Decisions

Use the search options below to find information regarding recent decisions that have been taken by the Cabinet, Cabinet and Members. Also included are key decisions by officers and decisions made by officers under the urgent action procedure. You can also find decisions taken by the full Council and decision-making committees.

Decisions published

15/10/2021 - Award of Contract: Data Migration Service OKD23 21-22 ref: 1367    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Director of Finance and Support Services

Decision published: 15/10/2021

Effective from: 27/10/2021

Decision:

The Director for Finance and Support Services has approved the award of a contract to Egress Limited (Company Number 05967014) to provide data migration services. The value of the proposed contract is £907,000 based on a 2-year term with services being delivered between 01 November 2021 until 30 October 2023.

Divisions affected: (All Divisions);

Lead officer: Alistair Rush


24/09/2021 - Change to Member Development Group Terms of Reference ref: 1361    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Governance Committee

Made at meeting: 24/09/2021 - Governance Committee

Decision published: 07/10/2021

Effective from: 24/09/2021

Decision:

19.1     The Committee considered a report by the Director of Law and Assurance on a small amendment to the terms of reference of the Member Development Group for recommendation to the County Council (copy appended to the signed minutes).

 

19.2     On page in paragraph 9 it was noted that an extra ‘and’ needed to be deleted.

 

19.3     Resolved - That the proposed amendment to the terms of reference of the Member Development Group, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report, subject to the minor amendment in minute 19.2 above, be endorsed for submission to the Council for approval on 22 October 2021.


24/09/2021 - Update to Constitution: Corporate Parenting Panel Terms of Reference ref: 1360    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Governance Committee

Made at meeting: 24/09/2021 - Governance Committee

Decision published: 07/10/2021

Effective from: 24/09/2021

Decision:

17.1     The Committee considered a report by the Director of Law and Assurance on changes to the terms of reference of the Corporate Parenting Panel for recommendation to the County Council (copy appended to the signed minutes).

 

17.2     On page 56 a query was raised about the number of representatives of the Children in Care Council and Care Leavers Advisory Board in relation to the quorum and the Director of Law and Assurance said the wording would be adjusted. On page 57 under ‘Purpose’, it was noted that the fifth bullet point should be amended to read ‘in the best interest of our children’.

 

17.3     Cllr Lord, who is a member of the Panel, commented that they had been working with the new Assistant Director and the Cabinet Member as well as young people to develop the new terms of reference. She added her appreciation of the work of the Cabinet Member in this area. The Chairman asked Cllr Lord to express the Committee’s thanks to the Corporate Parenting Panel for its work.

 

17.4     Resolved – That the revised terms of reference for the Corporate Parenting Panel, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report, subject to the amendments set out in minute 17.2 above, be endorsed for recommendation to the County Council.


24/09/2021 - Review of Joint Arrangements ref: 1359    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Governance Committee

Made at meeting: 24/09/2021 - Governance Committee

Decision published: 07/10/2021

Effective from: 24/09/2021

Decision:

16.1     The Committee considered a report by the Director of Law and Assurance on the joint working arrangement between the County Council and East Sussex County Council in relation to governance and leadership and for a joint chief executive (copy appended to the signed minutes).

 

16.2     The Chief Executive commented that despite the difficulties facing local government as a whole it was it was clear that the two local authorities worked well together and significant improvements had been made. She said she was proud of the work that had been done so far.

 

16.3     The Leader expressed his personal thanks to the Chief Executive for her work in strengthening Council governance and dealing with the challenges which were facing the Council. There had been significant progress and the shared leadership skills across the two councils were helping to deliver valuable services to residents. The Chairman echoed those thanks and asked the Chief Executive to pass on thanks behalf of all members to all staff.

 

16.4     All members were supportive of the arrangements and were reassured that a similar review report was due to be considered by East Sussex County Council where it was anticipated that the arrangements would also be supported. Assurance was also given that the six-month notice period mentioned in the report was a minimum should the joint arrangements be considered to be no longer beneficial by either party. 

 

16.5     Resolved - That, having considered the matters set out in the report, the Committee agrees that the review of the arrangements has been satisfactorily completed.


24/09/2021 - Plans for Member Meetings ref: 1358    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Governance Committee

Made at meeting: 24/09/2021 - Governance Committee

Decision published: 07/10/2021

Effective from: 24/09/2021

Decision:

15.1     The Committee considered a report by the Director of Law and Assurance on proposals for meeting arrangements to the end of March 2022, following the relaxation of public health restrictions, and taking account of consultation feedback from county councillors (copy appended to the signed minutes). The Committee was also asked to agree that webcasting should revert to pre-pandemic arrangements.

 

15.2     There was some comment about the reduction in webcasting. In relation to the webcasting statistics in Appendix 4, Cllr Burrett asked if it was possible to determine the percentage of views from within the Council and the Head of Democratic Services said she would find out and respond to him. Members asked if it was possible to record sessions in a less resource-intensive way but the Head of Democratic Services said the current equipment did not allow that.

