Agenda and minutes

20.1     Apologies were received from Cllr Baxter, Cllr Bence, Cllr Burgess, Cllr Kenyon, Cllr Kerry-Bedell, Cllr Nagel, Cllr Oppler, Cllr Pudaloff, Cllr Richardson and Cllr Turley. Note: A number of members gave apologies due to a change in meeting date.

20.2     Cllr Markwell arrived at 12 noon. Cllr Joy gave his apologies and left the morning session at 12.20 pm. Apologies for the afternoon session were received from Cllr Britton, Cllr Crow, Cllr Marshall and Cllr Smith.

20.3     Cllr Evans was absent for the afternoon session. Cllr Markwell and Cllr Chowdhury left at 2.45 pm and 3.30 pm respectively.

Members are asked to disclose any pecuniary or personal interests in matters appearing on the agenda.

21.1     Members declared interests as set out at Appendix 1.

The Council is asked to confirm the minutes of the annual meeting of the County Council held on 26 May 2023.

22.1     It was agreed that the minutes of the Annual Meeting of the County Council held on 26 May 2023 (pages 5 to 26) be approved as a correct record.

To consider any proposed changes to appointments. Any proposals will be circulated and changes will take effect from the end of the meeting.

23.1     The Council approved appointments as set out below.

The Council is asked to consider changes to the terms of reference of the Governance Committee and to Standing Orders in line with government guidance on severance payments to staff, in the light of the report by the Governance Committee.

24.1     The Council considered changes to the terms of reference of the Governance Committee and to Standing Orders in line with government guidance on severance payments to staff, in the light of the report by the Governance Committee (pages 27 to 32).

24.2     In response to a comment from Cllr Oxlade about whether the new procedure would have been triggered in previous years had it been in place, the Chairman said officers would respond to the member’s request for information should he wish it.

24.3     Resolved –

That the proposed changes to the Governance Committee’s terms of reference in the Scheme of Delegation and to Standing Orders, as set out at Appendix 1 to the report, be approved.

The Council is asked to note the Scrutiny Annual Report from the Performance and Finance Scrutiny Committee which summarises the main activities of scrutiny, lessons learnt and any development issues identified during 2022/23.

25.1     The Chairman of the Performance and Finance Scrutiny Committee asked the Council to note the Scrutiny Annual Report which summarises the main activities of scrutiny, lessons learnt and any development issues identified during 2022/23 (pages 33 to 42).

25.2     Resolved –

That the Scrutiny Annual Report 2022/23, as attached at Appendix 1 to the report, be noted.

The Council is asked to note a report from the Standards Committee on its activities for the period from April 2022 to March 2023.

26.1     The Council noted a report from the Standards Committee on its activities for the period from April 2022 to March 2023 (pages 43 to 46).

26.2     Resolved -

That the report be noted.

Questions to the Leader and Cabinet Members on matters in the Cabinet report, written questions and any other questions relevant to their portfolios. Members may also ask questions of the Leader on anything current and relevant to the County Council. The report covers portfolio-related business since the meeting of the Council on 26 May 2023. A supplementary report may be published.

(2 hours is allocated for Question Time)

27.1     Members asked questions of members of the Cabinet on matters relevant to their portfolios, as set out at Appendix 3. This included questions on those matters contained within the Cabinet report (pages 47 to 52) and a supplementary report (supplement pages 7 and 8) and written questions and answers pursuant to Standing Order 2.38 (set out at Appendix 2).

To debate the following motion, submitted by Cllr Dabell, notice of which was given on 28 June 2023.

‘This Council notes that the County Councils Network has joined 29 other signatories in signing a letter to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, calling on him not to implement the proposed Infrastructure Levy, warning that it could result in less infrastructure being delivered, fewer affordable homes being built, and could impact negatively on housing delivery.

The Council shares these concerns, and believes that the proposed Levy will have an impact on securing much-needed community infrastructure, such as schools, roads and health facilities amongst others, with the required funding from housing developments not being secured as a result. The Council is also concerned that the detail of how the proposed Levy is expected to work could have unintended consequences which could actually lead to fewer new affordable homes being built.

The Council also notes that under the Government’s proposals, county councils would no longer be statutory consultees with regard to future planning developments in their counties, meaning that local district and borough planning authorities would be able to ignore county council requests for developer contributions towards the vital infrastructure which new and existing communities will need as a direct result of those developments, including new schools, roads, public transport and active travel schemes, and new community facilities such as doctors’ surgeries and other health facilities.

The Council believes strongly that county councils should be statutory stakeholders in any future Infrastructure Levy scheme designed to respond to new infrastructure needs generated by housing development, to enable them to lobby, negotiate and advocate effectively on behalf of the communities they represent, to ensure that the needs of those communities are met in full in response to new development.

The Council therefore asks the Leader to write to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities reiterating these concerns on behalf of the whole Council, and asking that the Infrastructure Levy is not implemented in its current proposed format.’

28.1     The following motion was moved by Cllr Dabell and seconded by Cllr Baldwin.

‘This Council notes that the County Councils Network has joined 29 other signatories in signing a letter to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, calling on him not to implement the proposed Infrastructure Levy, warning that it could result in less infrastructure being delivered, fewer affordable homes being built, and could impact negatively on housing delivery.

