsidy.

8.1.2 Acquire additional land for car parking without rationalisation of existing
assets – this would require major capital expenditure which would need to be
funded from the Council’s capital budget.

8.1.3 Introduce charges for disabled parking bays – this is a sensitive issue,
particularly with the current high profile of the Disability Discrimination Act,
and is likely to meet substantial customer resistance.

9 Better Environment Sub-Ctte –

5th August 2004
 8.1.4 Commercial vehicle parking provision – there is no obvious location for such a
service and little evidence of significant demand.

8.1.5 Introduce a half hour charge rate – the possibility exists for this type of charge
to be considered for on-street parking as part of the introduction of CPZs.
This will need to be done in conjunction with WSCC. With current parking
arrangements, its introduction for off-street parking would significantly affect
parking and income profiles as well as generate enforcement difficulties.
However, this could be considered further once DPE and CPZs have been
introduced.

8.1.6 Externalise the car park function to private sector – the Council decided to
bring the car park service back into direct management in 1997 as it was
considered that this provided better control over the sensitivities associated
with the setting of charges and generate an improved financial return. That
position has not changed.

9 Financial Implications

9.1 The 2004/05 revenue budget analysis is shown below.

9.2 The financial implications of this review will depend upon the proposals contained in
the Car Parking Strategy and will be included in the report to the Sub-Committee’s
October meeting.

10 Other Material Implications

10.1 The following material implications arise from the report:-

County Council delivery of DPE by April 2005

CPZ programme remains as County Council advises
Town Centre redevelopment
Parking strategy

Background Papers

None

10 Better Environment Sub-Ctte –

5th August 2004
Budget Estimates 2004 / 05

Car Parks Revised estimate 2004/2005 £

Leisure Dept Salaries 122,288
Employers Liability 1,053
Other risks 104
Contractors – Lighting Mtce 0
Contractors – fixed plant 14,283
Contractors – Grounds Mtce 7,660
Car Park Repairs 49,151
Car Park Cleansing 44,075
Signs and Notices Civils 12,813
Landscape Maintenance 0
Southern Electricity Board 11432
Land 1,025
Mid Sussex NNDR 158,848
Southern Water 1,129
Buildings Insurance 3,440
Transport 12,847
Fuel 3,000
Vehicle Insurance 4,407
Staff Uniforms 1,538
Tickets 10,857
Photography 0
NNDR Revaluation 0
Security services 1,366
Cinema / Bingo Parking refunds 1,235
Pagers and cellphones 1,600
Central support – Chief Exec 5,018
Central Support - Finance 39,114
Central support - Legal and Admin 7,900
Central Support – Corporate Services 2,920
Service Support - Environment 9,347
Service Support leisure 78,314
Central Printing 1,025
Notional interest 190,375
Depreciation 53,125
Basic Licence -20,961
Pay and Display Charges -1,312,153
Pay and Display – fixed penalties -90,017
Pay and Display – fixed penalties discount -5,241
Pay and Display – seasons -36,681
Access to Premises -1,307
Market Site -17,000
Total -632,071

11 Better Environment Sub-Ctte –

5th August 2004
SERVICE RESOURCE REVIEW: PLANNING POLICY

REPORT OF: Head of Planning Policy

Contact Officers: Judith Hewitt, Head of Planning Policy
Email: judithh@midsussex.gov.uk Tel: 01444 477435
Steve Tilbury, Principal Planning Officer (Economic Development)
Email:stevet@midsussex.gov.uk Tel: 01444 477347
Wards Affected: None
Key Decision No

1.0 Purpose Of Report

1.1 The purpose of the report is to introduce the work of the Planning Policy Division
(including Economic Development), outline the scope of the Service Resource
Review, and invite debate on the future of the service and its future resource
requirements.

2.0 Summary

2.1 The Planning Policy Division undertakes a range of tasks relating to:

• the preparation and implementation of the development plan for Mid Sussex
• input and response to the South East Plan
• responding to national and regional consultations including those relating to
Gatwick Airport,
• economic development activity.

2.2 The work of the Division directly links to a number of the Council’s key priorities,
which are reflected in the Corporate Plan under the themes of Better Environment
and Better Lives. These include

BE1 Maintain and enhance the environment

BE4 Revitalise the town centres
BL1 Increase the provision of affordable housing.

