►
From YouTube: Joint Overview & Scrutiny Committee 09 June 2022
Description
For more information, please visit:
Facebook: http://fb.me/AdurandWorthingCouncils
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/adurandworthing
Website: https://www.adur-worthing.gov.uk
A
A
A
A
Confirmation
of
minutes
the
minutes
have
been
duly
circulated.
Can
those
members
who
were
at
the
last
meeting,
which
was
in
worthing,
please
indicate
if
you're
happy
to
approve
those
as
a
true
record
julie
approved?
Thank
you
agenda.
Item
number.
Four
is
public
question
time
and
we
haven't
got
any
pre-submitted
public
questions.
A
B
A
A
We
have,
we
obviously
have
the
leaders
interviews,
we
have
the
chief
executive
and
we
have
all
the
respective
executive
members
and
again
it's
very
much
led
by
the
committee
as
to
what
questions
they
ask
the
committee.
The
committee
agrees
the
work
programme,
so
it's
inclusive,
it's
not
an
agenda,
that's
set
by
officers,
it's
very
committee-led
and
actually
it's
fairly
led
by
the
public,
and
we
always
seek
to
have
more
public
engagement
and
actually,
in
the
previous
year
we
did
have.
We
had
a
marathon
meeting
with
southern
water
which
lasted
well
over
four
hours.
A
B
May
I
ask
just
another
question
on
the
same
paragraph
when
it
talked
at
the
in
the
very
last
phrase,
help
publicize
and
promote
the
work
undertaken
amongst
the
local
community
and
local
partners?
Is
that
from
what
you've
just
said?
Is
that
an
area
where
you
think
we
need
to
do
further
work?
I
mean
maybe
coming
out
of
the
pandemic.
A
C
Yeah,
thank
you
chair.
It's
really
just
following
up
from
council
ghana's
comment
and
in
fact
my
own
notes
were
what
are
the
impact
because
clearly,
there's
been
a
number
of
reviews
in
here
yeah,
it's
identified
very
limited
recommendations
that
have
been
made,
but
I
suppose
my
question
is,
if
you're
making
a
recommendation
that
then
goes
back
to
jsc
or
to
a
full
council.
C
Surely
the
closing
of
that
circuit
is
a
tracking
system
that
comes
back
to
understand
what
the
impact
of
that
recommendation
has
been,
whether
it's
been
accepted,
whether
it's
been
declined,
how
it's
been
implemented
and
what
the
impact
of
that
has
been
and
maybe
going
forward.
We
should
be
actually
looking
to
have
a
tracking
system
that
we
go
back
and
review
ourselves
12
months
later
what
our
recommendations
have
been.
Otherwise
what
is
the
point
of
making
those
recommendations.
A
D
On
the
recommendations
that
I
made
to
the
joint
strategic
committee,
there
is
usually
a
report
back
on
the
outcomes
from
the
joint
strategic
committee
or
the
executives
when
they've
considered
the
matter.
So
that's
your
way
of
tracking,
but
you
know
I
take
on
broadcaster
jenkins
point.
I
mean
there
are
ways
to
improve
the
system
and
have
a
detailed
tracking
system
moving
forward.
So
it's
something
the
committee
might
want
to
look
at.
C
If
I
may
come
back,
thank
you,
mr
low,
for
that
absolutely
you're
tracking
what
the
determination
has
been
by
jscl4
council,
but
it
doesn't
track
what
the
impact
of
that
implementation
has
or
then
hasn't
been.
So
actually
you
know
to
actually
understand
that
impact,
because
in
your
annual
report
here
it
had
been
interesting
to
see
reflect
back
on
the
previous
annual
report
and
the
impact
impact
of
the
recommendations
that
have
been
made,
then
so
it
is
about
closing
that
loop.
So
I
would
welcome
to
see
some
improvements
in
that
area.
C
A
D
Chimney,
if
I'm
just
coming
again,
also
a
way
of
tracking
the
outcomes
is
for
the
committee
to
do
a
lot
of
post
scrutiny,
work
and
actually
reviewing
the
policies
that
are
implemented
as
a
result
of
the
decisions
made
by
the
joint
strategic
committee.
So
that's
a
way
of
doing
it
as
well,
so
and
that's
that
can
come
on
stream
later
on
jen.
Thank
you
yeah.
I
mean.
A
E
Thank
you
chair.
