Agenda and minutes

69.1   Apologies were received from Lt Col Barton, Mrs Bennett, Mrs Brunsdon, Mrs Jones, Mrs Mullins, Mr Patel, Mrs Smith and Mr Whittington.

69.2   Apologies for the afternoon session were received from Mr Simmons.  Mrs Hall and Mr Markwell were absent for the afternoon session.  Mr Oppler left at 3.15 p.m.  Dr O’Kelly, Ms Lord and Mr Turner left at 4.00 p.m.

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

70.1   Members declared interests as set out at Appendix 1.

The Council is asked to confirm the minutes of the ordinary meeting of the County Council held on 20 July 2018.

71.1   It was agreed that the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the County Council held on 20 July 2018 (pages 11 to 38) be approved as a correct record.

To consider any proposed changes by the Groups to appointments.

Any proposals will be circulated and changes will take effect from the end of the meeting.

72.1   The Council approved appointments to fill vacancies as set out below.

The Council is asked to approve the appointment of Mr Trevor Cristin, Director of Education, Church of England Diocese of Chichester, as a voting co-opted member of the Children and Young People’s Services Select Committee (to fill a vacancy).

73.1   The Council approved the appointment of Mr Trevor Cristin, Director of Education, Church of England Diocese of Chichester, as a voting co-opted member of the Children and Young People’s Services Select Committee to fill a vacancy.

The Council is asked to debate the following petition in accordance with Standing Order 3.39. 

A statement by the petitioners and a briefing note by the Executive Director Children, Adults, Families, Health and Education will follow.

Save Crawley Open House!

‘This petition demands that West Sussex County Council rejects the proposed cuts to Housing Related Support, which will cause untold misery for the most vulnerable members of our society, and instead maintains this vital support for our local homeless.’

(5 minutes is allocated for the Lead Petitioner, 5 minutes for the Cabinet Member’s response followed by an opportunity for a members’ debate of no more than 30 minutes with each member allowed to speak for a maximum of 3 minutes.  At the end of the debate and before any proposition is put, the Lead Petitioner and Cabinet Member will each be given 3 minutes for a closing statement.)

74.1   The Council debated the following petition.  A briefing note from the Director of Law and Assurance and a statement from the petitioners and been circulated with the agenda (supplement pages 3 and 5).

Save Crawley Open House!

‘This petition demands that West Sussex County Council rejects the proposed cuts to Housing Related Support, which will cause untold misery for the most vulnerable members of our society, and instead maintains this vital support for our local homeless.’

74.2   Mr Peter Lamb, on behalf of the petitioners, addressed the Council for five minutes in support of the petition.

74.3   The Cabinet Member for Adults and Health responded to the petition for five minutes on behalf of the County Council.

74.4   The Council debated the petition. 

74.5   Mr Lamb, on behalf of the petitioners, and the Cabinet Member were each given three minutes to make a closing statement. 

74.6   A proposition was moved by Mr Bradbury and seconded by Mrs Arculus as set out below:

‘That this County Council supports the Cabinet Member for Adults and Health in engaging with the recently-formed consortium to ensure that future contracts meet the need for targeted support and mitigate any unintended consequences and in ensuring that the County Council’s work with districts and boroughs achieves an integrated approach to tackling homelessness across the county.’

74.7   The proposition was put to a recorded vote under Standing Order 35.5.

(a)     For the proposition – 48

Mr Acraman, Mrs Arculus, Lt Cdr Atkins, Mr Baldwin, Mr Barling, Mr Barrett-Miles, Mr Boram, Mr Bradbury, Mr Bradford, Mrs Bridges, Mr Catchpole, Mr Cloake, Mr Crow, Mrs Dennis, Mrs Duncton, Mr Edwards, Mr Elkins, Mr Fitzjohn, Ms Flynn, Ms Goldsmith, Mrs Hall, Mr High, Mr Hillier, Mr Hunt, Mrs Jupp, Mr Jupp, Ms Kennard, Mrs Kitchen, Mr Lanzer, Mr Lea, Mr Markwell, Mr Marshall, Mr McDonald, Mr Mitchell, Mr Montyn, Mr R J Oakley, Mr S J Oakley, Mr Parikh, Mrs Pendleton, Mr Petts, Mrs Purnell, Mrs Russell, Mr Simmons, Mrs Sparkes, Mr Turner, Mrs Urquhart, Mr Waight and Mr Wickremaratchi.