2.3 This report looks at the use of resources currently, changes likely to take place within
the next three years and the implications that these have on the Service. Additional
pressures on the service are expected to arise over the next two to three years. It is
considered that some extra resources will be required to carry out the functions of the
service.

2.4 The proposed advice to Cabinet set out below is based on a combination of
measures to ensure that the statutory requirements are met and that the service is
undertaken to include non-statutory actions where these will safeguard the best
interests of those who live and work in the District and which will achieve the
Council's priorities.

12 Better Environment Sub-Ctte –

5th August 2004
3.0 Advice to Cabinet

3.1 The Sub-Committee is requested to consider advising the Cabinet that the
preferred option should include the following elements:

(a) at least maintain the existing officer structure of the Division and the
respective areas of work, whilst continuing to make use of consultants where
this is necessary and most effective;

(b) increase staff provision by the addition of one part time senior planning officer
as set out in paragraph 7.11;

(c) administrative support be considered as part of the current Business Process

Review of Administrative Services.

(d) investigate options for funding sub-regional lower level studies and securing
future funding for the necessary public examinations for the Local
Development Documents;

(e) increase where practicable the shared use of resources with other divisions
within the Council and the extent of co-operative working with neighbouring
local authorities; and

(f) provide a small development fund to support the economic development

activity and to enable it to meet future commitments for the support of projects
related to the Council's priorities and to lever in additional resources.

4.0 Core Business

4.1 The Planning Policy Team deals with the following main areas of work:

Preparation and implementation of the Local Development Plan for Mid Sussex

4.2 This is a statutory function and comprises two elements. The first is the
implementation of the adopted Mid Sussex Local Plan, which covers the period to
2006. Related, non-statutory, work includes the preparation of development briefs
for specific sites, the provision of planning policy advice to development control
colleagues and developers, and an involvement in conservation related matters in
liaison with the County Council. The preparation of development briefs is important
in ensuring that maximum gain in infrastructure and relevant contributions is
achieved, and that the legal agreement is prepared at an early stage. This helps
towards ensuring that Development Control is able to meet the target for dealing with
planning applications; this target is one of the indicators used to assess planning
delivery grant. Similarly, early discussions with developers can assist the speedy
processing of planning applications and are also very important in preparing specific
policies.

4.3 The second is the preparation of the new Local Development Framework for Mid
Sussex, covering the period from 2006-2016. The requirements are set out in the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act which was given Royal Assent in May 2004.
The new process set out in the Act requires far greater public engagement than
previously and, indeed, the engagement process envisaged by the Council has to be
consulted on and published in a Statement of Community Involvement. Early public
engagement is expected through activities such as workshops, surveys etc, two

13 Better Environment Sub-Ctte –

5th August 2004
 statutory public consultation stages have to follow on draft documents before the
public examination stage. Additionally the new European Directive on Strategic
Environmental Assessments requires that sustainability appraisals are carried out of
all draft plans and proposals and are themselves consulted on.

National and Strategic Planning

4.4 The Division is responsible for responding to consultations on national and regional
planning issues and guidance. It also has an input into the development of regional
planning policy, including the development of the South East Plan, the new regional
plan that will ultimately replace the West Sussex Structure Plan and will include the
distribution of housing numbers to authorities for the period up to 2026. Input to this
is non-statutory but in view of the significance that the new statutory regional plan
will have this is a vital part of the work of the Division.

Gatwick Airport

4.5 The Division is responsible for all issues relating to the impact on Mid Sussex of
Gatwick Airport and aviation related matters. This includes responding to airport
related consultations and making representations relating to the future of the airport
including development and transport strategies, master planning, night flight regimes
and so on. This has recently increased in importance following the identification of
Gatwick as a potential location for an additional runway and, hence, the impact which
this will have throughout the Gatwick diamond area in terms of employment, housing
and associated transport and other infrastructure.

Economic Development

4.6 The Division carries out the Council's economic development function. This includes
involvement in a number of partnership activities aimed at maintaining and enhancing
a healthy local economy in accordance with the Council's Economic Development
Strategy Statement adopted in 2003. Following the decision in 2003 to end all
economic development grants to outside organisations and projects, this activity now
relates to input of officer time only. However, this still requires close engagement in
a number of projects and initiatives.