I
just
want
to
to
say
that
these
are
really
valuable
comments
and
mark
suggested
really
valuable
solution
to
it.
How
do
we
take
that
forward?
How
do
we
make
that
happen?.
A
D
A
A
We're
now
moving
on
to
the
josh
work
programme
review,
those
of
you
that
aren't
familiar
with
it.
This
item
provides
a
review
of
the
josswork
programme
for
the
coming
year,
in
which
josk
is
invited
to
note
and
to
also
consider
appointments
to
our
working
group
on
aida
home
issues,
as
referred
to
in
paragraph
4.3
of
the
report
mark.
Would
you
like
to
introduce
this
please
and
then
we
can
move
it
forward.
D
Chairman,
yes,
ultimate,
as
you
say,
is
the
work
programme
review
for
the
benefit
of
the
new
members.
The
work
program
was
agreed
by
councils
in
april,
and
details
of
the
work
program
are
set
out
in
the
appendix
attached
to
the
report
and
it
takes
you
through
each
month
the
work
that
the
committee
will
be
looking
at
and
also,
as
you
say,
united
eight.
The
committee
requested
to
appoint
members
to
the
ada
homes
working
group
and
that
set
out
and
details
of
that
set
out
in
paragraph
4.3.
D
Also.
I
would
like
to
refer
the
committee
to
the
bottom
of
paragraph
4.2
of
the
report,
which
the
the
final
sentence,
which
refers
to
the
ongoing
review
of
the
constitutions,
which
was
set
up
by
the
joint
governance
committee
last
week
and
they've,
agreed
to
set
up
a
working
group
to
review
the
constitutions,
so
the
outcomes
from
that
work
might
impact
on
the
work
of
josk
moving
forward
and
also
the
individual
overview
and
scrutiny
committees
and
that
might
determine
the
work
programme
moving
forward.
D
But
obviously
the
committee
do
have
the
opportunity
to
consider
adding
other
items
to
the
work
program
if
you
feel
appropriate,
because
although
it
was
agreed
by
councils,
it
is
a
rolling
work
program
which
the
committee
had
the
opportunity
to
add
to
or
take
items
away
chairman.
Thank
you.
A
Last
year
we
had
councillor
barton
who's
no
longer
on
this
committee.
The
current
members
are
councillor
stone,
force,
councillor,
sluman,
councillor
albury
and
councillor
buxton.
I
also
chair
that
working
group.
We
need
one
further
ada
member.
Would
anybody
like
to
put
themselves
forward
please
councillor
bridges?
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
That
was
easy.
Thank
you.
A
A
The
chairs
I've
discussed
this
with
councillor
rosa
and
we
would
support
that
approach.
We
we'd
welcome
your
comments
please.
A
C
Yeah,
thank
you,
chad.
Thank
you
for
that
update.
I
don't
know
if
july
is
going
to
be
the
appropriate
date,
because
the
information
I've
got
from
the
monitoring
officer
is
that
the
working
groups
will
be
working
throughout
the
summer
before
they
have
a
report
to
give
later
on.
So
unless
this
is
just
an
interim
update,
I
don't
believe
you'll
have
the
full
report.
A
Yeah,
I
think
that's
fair
comment.
Shall
I
yes,
please
yeah.
F
Thank
you.
Councillor
jenkins,
I've
been
discussing
with
the
monitoring
officer
and
with
the
councillor
loader
and
councillor
rosa
whether
or
not
josk
would
want
to
set
up
its
own
subcommittee,
which
it
is
able
to
do
under
the
joint
committee
agreement
to
scrutinize
the
decisions
of
the
separate,
ada
and
worthing
sub-committees.
F
C
No,
I
think
it's
it's
one.
What
approach
you
could
take
it
does
seem
to
be
a
degree
of
duplication,
because
clearly,
governance
will
dictate
and
ultimately
it's
a
bit
difficult
to
inform
when
you
don't
know
and
give
comment
when
you
don't
know
where
they're
going.
H
Sort
of
the
the
same
vein,
I
suppose,
if,
if
other
members
want
to
set
up
a
working
group
and
sit
on
it,
then
then
that's
obviously
fine
and
I
wouldn't
stand
in
anyone's
way,
but
does
strike
me
that
we're
talking
about
setting
up
a
lot
of
different
working
groups
all
to
look
at
largely
a
similar
area.
If,
if
governments
are
already
doing
that,
I
think.