(b)     Against the proposition - 12

Mr Buckland, Dr Dennis, Mr Jones, Ms Lord, Mrs Millson, Dr O’Kelly, Mr Oppler, Mr Oxlade, Mr Purchese, Mr Quinn, Mr Smytherman and Dr Walsh.

(c)     Abstentions – 1

Mr Barnard

74.8   The proposition was carried.

74.9   A proposition was moved by Mr Jones and seconded by Mr Oxlade as set out below:

‘That this Council supports the petition and calls on the Cabinet Member to agree to the request made in the petition and abandon the proposals to cut the home support fund in any way and confirm that the current contracts remain in place for a further year.’

74.10The proposition was put to a recorded vote under Standing Order 35.5.

(a)     For the proposition – 13

Mr Buckland, Dr Dennis, Mr Jones, Ms Lord, Mr Markwell, Mrs Millson, Dr O’Kelly, Mr Oppler, Mr Oxlade, Mr Purchese, Mr Quinn, Mr Smytherman and Dr Walsh.

(b)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

To consider the following motion, submitted by Mr Jones, notice of which was given on 21 September 2018.

‘This Council is extremely concerned that 2018 has seen the number of people sleeping rough in West Sussex reach its highest level since modern records began.  It supports the aims of the Government’s Rough Sleeping Strategy to tackle rough sleeping and pledges to do it all it can to ensure the aims to eradicate rough sleeping become a reality in West Sussex, including targeted prevention activity.  Furthermore, this Council values the work of voluntary sector organisations around the county who support some of the most vulnerable residents who are at risk of homelessness or who need support to prevent them from being homeless.  The Council is concerned to note that:

(1)     The current proposals being considered by the Cabinet Member which might cut the entire funding for housing support will bring significant impacts in the medium to longer term by adding to the demand for acute higher cost specialist services and that implementation of these proposals would not only put this Council at odds with national government policy but crucially will deny local councils the opportunity to secure government funding in tackling this major social problem.  In addition, the ‘floating support’ services at threat are a key tool for promoting social inclusion and stable communities through tenancy sustainment, community engagement and a reduction in anti-social behaviour, all key planks in meeting strategic objectives within the Council’s own West Sussex Plan 2017-22;

(2)     Without this support this Council expects to see a rise in homelessness across all client groups, including families with associated social and health costs.  These include direct costly impacts on social care services through family breakdown with increased child protection issues, foster and other care placements and temporary accommodation placements for intentionally homeless families.  Poor educational attainment and increased truancy rates for children in unsettled and temporary accommodation will inevitably be added consequences;

(3)     The termination of housing support for young people over 18, through such initiatives as the foyers across the county, puts vulnerable young people who have either suffered a troubled family life, or are care leavers, in a position where they will be moved from a relatively stable and secure environment which can be used as a stepping stone into living independently, and either be immediately forced into shared temporary accommodation or sharing in the private rented sector, with people who will not be vetted or motivated to act in that young person’s best interest.  While this would be undesirable for all young people placed in that situation, it will be particularly inconsistent with the Council’s duty as a corporate parent to care leavers, who form a significant proportion of the current service users; and

(4)     If funding is removed and refuge accommodation for women and their children subjected to domestic abuse is no longer available, this will put women’s lives and children’s lives directly at risk, as well as taking away support for women with their  ...  view the full agenda text for item 75.