 

15.3     The Chairman reminded members that it was only in recent years that the number of meetings being webcast had increased. As set out in the report, other meetings can be webcast where matters of significant public interest are due to be considered. The Chairman commented that the chairman of a committee also had the discretion to consider on its merits a request that a meeting should be webcast. A question was raised about the format of the minutes and the Director of Law and Assurance said that the style of the Council’s minutes should not vary depending on whether or not a meeting is webcast.

 

15.4     On the issue in paragraph 2.2 of the report that Cabinet Members should be allowed to participate virtually in formal meetings but not vote the Director of Law and Assurance explained that the Cabinet was formed under the Local Government Act 2000 rather than the Local Government Act 1972 and therefore was not bound by the requirement in the 1972 Act that members who take part in a decision-making meeting must be in the same physical space.

 

15.5     The Leader commented that, as Chairman of the Cabinet, he expected Cabinet Members to attend meetings in person but it was helpful to have the option, in unforeseen circumstances, for members to join virtually even if unable to vote. The hybrid technology also allowed minority group leaders, scrutiny committee chairmen and officers to attend Cabinet meetings virtually which was a positive step in helping to reduce travel.

 

15.6     It was proposed by Cllr Lord and seconded by Cllr O’Kelly that the proposals for the use of hybrid technology at Cabinet meetings should be amended as set out below in bold, italic text:

 

·       Cabinet: Cabinet Members will be able to participate virtually in formal meetings with prior agreement of the Leader, but where doing so they will not be able to vote. Non-Cabinet Members attending these meetings (scrutiny chairmen and minority party leaders) will be able to participate virtually.’

 

15.7     The amendment was lost.

 

15.8     Resolved –

 

(1)        That the proposed arrangements for formal committee meetings to the end of March 2022, as set out in paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 and in Appendix 1 of the report, be agreed;

 

(2)        That the arrangements for full County Council meetings, as set out at paragraphs 2.3 to 2.5 of the report, be agreed;

 

(3)        That the proposed changes to Standing Orders, as set out at Appendix 3, be endorsed for recommendation to the County Council;

 

(4)        That webcasting should revert to the pre-pandemic arrangements; and

 

(5)        That arrangements for formal member meetings should continue to be monitored by this Committee.


24/09/2021 - Plans for County Local Forums ref: 1357    For Determination

Decision Maker: Governance Committee

Made at meeting: 24/09/2021 - Governance Committee

Decision published: 07/10/2021

Effective from: 24/09/2021

Decision:

14.1     Further to the decision of the County Council in July to replace County Local Committees with more informal County Local Forums, the Committee considered a report by the Director of Law and Assurance and the Director Communities on the proposed pilot arrangements, including a summary of consultation feedback received from county councillors and district, town and parish councils (copy appended to the signed minutes).

 

14.2     Members were generally supportive of the plans including the proposal to extend the period of the pilot to July 2022 to enable a full year’s trial. It was also felt that holding the virtual session in the winter period made sense. There was agreement to separating out the annual member information and training locality sessions from the three public County Local Forums.

 

14.3     It was suggested that for the larger rural areas with a number of centres of population in might be better to choose a central location within the district to reduce overall travel for residents and members rather than moving around the district.

 

14.4     There was some concern that the proposals were too prescriptive in terms of the format of the sessions. For some of the larger districts some members felt a workshop format might work better to enable more locally-focused discussions. The Chairman reassured members that there is flexibility for the chairman of each session to consider with the other members how best to conduct the event, particularly during the pilot year. The benefit of submitting questions in advance was that, for more complex questions, a full response could be given allowing supplementary questions to be raised at the session.

 

14.5     The proposal for appointing a different chairman for each session was questioned in terms of planning. In order to explore all options during the pilot year it was agreed that two of the Forums (Chichester and Mid Sussex) would hold initial planning meetings involving all the Forum members. For the other five, planning would involve the chairman appointed for the session in advance. In response to a query as to member consultation on decisions between sessions if chairmanship rotates, the Director of Law and Assurance confirmed that there were no decisions for the Forums to take.

 

14.6     Resolved –

 

(1)         The arrangements for the one-year trial of County Local Forums as set out in paragraphs 2.01 to 2.10 of the report be approved, subject to the Chichester and Mid Sussex County Local Forums holding planning meetings as set out in minute 14.5 above;

 

(2)         That separate annual Locality Sessions should be held, as set out at paragraphs 2.11 to 2.12 of the report;

 

(3)         That the pilot period should extend to the end of July 2022, to enable a full year’s trial; and

 

(4)         That the arrangements be reviewed by September 2022, to determine a new working model for 2022/23 and confirm the necessary resource requirements.


05/10/2021 - Procurement Build Partner: Western Gateway and Burgess Hill & Wivelsfield Stations OKD22_21-22 ref: 1365    Recommendations Approved

The Mid Sussex Growth Programme identifies shared growth priorities in Burgess Hill including the Local Growth Fund (LGF) funded Burgess Hill Place and Connectivity Programme (PCP) comprising £10.9m LGF funding and £10.9m match funding.