F
F
F
H
I
suppose
the
only
comment
would
be
yes,
fine.
I
do
still
wonder
whether
a
meeting
in
five
weeks
time
is
a
bit
of
a
tight
timeline
for
us
to
get
together
and
do
do
that
piece
of
work
and
whether
september
might
be
the
better
time
for
it
again.
I'm
not
not
overly
concerned
that,
and
also
looking
at
the
agenda
in
the
work
programme,
the
proposed
agenda
for
the
14th
of
july.
H
It's
looking
to
be
quite
a
busy
committee
meeting,
as
it
is
already
with
seven
different
items
on
there,
including
some
meaty
ones,
like
the
budget
strategy
and
the
interview
with
the
leaders
and
so
on,
and
we
can
probably
ask
questions
in
that
leader's
interview.
If
we've
got
any
concerns
about
the
or
questions
about
this
and
then
take
a
more
comprehensive
report
in
september.
C
A
C
14Th,
the
working
group
hasn't
even
got
its
membership.
The
working
group
hasn't
even
set
itself
a
date
of
meeting
and
it'll
only
be
under
those
terms
of
reference
then,
but
the
publication
requirements.
I
I
support
what
council
obviously
saying
I
don't
think
you're
going
to
meet
the
timelines
to
actually
publish
a
report
for
their
terms
of
reference
to
be
known
him.
C
I
A
F
Well,
the
present
timeline
is
the
working
group
is
to
report
back
to
joint
governance
committee
on
the
27th
of
september.
We
could
ask,
oh
sorry,
we
could
ask
for
an
update
on
the
report
today.
Prior
to
that
27th
of
september
on
the
15th.
I
think
september
is
a
josk
meeting.
F
That
might
be
it's
a
tight
timeline,
but
that
might
be
more
sensible
because
thereafter,
joint
governance
will
report
ideally
to
full
councils
in
october
now
that
that
is
a
timeline
that
everyone's
hoping
to
work
to,
but
that,
of
course,
might
slip
okay,
but
but
I
agree
that
I
mean
the
the
purpose
of
asking.
The
question
was
to
make
sure
that
jost
members
felt
included
and
if
anyone
had
anything
they
passionately
wanted
to
say
to
to
do
so.
You
know,
but
otherwise
that
timeline
would
work.
Okay,.
A
A
A
I
This
committee
carries
out
rigorous
interviews
with
executive
members
and
yeah.
I
know
that
having
been
on
the
receiving
end
of
them,
I'm
just
looking
at
the
work
program,
there's
obviously
six
meetings
identified
for
the
next
municipal
year.
I
I
don't
know
the
full
details,
yet
I
don't
think
the
full
details
are
known
yet,
but
I
understand
there
will
be
nine
executive
members
for
the
new
administration
in
worthing.
How
does
that
sit
with
the
six
meetings
because,
obviously
it
was
it
was
one
exec
member
per
meeting
historically.
Will
there
be
more.
A
G
F
If
I
may
chair-
as
as
I
understand
it,
the
I
believe
internally,
the
portfolio
positions
have
now
been
agreed,
but
they
have
to
be
approved
by
councillor
cooper,
and
I
think
that
she
has
been
on
leave
this
week
and
it
will
be
imminent.
A
So
I
guess
we
have
to
wait
and
see
how
the
portfolios
match
and
then
we
will
have
to
make
a
decision
and
update
the
work
program
accordingly,
but
we
can't
do
it
at
this
stage.
We've
got
the
leaders,
haven't
we
coming
to
the
july
meeting
and
although
I
think
the
portfolios
are
going
to
be
slightly
different,
they'll
obviously
be
broadly
similar,
so
that
should
be
okay.
A
I
Yes,
other
than
the
fact
that
there
are
more
of
them,
so
that
was
really
my
question
as
to
how
that
was
going
to
fit
into
the
six
meetings,
because
obviously
you
would
have
to
have
more
than
one
per
meeting.
Would
that
be
possible,
because
the
interviews
I've
had
have
been,
as
I
say,
rigorous
and
entertaining
and
obviously
took
most
of
the
meeting.
So
I
just
wondered
what
the
practicalities
of
that
were.
I.
A
D
Yes,
so
I
would
say
so
chairman
I
mean.
Obviously
I
know
that
the
jsc
have
set
up
subcommittees
to
deal
with
individual
matters,
so
the
point
that
joe
was
making
john
lee
about
the
the
different
arrangements.