5.0 Use of Resources

5.1 The Planning Policy Division (formerly Local Plans) was created in April 2004 when it
became part of the Community Development Directorate. The Division currently has
nine staff (eight full time equivalent). These are:

• Head of Planning Policy

• One Principal Planning Officer
• Two full time Senior Planning Officers (recruitment for the new SPO post to have
responsibility for the Strategic Environmental Assessment work is currently
underway – this post will be funded by Planning Delivery Grant in 2004/05)
• Two part time Senior Planning Officers
• Two Planning Officers (both to start 3 year day release MA in Town Planning)
• One Draftsperson/technician

5.2 The principal planning officer's time is currently split between work on the Local
Development Framework (40%), economic development (40%) and Gatwick related

14 Better Environment Sub-Ctte –

5th August 2004
 work (20%). Approximately 70% of the draughtsperson's time is spent providing
support to the planning policy team and 30% is spent providing support for other
Council divisions.

5.3 Planning Policy has a net budget of £471,000, this is set out in Appendix A. Some
£173,500 of the £453,000 Planning Delivery Grant for 2004/05 is also available for
the work of the Division, the majority of which will be devoted to the preparation of
the Local Development Framework, including the East Grinstead Action Area Plan,
and to studies relating to the new South East Plan. Appendix B lists studies to be
undertaken.

5.4 In addition the Economic Development budget for 2004/05 is £47,000, comprised
almost entirely of staff and support costs. There is currently no budget provision for
the allocation of grants to outside projects or organisations.

5.5 The budget for Planning Policy and Economic Development, as set out in Appendix
A, currently includes a significant amount for service support from the Environment
Directorate. As a result of the recent management realignment and the further
changes likely as a result of internal reorganisation at Director level, this amount will
need to be reviewed as it no longer reflects the current situation.

5.6 Co-operative working across the Council and at sub-regional level is becoming
increasingly important in terms of maximising the use of resources. This includes:

• exchange of ideas and experience

• joint training sessions between authorities
• joint working on gathering baseline information
• joint studies with other authorities eg the Housing Needs Survey
• partnership working with developers.

5.7 Virtually all of the economic development related projects and initiatives are carried
out in partnership with other outside organisations, including other local authorities
and business related groups.

6.0 Changes and pressures over the next three years

6.1 The Division is facing a number of changes and additional pressures during the next
two to three years. These include:

• changes and pressures related to the local development plan. The Planning
and Compulsory Purchase Act and the European Directive on Strategic
Environmental Assessments require greatly increased community engagement
and involvement at all stages; enhanced external scrutiny with a requirement
for far more base evidence; sustainability appraisals for all policies and
proposals; annual monitoring; and an increased rate of plan production

• direct input into the new regional plan for the South East and involvement in
sub regional studies which will influence the development pressures on the
area for the next twenty years

• increased involvement with Gatwick related issues including input into master
planning, strategy reviews and airport monitoring

15 Better Environment Sub-Ctte –

5th August 2004
 • increased involvement with economic development related projects such as the
West Sussex Economic Partnership; the Burgess Hill Business Parks
Association; the town centre health checks and action plans; and the emerging
SEEDA Rural Towns Regeneration Programme

• the development of the Council led programme of town centre regeneration,

which is one of the Council's priorities in the Corporate Plan.

6.2 Internally the main changes arising are related to the Council's priorities and the new
staffing arrangements at Director and Divisional Heads level:

• importance of revitalising the town centres

• changing Corporate and managerial responsibilities of Divisional Heads, in
that some of the current Head of Division’s previous technical work as
Principal Planning Officer now needs to be undertaken by other members of
the team.

7.0 Future Options

7.1 It is considered that the following options should be considered further in order to
help arrive at a preferred way forward:

• Maintain the current structure of the Division, including joint working with other
Council Divisions and outsourcing some work where appropriate
• Combining with other local authorities in carrying out the work of the division
• Reducing the level of service
• Increasing the Resources available in order to meet the changes and
requirements being placed on the Council.

Maintain the current structure of the Division

7.2 This would mean:

• Retaining the 9 staff (8 full-time equivalent)

• Maintaining the balance between in-house studies and the use of external
consultants where specialist skills and knowledge are required
• Maintaining close cross section liaison with other Council services
• Maintaining cooperative working with other Councils.