The Council shares these concerns, and believes that the proposed Levy will have an impact on securing much-needed community infrastructure, such as schools, roads and health facilities amongst others, with the required funding from housing developments not being secured as a result. The Council is also concerned that the detail of how the proposed Levy is expected to work could have unintended consequences which could actually lead to fewer new affordable homes being built.

The Council also notes that under the Government’s proposals, county councils would no longer be statutory consultees with regard to future planning developments in their counties, meaning that local district and borough planning authorities would be able to ignore county council requests for developer contributions towards the vital infrastructure which new and existing communities will need as a direct result of those developments, including new schools, roads, public transport and active travel schemes, and new community facilities such as doctors’ surgeries and other health facilities.

The Council believes strongly that county councils should be statutory stakeholders in any future Infrastructure Levy scheme designed to respond to new infrastructure needs generated by housing development, to enable them to lobby, negotiate and advocate effectively on behalf of the communities they represent, to ensure that the needs of those communities are met in full in response to new development.

The Council therefore asks the Leader to write to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities reiterating these concerns on behalf of the whole Council, and asking that the Infrastructure Levy is not implemented in its current proposed format.’

28.2     The motion was carried.

To debate the following motion, submitted by Cllr Lord, notice of which was given on 27 June 2023.

‘County and district and borough councillors across West Sussex are regularly approached by residents, parish, neighbourhood and town councils about potholes and the state of the highways locally. The transparency of priorities, intervention levels and programming is poor leading to residents believing that their roads are forgotten at the expense of other parts of the county.

The cold and wet weather of the past winter has caused huge damage to our roads which West Sussex County Council has struggled to fix in a timely manner. This has led to significant frustration amongst residents and occasional regrettable and unacceptable behaviour towards our hardworking highways officers and the Council’s contractors.

Therefore, this Council:

(1)        Expresses its thanks to all officers who have worked diligently throughout the winter and spring to repair our roads and deal with resident frustration.

(2)        Asks residents to be mindful that the individuals on the frontline are not responsible for the policies that have caused the problems.

(3)        Declares that it no longer has confidence in the current model for highways repairs and therefore asks the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport to:

(a)        Urgently review the contract, oversight and response to emergency repairs to ensure this Council is better able to manage winter pressures and the impacts of climate change.

(b)        Ensure that there is no perception of geographical preference in the prioritisation of repairs through greater transparency of data shared with councillors and residents.

(c)         Improve engagement with district, borough, town and parish councils on highway matters to aid knowledge sharing and transparency.

(d)        Explore how the Council could fund an alternative approach to repairs and pilot this with district, borough, town and parish councils who are willing to work together on this.’

29.1     The following motion was moved by Cllr Lord and seconded by Cllr Condie.

‘County and district and borough councillors across West Sussex are regularly approached by residents, parish, neighbourhood and town councils about potholes and the state of the highways locally. The transparency of priorities, intervention levels and programming is poor leading to residents believing that their roads are forgotten at the expense of other parts of the county.

The cold and wet weather of the past winter has caused huge damage to our roads which West Sussex County Council has struggled to fix in a timely manner. This has led to significant frustration amongst residents and occasional regrettable and unacceptable behaviour towards our hardworking highways officers and the Council’s contractors.

Therefore, this Council:

(1)         Expresses its thanks to all officers who have worked diligently throughout the winter and spring to repair our roads and deal with resident frustration.

(2)         Asks residents to be mindful that the individuals on the frontline are not responsible for the policies that have caused the problems.

(3)         Declares that it no longer has confidence in the current model for highways repairs and therefore asks the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport to:

(a)         Urgently review the contract, oversight and response to emergency repairs to ensure this Council is better able to manage winter pressures and the impacts of climate change.

(b)         Ensure that there is no perception of geographical preference in the prioritisation of repairs through greater transparency of data shared with councillors and residents.

(c)         Improve engagement with district, borough, town and parish councils on highway matters to aid knowledge sharing and transparency.

(d)         Explore how the Council could fund an alternative approach to repairs and pilot this with district, borough, town and parish councils who are willing to work together on this.’

29.2     An amendment was moved by Cllr Boram and seconded by Cllr Elkins.

‘County and district and borough councillors across West Sussex are regularly approached by residents, parish, neighbourhood, and town, district and borough councils about potholes and the state of the highways locally. The transparency of Priorities, intervention levels and programming are misunderstood is poor leading to some residents believing that their roads are forgotten at the expense of other parts of the county.

The cold and wet weather of the past winter has caused huge damage to our roads which West Sussex County Council, as with all highway authorities, has struggled to fix in a timely manner. This has led to significant frustration amongst residents and occasional regrettable and unacceptable behaviour towards our hardworking highways officers and the Council’s contractors.

Therefore, this Council:

(1)         Expresses its thanks to all officers and contractors who have worked diligently throughout the winter and spring to repair our roads and deal with resident frustration.

(2)         Asks residents to be mindful that the individuals on the frontline are not responsible for the complex set of factors policies that have caused the problems.

(3)         Declares that it no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.