Obviously,
if
the
committee
did
set
up
subcommittees,
that
might
not
help
the
interview
process
if
you
decided
to
go
down
that
route,
but
obviously
that's
something
to
look
at
for
the
future.
But
but
yes,
you
are
right.
There
are
nine,
possibly
nine
executive
members
and
only
six
inader,
so
it
does.
D
J
C
Yes,
thank
you
chair.
I
suppose
it
really
flies
in
the
face
of
the
whole
purpose
of
this
meeting.
Doesn't
it
this?
Is
a
scrutiny
committee
to
be
able
to
hold
the
executive
committee,
members
of
worthing
council
or
indeed
ada
council
to
account,
but
we
don't
know
who
they
are,
but
actually
what
we've
heard
from
around
the
table
isn't
true.
C
We
do
know
who
the
leader
is:
we've
declared
who
the
executive
member
is
for
the
environment
we've
declared,
who
the
executive
member
is
for
resources
we've
declared
who
the
executive
member
is
for
regeneration,
so
actually
that
has
already
been
named
and
those
portfolios
are
known
and
available.
Those
members
could
be
called
to
put
this
and
put
through
on
the
timetable,
and
it's
really
disappointing
that
yet
again
at
this
meeting,
as
we
heard
at
jsc
earlier
on
this
week,
there
are
changes
due
to
happen.
C
Yeah,
we
recognize
that
changes
are
due
to
happen,
but
actually,
as
a
council
or
as
councils
we
are
still
constituted
and
our
constitution
hasn't
changed.
It
may
well
change
in
the
future
in
october
or
december
or
january
or
february,
but
until
it
changes
we're
legally
obliged
to
operate
within
our
existing
constitution,
and
therefore
I
would
suggest
that
you
know
we
need
to
confirm,
which
is
the
executive
member
coming
in
july,
whether
that's
the
leader
from
either
councils.
C
A
C
G
How
would
you
like
to
be
updated?
I'm
not
entirely
sure,
because
we're
still
what
we
do
have
certain.
We
do
know
certain
roles
are
being
filled,
but
there
are
different
roles,
different
titles
and
that's
been
spread
around.
So
some
of
the
executive
roles
will
be
overlapping,
so
it
may
be
possible
to
invite
two
people
to
come
and
be
interviewed
if
the
portfolio.
A
Matching,
I
think,
is
the
issue
at
the
moment,
councillor.
K
I'm
not
experienced
enough
to
know
if
this
is
entirely
relevant
to
this
conversation,
but
I
would
like
to
just
comment
that
there
is
also
an
ask,
so
isn't
is
there's
an
ask,
and
just
so
that
they're,
you
know
the
individual
issues
that
only
apply
to
one
or
the
other
will
be
taken,
and
that
will
reduce
the
content
of
what
we
have
to
do.
Moving
forward,
won't
it
so
that
will
make
space
in
the
in
in
the
future.
Jo,
would.
F
F
They
relate
to
budget
the
local
plan
and
the
review
of
a
call-in,
so
the
use
of
jot
the
use
of
asks,
as
opposed
to
sub-committees,
will
be
something
that
may
well
form
part
of
that
constitutional
review
by
the
joint
governance
working
group.
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
clarifying
that
councillor
jenkins.
C
Thank
you
so
chair
on
that
very
point.
Having
now
heard
the
advice
from
the
legal
officer,
the
constituted
mandate
is
this
forum
to
hold
both
councils
jointly
or
separately
executive
members
jointly
or
separately,
irrespective
of
their
portfolios,
irrespective
of
whether
they've
got
5,
10
or
15
items
underneath
it
in
that
portfolio
responsible,
and
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we
continue
to
do
that
as
a
joint
overview
and
scrutiny
committee
and
not
allow
ourselves
to
be
pushed
down
the
line
that
says
we'll
wait
for
that
governance
review.
C
Now,
I'm
really
glad
to
hear
that
the
leaders
are
coming
in
july,
but
I
think
yeah.
This
is
the
meeting.
When
we'd
normally
set
a
year's
worth
of
agenda,
we
know
that
we
will
not
be
seeing
constitutional
changes,
probably
until
the
council
meetings
either
in
october
or
december
or
even
later.
