Health in Arun

ARUN LOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP

MARCH 29^TH 2006 10 A.M. TO 12 NOON

BOGNOR REGIS TOWN HALL

ITEMS FOR AGENDA

1. Notes from the meeting held on January 16^th 2006 and any matters arising

2. The West Sussex Stronger Communities Fund: Inter-generational project

3. Bognor Regis Masterplan

4. Littlehampton Vision

5. Local Area Agreement for West Sussex

6. Nomination process for additional Voluntary Sector representative

7. Health Issues / reports

(i) PCTs / SHA reconfiguration - update

(ii) Our Health, Our Care, Our Say

(ii) Creating an NHS fit for the future (Surrey & Sussex SHA)

(iv) Older Persons Mental Health (Western Sussex PCT)

8. Updates from:

(i) Area Investment Framework

(ii) Local Development Framework

(iii) Key Worker Housing Group

(iv) CDRP

9. Reports for the Steering Group’s consideration:

(ii) Crime & Disorder Act Review (see briefing attached)

10. List of reports / requests sent to LSP

(i) National Evaluation of LSPs

(ii) Life in West Sussex (West Sussex Sustainability Forum)

(iii) Sport England questionnaire

(At the suggestion of the Chair of the Steering Group, these reports are listed for information: if any Steering Group member wants any of these discussed at the meeting, please raise under Any Other Business)

11. Any Other Business

12. Dates of future meetings in 2006

ARUN LOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP (LSP) STEERING GROUP