75.1   The following motion was moved by Mr Jones and seconded by Mr Oxlade.

‘This Council is extremely concerned that 2018 has seen the number of people sleeping rough in West Sussex reach its highest level since modern records began.  It supports the aims of the Government’s Rough Sleeping Strategy to tackle rough sleeping and pledges to do it all it can to ensure the aims to eradicate rough sleeping become a reality in West Sussex, including targeted prevention activity.  Furthermore, this Council values the work of voluntary sector organisations around the county who support some of the most vulnerable residents who are at risk of homelessness or who need support to prevent them from being homeless.  The Council is concerned to note that:

(1)     The current proposals being considered by the Cabinet Member which might cut the entire funding for housing support will bring significant impacts in the medium to longer term by adding to the demand for acute higher cost specialist services and that implementation of these proposals would not only put this Council at odds with national government policy but crucially will deny local councils the opportunity to secure government funding in tackling this major social problem.  In addition, the ‘floating support’ services at threat are a key tool for promoting social inclusion and stable communities through tenancy sustainment, community engagement and a reduction in anti-social behaviour, all key planks in meeting strategic objectives within the Council’s own West Sussex Plan 2017-22;

(2)     Without this support this Council expects to see a rise in homelessness across all client groups, including families with associated social and health costs.  These include direct costly impacts on social care services through family breakdown with increased child protection issues, foster and other care placements and temporary accommodation placements for intentionally homeless families.  Poor educational attainment and increased truancy rates for children in unsettled and temporary accommodation will inevitably be added consequences;

(3)     The termination of housing support for young people over 18, through such initiatives as the foyers across the county, puts vulnerable young people who have either suffered a troubled family life, or are care leavers, in a position where they will be moved from a relatively stable and secure environment which can be used as a stepping stone into living independently, and either be immediately forced into shared temporary accommodation or sharing in the private rented sector, with people who will not be vetted or motivated to act in that young person’s best interest.  While this would be undesirable for all young people placed in that situation, it will be particularly inconsistent with the Council’s duty as a corporate parent to care leavers, who form a significant proportion of the current service users; and

(4)     If funding is removed and refuge accommodation for women and their children subjected to domestic abuse is no longer available, this will put women’s lives and children’s lives directly at risk, as well as taking away support for women with their recovery and helping to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

To consider the following motion, submitted by Dr O’Kelly, which was referred to the Cabinet Member for Highway and Infrastructure at the meeting of the County Council on 20 July 2018.

‘This Council recognises the significant work being done by the Cabinet to promote the benefits of increasing cycle journeys, in terms of improving fitness, reducing congestion and the need to provide additional parking spaces, and improving air quality, as well as opening up the countryside for both residents and visitors.  Along with the undoubted benefits of making cycling easier, there are also a number of issues that need to be addressed for the benefit of all residents and visitors to West Sussex.  There are also new developments, such as electric bikes and increasing numbers of motorised scooters, which should, ideally, be segregated from pedestrians as far as possible in town centres.

The Council therefore calls on the Cabinet to hold a county-wide Cycling Summit to explore all the issues more fully, involving the whole range of stakeholders to address at least the following issues:

(1)      The health benefits of increasing cycling miles and how this can be achieved;

(2)      The role of cycling in addressing congestion and air quality;

(3)      Increasing cycle commuting and the role of employers in encouraging this;

(4)      Cycling Safety;

(5)      Cycle tourism - opportunities and threats, including a presumption against road closures for large cycle events and damage to popular off-road routes;

(6)      Cycling education, and involving schools and other educational establishments in promoting cycling;

(7)      Involving businesses, and encouraging them to promote cycling through their travel plans;

(8)      Maximising grant funding and exploring other ways of funding new high quality infrastructure;

(9)      Design standards and increasing cycling infrastructure and capacity; and

(10)    Recognising the different challenges of promoting cycling in urban and rural environments and working with district, borough, parish and neighbourhood councils, and the South Downs National Park Authority.’

and the report by the Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure.

76.1   At the County Council meeting on 20 July 2018 the following motion had been moved by Dr O’Kelly, seconded by Ms Lord, and referred to the Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure for consideration. A report by the Cabinet Member was included with the agenda (pages 39 and 40).

‘This Council recognises the significant work being done by the Cabinet to promote the benefits of increasing cycle journeys, in terms of improving fitness, reducing congestion and the need to provide additional parking spaces, and improving air quality, as well as opening up the countryside for both residents and visitors.  Along with the undoubted benefits of making cycling easier, there are also a number of issues that need to be addressed for the benefit of all residents and visitors to West Sussex.  There are also new developments, such as electric bikes and increasing numbers of motorised scooters, which should, ideally, be segregated from pedestrians as far as possible in town centres.