We
should
be
continuing
with
the
good
work
that
this
committee
has
done
going
forward
and
not
abdicating
that
responsibility,
because
somebody
wants
to
change
something.
D
Yes,
chairman,
all
I
was
going
to
say
was
that
obviously
the
committee
does
have
the
right.
I
think
my
legal
colleague
can
correct
me,
but
as
a
way
of
moving
forward,
they
can
have
individual
interviews
with
separate
executive
members
as
a
worthy
or
an
age-only
matter,
because
obviously,
for
example,
the
leaders
there
will
be
separate
questions
yeah
for
those
two
leaders
moving
forward.
So
you
could
do
the
same
with
the
executive
members
and
have
them
at
the
bottom
of
the
agenda.
D
D
Some
of
them
are
slightly
different,
but
they,
I
think
they
probably
I
haven't
seen
them,
but
they
probably
mirror,
or
they
mirrored
each
other
better
previously
than
they
are
going
to
now.
D
A
I
G
A
Yeah,
that's
a
very
valid
point.
If
mr
lowe
could
look
at
that
please
and
identify
way
forward
if
you're
happy
with
that.
A
C
Just
picking
up
on
the
points,
mr
lowe
gratefully
to
go
away
but
come
come.
Can
I
make
a
suggestion
that,
looking
at
the
november
meeting
you
have
on
the
agenda
towards
a
sustainable
financial
position,
the
budget
update
from
the
chief
financial
officer?
Can
I
suggest
that
we
seek
the
executive
member
for
resources
to
join
us
on
the
november
meeting.
A
H
I
was
actually
going
to
go
a
little
bit
put
that
on.
I
was
actually
going
to
go
a
little
bit
further
than
councillor
jenkins
on
that
point,
because
just
going
through
it,
it
did
strike
me
that
we've
got
a
lot
of
officers
coming
to
answer.
H
Questions
on
reports
and
I've
made
a
note
for
actually
budget
strategy
in
july,
placing
vulnerable
people
later
in
the
year
and
the
one
that
council
jenkins
just
referenced
the
budget
update
later
in
the
year
and
then
the
climate
change
one
all
of
which
I'd
actually
think
that
the
rel
it
would
be.
There
might
well
be
political
questions
to
ask
of
the
relevant
executive
members
that
wouldn't
be
appropriate
for
officers,
so
I've
had
a
look
at
all
these
and
certainly
no
you
know
I've
been
on
the
other
side
before
that.
H
I
would
have
expected
to
be
coming
along
to
to
answer
questions
there
and
that's
not
in
there.
So
just
wonder
if,
for
those
for
we
could-
and
just
you
know,
on
the
on
the
basis
of
being
reasonable
on
it,
invite
them
to
come
along,
and
then
we
do
the
pre-submitted
questions.
A
A
B
H
There
there
is
yeah,
we've
got
the
sustainable
aw
and
we've
got
our
carbon
reduction
plans,
of
which
we
would
benchmark
against.
I
guess
my
point,
though,
for
for
asking
about
whether
that
was
one
of
my
identifiers
foreign
to
come
along
is
the
new
administration,
for
worthing,
obviously
might
have
some
different
benchmarks
and
put
in
between
now
and
then
and
that
I
think
that
would
be
the
point
at
which
you
know
questions
would
be
valid.
There.
A
E
I'd
like
to
just
go
back
to
something
john
lee
said
about
the
rules
for
ask,
and
I
was
wondering
whether
items
such
as
ada
homes
that
are
clearly
ada
only
are
ought
to
be
held
at
ask
rather
than
just
because
we
just
absent
ourselves.
Don't
we
from
each
other's
business
or
maybe
I'm
getting
completely
mixed
up,
but
it
feels
like
an
aider
only
issue.
So
joe.
F
Yes,
if
I
might
just
clarify-
because
it
is
indeed
complicated
so
at
the
moment,
under
the
joint
committee
agreement,
joint
overview
and
scrutiny
can
set
up
subcommittees
to
deal
with
aid
or
only
matters
or
worthing
only
matters.
Those
subcommittees
would
need
to
be.
Members
of
you
know:
ada
members
from
josk
or
worthy
members
from
josk,
so
the
difference
is
that
we
can
set
up
a
subcommittee,
whereas
ask
can
only
deal
with
those
matters
that
are
referred
to
in
schedule.
One
of
the
joint
committee
agreement.