Notes of the Meeting held on Monday 16^th January 2006

2pm at Littlehampton Town Council

Present (P):- 17 People

	NAME	ORGANISATION	REPRESENTING
P	Chair – Hilary Spencer	CVS Arunwide	Voluntary Sector
P	Jaqui Ball		Arun District Council
A	Ian Sumnall
P	Cllr Norman Dingemans
P	Kevin Bashford
P	Paula Welland	Arun DC	Area Investment Framework
P	Hazel Flack	Arun DC	Arun Youth Council
P	Kieran Stigant		West Sussex County Council
P	Cllr Mike Coleman
P	Nikkie Enticknap
P	Chris Bishop	WS Fire & Rescue
	Steve Whitton	Sussex Police	CDRP
	Mark Streater	Sussex Police	CDRP
P	Brian Bracher	Sussex Police	CDRP
	Lisa Rodrigues	NHS Trust	Health / Local Planning Group
A	Catherine Scott Howard Clement Clare Potter	AAW PCT
	Imogen Stephens	Western Sx PCT
	Sue Morris	Working Age MH	Mental Health
	Mark Stables	WSCC	Mental Health
P	Stephen Hughes	Community Legal Services Partnership
A	Jeremy Leggett		SRCC
	Trevor Leggo		SALC
	Stephen Haymes		JDAC
	Peter Downey	Angmering PC	JEAAC
	Brian Knight		WAAJC
	Ivan Olney		Arundel TC
	George O'Neill	ARUN LOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP – MARCH 29^TH 2006 UPDATE ON LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK Our Statement of Community Involvement is with the Planning Inspectorate for examination (all agreed to have their concerns dealt with through written representations). We are expecting to receive the Inspector's binding report by July. All local Planning Authorities in England have to maintain a Local Development Scheme (LDS), which enables the local community and any other interested bodies to find out what the three-year programme for the Local Development Framework will contain, and to let them know the likely dates for their involvement. Preparation of the Local Development Scheme is a mandatory requirement under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. It has to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate to draw up a Service Level Agreement with this Authority to ensure that the Examination Timetable will be met, and to the Secretary of State (via GoSE), for its approval. The LDS has to be reviewed and rolled forward on an annual basis to take account of progress on the programme and monitoring of the evidence base and adopted policies. The first LDS was approved in March 2005. Progress on the first LDS, approved March 2005 Good progress has been achieved on the first LDS. The timetabling for the Statement of Community Involvement was as stated. All objectors finally agreed to have their objections heard by written representations, and hence the Inspector agreed that no formal examination stage was required. This stage will be removed from the updated January 2006 LDS. The timetabling for the two Supplementary Planning Documents, one relating to Buildings or Structures of Character (Local List); and the other relating to updated descriptions for the Areas of Special Character was as stated in the LDS. These SPDs were adopted and entered into the Local Development Framework in September 2005. The Core Strategy timetable has been met up to and including the consultation on the Issues and Options. However, the timetable from here onwards will need to be put back as a result of some of the comments received from the Issues and Options consultation. Additional background work to form part of the evidence base to feed into the Preferred Option will include: · Rethinking our approach to areas of search for housing locations. The Highways Agency has advised us that the improvements to the A27 at Arundel are currently not scheduled for implementation, and are relatively low down on the list of highways improvement priorities. They indicated that they might object to any proposed development in locations that would result in placing additional traffic onto the A27. In order to assess this they have asked that we liaise with WSCC to undertake Transport Impact Assessment modeling on the locations we have suggested in the Issues and Options consultation, in order to produce evidence about which new development locations will have least impact on the road network and will be most sustainable in transport terms. A meeting with WSCC has taken place, resulting in the agreement to undertake joint studies. It is expected that the results from this additional work will be produced by the end of July 2006. · A Gypsy and Traveller Housing Needs Study, as required by the Housing Act which will result in identifying Areas of Search. This work will be carried out jointly with all of the District Councils in the county, and will be led by WSCC. The timescale for this study is not yet finalized. · The Countryside Agency and WSCC expressed concerns about the lack of an evidence base regarding Landscape Character. The Landscape Character Study expected from WSCC earlier in the year was not delivered. This work is now to be put out to consultants, and the results are expected in July 2006. This work will also examine the boundaries of Strategic and Local Gaps, and the potential for revising them without undermining their raison d’être. · The Open Space Study, commissioned from consultants has over-run, and the work produced is, in our view, unsatisfactory and does not meet the agreed brief. We are in discussion with the Consultants as to how to resolve this problem. · The Environment Agency has asked for a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment of the District. This would be in line with emerging guidance in Consultation draft PPS25. IMPLICATIONS OF SLIPPAGE TO THE TIMETABLE The overall slippage in timetable for adoption will be one year. This is unavoidable, as without the additional studies the Core Strategy would be open to objections on the grounds that it would be unsound. In such circumstances the Inspector would not be able to make a binding report. Previous discussions with the Environment Agency did not reveal a requirement for a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. It appears that this change in advice has resulted from the production of consultation draft PPS25. Slippage to the Core Strategy will have the knock on effect of one year and three months slippage to the Sustainable Communities DPD. This DPD will be adopted before the expiry date of the current Local Plan. However, a significant unknown at the time of drafting this report is the outcome of the inquiry held by the Secretary of State on the development proposals at Bersted and Felpham. If permission is granted then the Council should be able to meet the targets set in the Council’s Housing Delivery Plan. The revised LDS was submitted to GOSE and so far they have not agreed it. They have placed a holding direction on the revised LDS and have asked us for a meeting. Until it has been agreed I will not be able to publish it. The LSP have been e-mailed the results of the consultation, and we are currently working on the new studies, which in turn will help to decide the preferred option. We will get the LSP together again at this time (probably July) before we finalise the Preferred Options - we may be able to time this