The Council therefore calls on the Cabinet to hold a county-wide Cycling Summit to explore all the issues more fully, involving the whole range of stakeholders to address at least the following issues:

(1)     The health benefits of increasing cycling miles and how this can be achieved;

(2)     The role of cycling in addressing congestion and air quality;

(3)     Increasing cycle commuting and the role of employers in encouraging this;

(4)     Cycling Safety;

(5)     Cycle tourism - opportunities and threats, including a presumption against road closures for large cycle events and damage to popular off-road routes;

(6)     Cycling education, and involving schools and other educational establishments in promoting cycling;

(7)     Involving businesses, and encouraging them to promote cycling through their travel plans;

(8)     Maximising grant funding and exploring other ways of funding new high quality infrastructure;

(9)     Design standards and increasing cycling infrastructure and capacity; and

(10)   Recognising the different challenges of promoting cycling in urban and rural environments and working with district, borough, parish and neighbourhood councils, and the South Downs National Park Authority.’

76.2   An amendment was moved by Mrs Russell and seconded by Mrs Urquhart.

‘This Council recognises the significant work being done by the Cabinet to promote the benefits of increasing cycle journeys, in terms of improving health and wellbeing fitness, reducing congestion and the need to provide additional parking spaces, and improving air quality, as well as opening up the countryside for both residents and visitors.  Along with the undoubted benefits of making cycling easier, there are also a number of issues that need to be addressed for the benefit of all residents and visitors to West Sussex.  There are also new developments, such as electric bikes and increasing numbers of motorised scooters, which should, ideally, be segregated from pedestrians as far as possible in town centres.

The Council therefore calls on the Cabinet Members to hold a county-wide Cycling Summit to explore all the issues more fully including at the 2019 Cycling Summit, involving the whole range of stakeholders  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

To consider the following motion, submitted by Ms Lord, notice of which was given on 28 September 2018.

‘This Council notes that, in May this year, Ministers outlined a proposal in a Written Ministerial Statement to redefine non-hydraulic fracturing shale gas exploration applications as permitted development and to redefine large scale shale gas production sites as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects which would mean central government would determine planning applications rather than local authorities.

This Council believes that the wishes of local communities should be considered in decisions on shale gas and other oil and gas exploration and production, and that these decisions are best determined by local Mineral Planning Authorities through the planning process.

This Council resolves to ask the Cabinet Member for Environment respond to the Government’s consultation that applications for shale gas exploration, and for other oil and gas exploration, should not become permitted development and that they, along with planning applications for shale gas production, should be determined by local planning authorities in accordance with planning law and guidance, and also to share this response with West Sussex MPs and relevant government ministers.’

77.1   The following motion was moved by Ms Lord and seconded by Mrs Millson.

‘This Council notes that, in May this year, Ministers outlined a proposal in a Written Ministerial Statement to redefine non-hydraulic fracturing shale gas exploration applications as permitted development and to redefine large scale shale gas production sites as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects which would mean central government would determine planning applications rather than local authorities.

This Council believes that the wishes of local communities should be considered in decisions on shale gas and other oil and gas exploration and production, and that these decisions are best determined by local Mineral Planning Authorities through the planning process.

          This Council resolves to ask the Cabinet Member for Environment respond to the Government's consultation that applications for shale gas exploration, and for other oil and gas exploration, should not become permitted development and that they, along with planning applications for shale gas production, should be determined by local planning authorities in accordance with planning law and guidance, and also to share this response with West Sussex MPs and relevant government ministers.’

77.2   An amendment was moved by Mrs Duncton and seconded by Dr Walsh.

‘This Council notes that, in May this year, Ministers outlined a proposal in a Written Ministerial Statement to redefine non-hydraulic fracturing shale gas exploration applications as permitted development and to redefine large scale shale gas production sites as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects which would mean central government would determine planning applications rather than local authorities.