H
One
last
one
from
me:
I
promise,
since
this
committee
last
minute
I
didn't
make
the
last
meeting,
I'm
afraid
I
was
working
away
since
the
the
committee
last
met
back
in
march,
and
since
we,
the
the
the
work
programs
were
agreed
by
full
councils,
it's
been
announced
that
both
councils
are
to
receive
a
million
pounds
each
in
the
shared
prosperity
fund.
Unlike
other
grant
funding
that
we
we
have
had
in
the
past
from
government,
that's
not
ring
fenced
or
pre-agreed.
It
wasn't
bid
for
on
the
basis.
H
I'd
like
to
propose
that
something
was
added
to
the
work
program,
and
that's
that
seems
a
very
big
piece
of
work
that
I
think
that
counselors
who
aren't
on
the
executive
would
be
interested
in
understanding
the
process
of
allocating
that
money.
And
I
wonder
if
at
some
point
in
the
next
couple
of
meetings,
or
maybe
even
a
small
working
group
is
set
up
to
have
a
look
at
how
that
that
money
is
allocated,
obviously
that
the
final
decision
will
be
for
the
two
councils
executives.
But
I'd.
H
Imagine
that
all
of
us
around
members
of
the
the
the
joint
overview
and
scrutiny
committee
would
be
quite
interested
in
how
such
large
amounts
of
money
gets
spent
in
their
communities.
And
there
might
be
a
piece
of
work
there
for
us
about.
Looking
at
how
we
assess
how
that.
J
H
Is
spent
and
perhaps
make
some
recommendations,
the
executive
on
how
that
money
is
dispersed
and
hear
a
bit
from
them
about
what
they're
thinking
early
on?
Would
that
have
any
support
from
anyone
to
add
that
to
the
work
program.
A
A
D
Chairman,
if
it
helps
it's
usual
practice,
council
hunter
is
when
items
get
put
forward.
They
then
sort
of
get
referred
back
to
the
next
committee
yeah,
with
a
sort
of
like
scope,
proposal,
form
yeah,
and
then
the
committee
can
consider
whether
they
should
be
added
to
the
work
program.
D
So
if
it
helps,
would
it
be
helpful
if
I
brought
back
a
report
to
the
next
committee,
which
just
sets
out
perhaps
a
scope
and
a
bit
more
information
on
that
item
which
might
help
you
decide
if
you
want
to
do
a
working
group
or
not.
A
A
Agenda
item
number:
nine:
is
the
josk
working
group,
the
review
of
the
worthing
business
improvement
district
known
as
bid.
This
is
obviously
a
worthing
only
item
the
ada
members
are
very
welcome
to
stay.
One
of
us
has
to
stay,
which
can
be
me
if
the
rest
of
you
would
like
to
say
good
evening.
You're
very
welcome
to
do
so,
but
if
you
would
like
to
stay
you're
equally
welcome:
okay,
okay,
okay,
let's
give
a
couple
of
moments.
A
G
G
This
review
was
requested
because
of
concerns
about
the
way
the
bid
was
operating
and
its
relationship
with
the
borough
council.
There
are
also
concern.
There
were
also
concerns
that
there
was
a
need
to
review
the
revised
business
plan
for
the
bid
going
ahead
to
ballot
businesses
for
the
fourth
term
and
the
impact
that
the
objectives
in
the
plan
would
have
and
what
it
would
provide
to
the
communities.
G
As
part
of
this
review,
the
working
group
interviewed
a
number
of
local
businesses
and
stakeholders,
including
members
and
officers
of
the
council,
as
well
as
others
connected
with
bids
across
the
uk,
and
received
a
great
deal
of
evidence
from
the
witnesses,
which
is
the
main
highlighted
in
the
main
highlighted.
Clearly,
there
is
a
good
level
of
support
for
the
worthing
bid
and
the
value
it
brings
to
the
town
which
is
not
in
doubt.
G
B
Thank
you
chair,
I
was
some
of
this
might
be
things
that
I
just
don't
don't
know
about
the
town
centre
initiative
and.
J
B
So
please
bear
with
me:
is
the
town
centre
initiative
and
the
bid
area
co-terminus?
Do
you
know
that
did
that.
G
G
B
Thank
you,
may
I
ask
another
question:
did
you
did
you
look
at
the
the
communications
and
marketing
that
was
done
because
thinking
about
the
town
centre,
initiative
and
the
time
for
worthing
were
the
were
they
kind
of
joined
up
in
their
work
together?