with the receipt of the Inspector's report on the SCI. At this meeting we will also discuss the public consultation methods for the Preferred Options stage. *Karen Dower* *Planning Policy Manager* *Arun DC* CDA Review Background · Carried out by Home Office, Local Government Association, Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities between November 2004 and January 2005. Proposals Proposals from the review fell within 5 main headings and are summarised as follows: Structures The strategic functions of Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) should be separated from the operational functions so to sharpen the roles and responsibilities between and within key agencies. Ideally, strategic level should be at County Level. Means that local authority cabinet members with the portfolio for community safety should sit on the Local Strategic Partnership which owns the LAA. The portfolio holder’s participation in the CDRP strategic decision making process will be mandatory to: o Provide a direct link between the heart of the council’s leadership and strategic community safety decision making processes; and o Ensure that chief officers of council services are held to account for those contributions; Delivery Adapt a National Intelligence Model (NIM) for partnerships and require its use in the strategic and operational functions of community safety. In essence, the NIM places focus on intelligence led, problem solving and outcome orientated approach to community safety. CDRPs should undertake at least six-monthly strategic assessments based on local intelligence to monitor / evaluate the strategy and direct partnership resources to areas where it is most required. This will need to tie in with the six monthly progress reports for Local Area Agreements to avoid duplication. The requirement for triennial audits and strategies to be replaced with annual rolling three year community safety plans CDRPs are to produce regular reports to their communities. The details of this will be set out in national standards after further consultation with stakeholders. These reports will need to be considered as part of the LSP’s overall communication strategy to avoid duplication. Strengthen section 115 (data sharing) of the CDA and place a duty on responsible authorities to share depersonalised data which is relevant for community safety purposes and which is already held in a depersonalised format. Expectation that district level CDRPs will in conjunction with the Home Office Regional Director for the area, consider carefully the merits of formally merging with other CDRPs. Where mergers do occur we will expect all the district portfolio holders to be involved in the newly merged CDRP. Governance & Accountability Ensure the CDRPs consult and engage with their communities on a regular and ongoing basis. No formalised framework as yet. Relevant here is Government’s Respect Action Plan (launched on 10/01/06). States that in future, senior representatives of CDRPs will be expected to hold regular “face the people” briefings i.e. q&a session open to the public. Details to be fleshed out in the proposed National Standards (item 6). CDRPs to produce regular reports to their communities. Increasing focus on CDRP being transparent and being accountable to it’s communities: The Home Office are introducing a mechanism (the ‘Community Call for Action’), as outlined in the White Paper Building Communities, Beating Crime. This will empower communities to secure a response from the police and their partners to a community safety issue that has not been adequately addressed. Ward councillors should have a key role in the process, so that the route to getting a response from the relevant agencies for local people will be through an approach to their ward councillor. A role for local authority scrutiny committees in looking at particularly difficult cases which cannot be resolved through the informal mechanisms which exist between the ward councillor and local partners. No need for CDRPs to report on annual performance to the Home Secretary anymore. Extend the powers of local authority Overview and Scrutiny Committees to encompass the work of CDRPs . A form of “scrutiny plus” involving members of Police and Fire Authorities and Primary Care Trust Boards to achieve a breadth and balance to the process allowing scrutiny committees better to reflect the cross cutting, multi-agency nature of much community safety work. The wider extension of scrutiny powers is considered within the ODPM Consultation “Local Strategic Partnerships: shaping the future” and will be developed as part of the Local Government White Paper and draft LSP Guidance during summer 2006. Mainstreaming Broaden the definition of section 17 (mainstreaming crime reduction) so that agencies take account of anti-social behaviour, behaviour adversely affecting the environment and substance misuse in addition to crime and disorder. Section 17 complements local authorities’ responsibilities under Part 1 of the Local Government Act 2000 to promote the economic, environmental and social well being of the communities they serve. Their community leadership role and the wide range of local services they provide makes them ideally placed to impact on the socio-economic and environmental drivers for crime. National Strategies A set of national standards identifying critical factors for successful partnership working will be put in place for community safety. Compliance will be compulsory. Consult with stakeholders on adopting a new name for English partnerships that better reflects the new wider remit (x ref broadening of section 17 responsibilities). Legislative Timetable A number of the proposals in this findings report will require new - or amendments to existing - legislation. The Police and Justice Bill (just introduced in Parliament) will be the vehicle for these changes. The Bill will make communities safer by driving forward the police reform programme and the Prime Minister’s Respect agenda. The legislative timetable will mean that Royal Assent is likely to be sought in the autumn of 2006, with implementation of the measures following thereafter. Impact of Police Reform & CDRPs Police reform will have major implications for partnership working at CDRP level. Home Office are suggesting that CDRPs and police force Basic Command Units should share the same boundaries (co-terminous) to maximise benefits for partnership working between the police and local authorities. Government are awaiting feedback from each police authority on their restructuring proposals which will inform the boundaries for BCUs and impact CDRPs i.e.merging them. Currently within Sussex Police, there are 5 BCU areas: West Downs (Adur, Worthing, Arun & Chichester) North Downs (Horsham, Mid Sussex, Crawley) Brighton & Hove East Downs (Eastbourne etc) Hastings & Rother Further information / guidance on this particular recommendation is not provided at this stage i.e. whether it will be compulsory.

Untitled 1

Bookmarks

Links

News

Links

Rich sticky notes

Meetings

CDA Review