7.3 Opportunities exist for closer integration with the work of other divisions, particularly
in the Community Services Division and the Business Planning and Strategy Unit.
This is due to the increasing role of community involvement in the planning policy
process and the structures already in place in these other divisions relating to
community engagement, such as the Area Community Forums. For the same
reason there are also likely to be further opportunities for sharing resources with
these divisions for administrative support for such activities. Administrative support
will need to be considered as part of the separate Business Process Review of
Administrative Support currently being undertaken throughout Directorates.

7.4 Although £15,000 is allocated from this year's Planning Delivery Grant award
towards lower level studies to inform the sub-regional work required for the South
East Plan there will be a need for significantly more than this. It is likely that in the
region of £75,000 will be needed in total. Further investigations into securing
funding from a range of sources will be required.

16 Better Environment Sub-Ctte –

5th August 2004
7.5 As part of the Local Development Framework process all Local Development
Documents will have to go through a Public Examination process. The Council will
have at least three documents requiring examinations in Autumn 2006. Costs for the
whole process, including fees for a Programme Officer, Inspectors, legal support and
accommodation are likely to be at least £250,000. The cost of the Inquiry process for
the Mid Sussex Local Plan was £230,000 and it is assumed that the three
examinations together will take at least as long as the last inquiry and possibly longer
due to the proposed East Grinstead Area Action Plan. The costs of the Public
Examinations will have to be met over the period 2005/06 – 2007/08. Investigations
into securing future funding from a range of sources will be required and it is likely
that a major element of any future Planning Delivery Grant will need to be put
towards this.

Combine with other local authorities

7.6 In practice this would mean bringing together the activities of relevant neighbouring
authorities (effectively Crawley and Horsham) in preparing the new Local
Development Framework. This is not regarded as realistic. While there is a high
level of joint working between authorities on cross border planning issues of various
kinds, in practice each authority is already working to a different programme and will
have different perspectives as to the nature of future planning in their respective
areas. It is felt that at least in the near future joining together in this way would not
be practicable nor acceptable to the communities concerned.

7.7 In terms of the division's work on airport issues and economic development, there is
already a considerable amount of partnership work carried out with neighbouring
local authorities. Again, however, the need to retain a local perspective on these
issues means that total integration would not be appropriate, although the option to
work together where possible should remain.

Reducing the level of service

7.8 At its greatest extent this would effectively mean reducing the work to the minimum
level of fulfilling the statutory requirement for having a Development Plan in place.
Other work such as policy implementation, responses to national and regional
planning consultations, input into regional planning and Gatwick Airport related work,
conservation area work and economic development and promotion would not be
carried out. This would clearly offer scope for savings but to reduce the service to
this level is not considered to be an acceptable position. In particular the importance
of the Council being engaged in the emerging regional planning issues, and in
relation to development at Gatwick Airport and the effect that any development of the
airport would have on the area generally, is considered to be critical to achieving the
Council's aim of maintaining and enhancing the environment.

7.9 Consideration could be given to less severe reductions in the service which might
include preparing less background information than at present e.g. the preparation of
Conservation Area appraisals or the study on employment and businesses. While
current economic development activity has been refocused away from areas of work
such as business/education and community based projects and towards other
actions more closely related to the Council's priorities such as town centre
regeneration it would be possible to reduce these activities still further or terminate
them completely.

17 Better Environment Sub-Ctte –

5th August 2004
 Meeting Future Demands

7.10 Section 6 above has highlighted a number of changes and increasing pressures
likely to be experienced by the Division over the next two to three years. The work of
the division is also closely related to a number of the priorities identified in the
Council's Corporate Plan, including maintaining and enhancing the environment;
revitalising the town centres; increasing the provision of affordable housing. If the
current work of the division is to be maintained, the expected additional pressures
are to be accommodated and the continued contribution to meeting Council priorities
is to be provided, it is considered that additional resources for the division will be
required.

7.11 These will include:

7.11.1 The appointment of an additional senior planning officer (part time) to assist
with the expected level of input into regional planning issues. (Anticipated
cost £25,000 inclusive of all on-costs) The amount of work involved with the
preparation of the South East Plan by SEERA and its importance has
increased significantly as under the new Planning Act the Plan will carry
statutory weight. It is important that full and proper attention should be given
to this in view of the long term consequences the South East Plan will have
for the area. In the Head of Planning Policy's previous role, regional planning
took a large proportion of her time but less is now available due to changed
responsibilities.