 

Burgess Hill PCP projects with a value of £15m are included within the WSCC Capital Programme to meet design and delivery costs of identified schemes to be delivered by WSCC with the remaining £6.8m comprising projects to be delivered by Mid Sussex District Council.  A 2019 Business Case identified priority projects to be taken forward within the first phase of PCP including pedestrian and cycle connectivity improvements through the Burgess Hill Western Gateway and Stations.

 

A March 2019 Leader Decision (LDR09 18.19) approved the PCP funding allocations and delivery governance with subsequent partnership agreements secured with Mid Sussex District Council to ensure the coordinated delivery of the wider PCP schemes.  The decision delegated authority to the Executive Director of Place Services to progress the projects subject to Business Case

 

A September 2019 Business Case agreed a package of sustainable access and connectivity improvements at Burgess Hill Station through the Queen Elizabeth Avenue (referred to as the Western Gateway) and at Wivelsfield Station.  Following a positive public engagement in Summer 2020, a September 2020 Business Case and December 2020 Key Decision (OKD47 20-21) endorsed progress to detailed design.

Detailed design for the schemes has now been completed and it is proposed that the projects progress to tender to identify a contractor for their subsequent construction. 

 

Decision Maker: Executive Director Place Services

Decision published: 05/10/2021

Effective from: 15/10/2021

Decision:

The Executive Director for Place Services has:

1.   Approved the commencement of procurement via the Highway Maintenance Services Contract for the Western Gateway, Burgess Hill and Wivelsfield Station Improvements; and that

2.   the remaining £3.615m of the allocated budget be drawn down for construction, subject to a successful tender process for which a further decision report will be published in due course.

Divisions affected: Burgess Hill East; Burgess Hill North;

Lead officer: Paul Jackson-Cole


05/10/2021 - Recycling Centres Booking System Review ECC05 (21/22) ref: 1366    Recommendations Approved

The County Council implemented a pilot booking system at the Recycling Centres from March 2021 in order to help manage demand for the service which, at certain times, had caused disruption to nearly residents, businesses and the road network. There was considered to be a risk around peak demand for the sites coinciding with the need for social distancing measures.

 

During the summer of 2021 the scheme met its principal objectives and has been largely popular with users. It was agreed the pilot system would be reviewed after six months of operation.

 

The Cabinet Member for Environment and Climate Change will be asked to authorise a public consultation exercise on the future of the booking system currently being piloted at six of the Recycling Centres.

 

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Environment and Climate Change

Decision published: 05/10/2021

Effective from: 15/10/2021

Decision:

The Cabinet Member for Environment and Climate Change has approved that:

 

1.  a public consultation is undertaken in respect of making the pilot booking system permanent at the Bognor, Crawley, Horsham, Littlehampton, Shoreham and Worthing Recycling Centres and extending the booking system to include the Burgess Hill Recycling Centre; and

 

2.  the consultation responses and any proposals for a permanent booking system will be considered by the Communities, Highways and Environment Scrutiny Committee prior to any further decision.  

 

Divisions affected: (All Divisions);

Lead officer: Gareth Rollings


01/10/2021 - Future arrangements for the West Sussex Wellbeing Programme PHW01 21/22 ref: 1364    Recommendations Approved

In October 2018, the Cabinet Member for Adults and Health in accordance with Key Decision Report Ref: AH9 (18/19) agreed the endorsement of future arrangements for the West Sussex Wellbeing programme in order to establish the current agreement from 1st April 2019.

 

The West Sussex Wellbeing Programme is a partnership between West Sussex County Council and the seven district and borough councils to improve the health and wellbeing of the population and reduce health inequalities. The provision of a Wellbeing service delivers a prevention programme focusing on modifiable lifestyle risk factors and the wider role that District and Borough councils play in shaping the wider determinants of health, including housing, planning, leisure and green space, environmental health and economic development. The programme is in the final year of its current three year agreement.

 

The Cabinet Member for Public Health and Wellbeing is asked to endorse the new agreements for West Sussex Wellbeing, the adult health and prevention partnership programme between West Sussex County Council and the seven District and Borough Councils.  The new agreements will be effective from 1st April 2022.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Public Health and Wellbeing

Decision published: 01/10/2021

Effective from: 13/10/2021

Decision:

The Cabinet Member for Public Health and Wellbeing has approved;

 

1)   the continuation of the West Sussex Wellbeing programme effective from 1st April 2022 for a five-year term, with appropriate break clauses in Agreements;

 

2)   that WSCC fund the Wellbeing Services (via the Public Health Grant) with the D&B Councils contributing certain non-monetary resources through infrastructure and management (subject to the appropriate D&B councils sign off processes). Each D& B Council will act as the host of the pooled resources (including the Allocated Fund from the Public Health Grant); and

 

3)   the continuation of the delegated commissioning responsibilities and functions relating to Public Health and Wellbeing Services to the West Sussex D&B Councils.

 

 

Divisions affected: (All Divisions);

Lead officer: Tamsin Cornwall