This Council believes that the wishes of local communities should be considered in decisions on shale gas and other oil and gas exploration and production, and that these decisions are best determined by local Mineral Planning Authorities through the planning process.

          This Council resolves to support the proposed draft responses, as published on 10 October 2018 in the Members’ Information Service newsletter,  ask the Cabinet Member for Environment respond to the Government's consultation that applications for shale gas exploration, and for other oil and gas exploration, should not become permitted development and that they, along with planning applications for shale gas production, should be determined by local planning authorities in accordance with planning law and guidance, and to also to share this response with West Sussex MPs and relevant government ministers making it clear that we will oppose attempts by the Government to dilute local democracy.’

77.3   The amendment was accepted.

77.4   The motion, as amended and set out below, was carried.

‘This Council notes that, in May this year, Ministers outlined a proposal in a Written Ministerial Statement to redefine non-hydraulic fracturing shale gas exploration applications as permitted development and to redefine large scale shale gas production sites as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects which would mean central government would determine planning applications rather than local authorities.

This Council believes that the wishes of local communities should be considered in decisions on shale gas and other oil and gas exploration and production, and that these decisions are best  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

To consider the following motion, submitted by Dr Walsh, notice of which was given on 28 September 2018.

A briefing note by the Director of Law and Assurance is attached.

‘It is noted that the Forward Plan published on 29 August contained 10 Strategic Budget options for 2019/20, originally scheduled for Cabinet Member decisions in September/October, and that following member representations, most of these decisions were delayed until December to allow Select Committees to consult and scrutinise them first.

However, it is difficult for Select Committee members properly to consider proposals specific to their area of business, or to consider other options in the absence of the whole budget and the full set of savings proposals.

Therefore this Council requests that the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources confirms that, prior to each Select Committee’s final scrutiny of these 10 Strategic Budget Options, all members should have sight of the draft 2019/20 Budget proposals in October or November and that no 2019/20 Budget-related Cabinet Member decision should be taken unless and until that has taken place.’

78.1   With the agreement of the Council, Dr Walsh withdrew his motion on scrutiny of strategic budget options, having accepted assurances given in the briefing note on the arrangements for consultation for proposed savings decisions and budget preparation.

To consider the following motion, submitted by Mr Jones, notice of which was given on 2 October 2018.

‘This Council notes the existing, and increasing, gap in the funding provided per person from the Government towards West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service (WSFRS), in comparison to the per person funding in all of those Fire and Rescue Services immediately surrounding it.  Not only are many of these surrounding authorities receiving much higher sums to protect their communities, but with further government cuts in 2019/20, the gap is set to become far worse, and even more unfair, for West Sussex.  Moreover, the local government Settlement Funding Assessment for fire authorities shows West Sussex having the biggest funding cut in England, between 2016/17 and 2019/20, of 45%.  The English average is a 15% cut.

This Council also notes that despite assurances by the previous Chief Fire Officer that there would always be a minimum of 30 fire appliances and crews available, out of 35 across the county at any one time, that in practice, between 7 am and 7 pm, there are rarely more than 15 available, sometimes as few as 10, and that firefighters are having to work hard to keep such numbers and maintain the resilience of the Service.

This Council further notes that WSFRS has already had very deep cuts made to it in recent years, with £2.5 million and £1.6 million in 2012 and 2014 respectively, making it according to the FBU the second worst hit fire authority in the proportion of its overall number of firefighters lost in the whole of Great Britain, with a reduction of 37% of its firefighters, during that time.

The Council is aware that it was confirmed at the September meeting of the Environment, Communities and Fire Select Committee, that the Cabinet Member for Safer, Stronger Communities would be coming forward with proposals for further cuts to the Service in November, although as of the date this motion was submitted, this was still not indicated on the Council’s Forward Plan of key decisions.

The Council is also aware the forthcoming HMI inspection of WSFRS is not due to begin until November, and aside from some preliminary feedback expected during the following month, is not due to formally publish its conclusions until its final report, expected in May 2019.

This Council believes in the context of the circumstances outlined above, and also because it is impossible to predict what issues or extra demands the HMI inspection may reveal which will require action, it would be inappropriate at this time to come forward with any measures which would reduce the amount of funding WSRFS receives.