I
was
thinking
about
what
information
that's
on
their
websites
and
where
they
point
people
to.
G
There
was
some
discussion
of
that.
We
talked
to
both
time
for
worthing
and
to
the
town
center
initiative,
people
and
bid
people,
and
I
think
the
main
concern
was
that
the
bid
hadn't
seen
any
business
plan
from
time
for
worthing
as
yet,
but
they
are
now
getting
into
close-up,
and
the
chair
of
the
business
is
now
actually
part
of
the
management
committee
of
the
time
for
worthing.
So
thank
you.
C
Okay,
good.
Thank
you
any
other
questions.
Please
counsel
jenkins.
Yeah.
Thank
you
chair.
Thank
you,
councillor,
rosa
for
the
report,
a
very
detailed
report
and
I
welcome
it.
Can
I
just
take
you
to
paragraph
3.2.
If
I
may,
though,
you've
stated
in
the
reporter,
maybe
it's
the
author
of
the
report,
that's
responsible
for
the
inaccuracy
that
the
reason
for
the
scrutiny
request
was
to
establish
whether
there
is
a
difference
between
the
tci
and
the
bid.
C
That's
not
factually
true.
If
you
look
at
the
scrutiny
request
that
was
made,
the
scrutiny
request
was
made
purely
on
two
questions,
which
are
the
statutory
responsibilities
of
worthy
borough
council
to
determine
whether
the
levy
that
was
being
proposed
would
place
an
undue
burden
on
those
being
asked
to
pay
for
it,
and
whether
the
strategy
for
the
bid
was
at
odds
with
any
council
work.
That
was
the
pure
two
questions
that
you
were
being
asked
to
establish
that
wasn't
a
request
to
identify
the
difference
between
the
tci
and
the
bid.
D
C
You
just
continued
in
that
paragraph.
It
actually
quotes
myself
saying
councillor
jenkins
was
concerned
that
not
been
any
real
scrutiny.
It
wasn't
that
I
was
concerned.
I
think
scrutiny
as
we've
all
spoken
about
today
is
really
welcomed.
It
was
that
actually
having
studied,
as
I'm
sure
mr
rosa
has,
over
the
time
what
the
purposes
are
bidded
with
the
legislation.
G
I
don't
think
I
have
anything
to
respond
to
that.
It
just
seems
to
be
fairly
clear
to
me
that
we
were
responding
to
the
request
to
scrutinize
the
bid
which
hadn't
been
done
before.
Is
that
not
the
case.
C
No,
what
I
identified
you
at
the
interviews
I
had
identified
that
the
council
hadn't
been
fulfilling
its
responsibility.
I
didn't
say
that
I
was
concerned
that
there
hadn't
been
any
real
concern.
These
scrutiny
are
saying
that
I
identified
that
the
council
hadn't
fulfilled
its
statutory
responsibility.
It's
the
nuance
on
the
language.
I
think
more
than
anything
else.
D
Yes,
that
can
be
included.
I
mean
I
can
revisit
the
the
transcript
of
the
interview
just
to
make
sure
that
is
accurate
chairman,
because
I
don't
have
that
to
hand
at
this
stage,
but
I
think
it's
probably
just
a
play
on
the
wording
and
then
which
the
working
group
have
agreed
to
put
in
and
it's
it's
at
their
discretion
really
chairman
to
put
that
wording
in,
but
but
I
will
check
again
chem.
Thank
you.
J
Please
counselor.
J
It
says
under
one
of
the
bullet
points,
that
the
relationship
is
a
bit
fracturous
at
the
moment
and
that
some
businesses
have
seen
the
value
of
the
bid,
whereas
others
haven't
done
so.
Did
the
working
group
find
any
recommendations
to
how
this
relationship
could
be
improved,
going
forward.
G
We
did
talk
to
the
bid
and
talk
to
various
local
businesses
as
it
says,
but
I
think
it's
a
bit
fractious.
G
I
think
maybe
we
need
the
previous
administration
in
worthing
may
not
have
been
as
clear
and
transparent
with
it
as
we
were,
as
that
bid
was
hoping.
That's
as.
G
It
further
on
it's
mentioned.
It
has
been
sorry
further
on
it's
mentioned
that
there
was
some
sense
that
the
council
was
secretive,
but
I
hope
we
can
change
that.