7.11.2 Limited additional resources for economic development activity. A healthy

local economy is important if the Council is to achieve its priorities and the
Council has an important role to play in helping to provide the right conditions
locally that allow businesses to trade successfully and competitively, and
helping to ensure that local interests are safeguarded. Previously the Council
has played a leading role in partnership projects that help bring about such
conditions. It is considered important that some limited development funding
is made available which can be used flexibly to pump prime projects and
which can be used to help lever in external funding and resources. This
could be used to support projects which help achieve the Council’s objectives
such as the West Sussex Economic Partnership, the Burgess Hill Business
Parks Association and the Village Shop Support Programme, all of which
have sought funding this year. In the future this might also include the Rural
Small Towns Programme, whereby some initial match funding from the
Council will help to lever in further funding from elsewhere to help future
projects. It is suggested that the sum of £30,000 would be appropriate for this
area of activity.

7.11.3 The provision of administrative support for the Division needs to be

considered through the Business Process Review of Administrative Services
currently being undertaken in each Directorate.

8.0 The Preferred Option

8.1 In the light of the options outlined above, it is considered that a reduction in the level
of the service and its resources is not realistic, for the reasons discussed in
paragraphs 7.8-7.9. It is suggested that the preferred option must be to at least
maintain the existing structure and resources of the division, and to add to that where
appropriate in order to accommodate the increased pressures and changes that are

18 Better Environment Sub-Ctte –

5th August 2004
 expected to arise over the next two to three year period. For this reason it is
considered that the preferred option should include the following elements:

(a) at least maintain the existing officer structure of the Division and the
respective areas of work, whilst continuing to make use of consultants' advice
where this is necessary and most effective;

(b) increase staff provision by the addition of one part time senior planning
officer;

(c) assess the provision of dedicated administrative support as part of the

Business Process Review of Administrative Services;

(d) investigate external and internal funding options for sub-regional lower level
studies and securing future funding for the necessary public examinations for
the Local Development Documents;

(e) increase where practicable the shared use of resources with other divisions
within the Council and the extent of co-operative working with neighbouring
local authorities; and

(f) provide a small development fund to support the economic development

activity and to enable it to meet future commitments for the support of projects
related to the Council's priorities and to lever in external resources.

10.0 Financial Implications

10.1 The 2004/05 revenue budget analysis is attached at Appendix A.

10.2 This report proposes increases of £55,000 in revenue budget expenditure from
2005/06. However, decisions on this will be taken within the framework of the budget
setting process for 2005/06.

10.3 Additional resources will also need to be identified for the sub-regional lower level
studies and for the public examinations of the Local Development Documents. The
implications of this for use of future Planning Delivery Grant will be considered later
in the year, once the Council has been notified of its PDG allocation for 2005/06.

Background Papers

None

19 Better Environment Sub-Ctte –

5th August 2004
 Appendix A

Budget 2004/05

Planning Policy

Employees £193,000
Reports and Exhibitions £44,000
Central Support Chief Executive £8,663
Finance £14,096
Legal and Administration £30,736
Corporate £10,543
Service Support Environment £102,643
Community Development £71,225
(includes overheads, car
allowances, IT support etc)
Support Total £238,000
Total £471,000

Economic Development

Employees £23,300
Farmers Markets £2,400
Central Support Chief Executive £729
Finance £921
Legal and Administration £2,586
Corporate £887
Service Support Environment £7,679
Community Development £8,585
(includes overheads, car
allowances, IT support etc)
Support Total £21,400
Total £47,090

Planning Delivery Grant also available for Planning Policy 2004/05

Employee £25,500
Post entry training for 2 POs £2,000
Studies - LDF £90,000
Consultants' fees for public engagement – £35,000
LDF
Sub-regional lower level studies £15,000
Contribution to SEERA £3,000
Computer Screens £3,000
Total £173,500

20 Better Environment Sub-Ctte –

5th August 2004
 Appendix B

Studies for the Local Development Framework include:

Housing Needs Assessments

Urban Potential Study

Landscape character assessment

PPG17 Recreational Space and Provision

District wide retail assessment

Employment floorspace assessment

Housing supply assessments

Census data analysis

East Grinstead traffic model

Conservation Area Appraisals

Sub-regional lower level studies of the area around Crawley and the area around Burgess
Hill

21 Better Environment Sub-Ctte –

5th August 2004