The Council therefore resolves:

(1)      To request the Cabinet Member for Safer, Stronger Communities abandons any plans to bring forward further proposals for cuts to WSFRS, as the service has taken as many cuts as it can bear without further compromising public and firefighter safety, and further threatening the availability of crews and appliances at the  ...  view the full agenda text for item 79.

79.1   The following motion was moved by Mr Jones and seconded by Mr Purchese.

‘This Council notes the existing, and increasing, gap in the funding provided per person from the Government towards West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service (WSFRS), in comparison to the per person funding in all of those Fire and Rescue Services immediately surrounding it.  Not only are many of these surrounding authorities receiving much higher sums to protect their communities, but with further government cuts in 2019/20, the gap is set to become far worse, and even more unfair, for West Sussex.  Moreover, the local government Settlement Funding Assessment for fire authorities shows West Sussex having the biggest funding cut in England, between 2016/17 and 2019/20, of 45%.  The English average is a 15% cut.

This Council also notes that despite assurances by the previous Chief Fire Officer that there would always be a minimum of 30 fire appliances and crews available, out of 35 across the county at any one time, that in practice, between 7 am and 7 pm, there are rarely more than 15 available, sometimes as few as 10, and that firefighters are having to work hard to keep such numbers and maintain the resilience of the Service.

This Council further notes that WSFRS has already had very deep cuts made to it in recent years, with £2.5 million and £1.6 million in 2012 and 2014 respectively, making it according to the FBU the second worst hit fire authority in the proportion of its overall number of firefighters lost in the whole of Great Britain, with a reduction of 37% of its firefighters, during that time.

The Council is aware that it was confirmed at the September meeting of the Environment, Communities and Fire Select Committee, that the Cabinet Member for Safer, Stronger Communities would be coming forward with proposals for further cuts to the Service in November, although as of the date this motion was submitted, this was still not indicated on the Council’s Forward Plan of key decisions.

The Council is also aware the forthcoming HMI inspection of WSFRS is not due to begin until November, and aside from some preliminary feedback expected during the following month, is not due to formally publish its conclusions until its final report, expected in May 2019.

This Council believes in the context of the circumstances outlined above, and also because it is impossible to predict what issues or extra demands the HMI inspection may reveal which will require action, it would be inappropriate at this time to come forward with any measures which would reduce the amount of funding WSRFS receives.

The Council therefore resolves:

(1)     To request the Cabinet Member for Safer, Stronger Communities abandons any plans to bring forward further proposals for cuts to WSFRS, as the service has taken as many cuts as it can bear without further compromising public and firefighter safety, and further threatening the availability of crews and appliances at the county’s fire stations; and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

Questions to the Leader and Cabinet Members on matters contained within the Cabinet report, written questions and any other questions relevant to their portfolios.  Members may also ask questions of the Leader on anything that is currently relevant to the County Council.  The report covers relevant Council business or developments in respect of portfolios arising since the meeting of the Council on 20 July 2018.  A supplementary report may be published.

(2 hours is allocated for Question Time)

80.1   Members asked questions of members of the Cabinet on matters relevant to their portfolios and asked questions of chairmen, as set out at Appendix 3.  This included questions on those matters contained within the Cabinet report (pages 45 to 58) and a supplementary report (supplement pages 1 to 3) and written questions and answers pursuant to Standing Order 2.38 (set out at Appendix 2).

The Council is asked to approve the Annual Scrutiny Newsletter 2017/18 which summarises the work of the Select Committees and reports the performance measures for the end of the year, in the light of a report by the Performance and Finance Select Committee.

81.1   The Council considered the Annual Scrutiny Newsletter 2017/18 which summarised the work of the Select Committees and reported the performance measures to the end of the year, in the light of a report by the Performance and Finance Select Committee (pages 59 to 76).

81.2   Resolved –

          That the Annual Scrutiny Newsletter 2017/18, as attached at Appendix 1 to the report, be approved.

To note urgent action taken under regulation 11 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012.

82.1   The report of urgent action taken under regulation 11 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 (pages 77 and 78) was noted.