Decisions

The West Sussex Health and Wellbeing Board (HWB) is a statutory partnership providing shared strategic leadership and coordination of local action to deliver health, care and wellbeing services based on the best evidence of local needs. The West Sussex HWB includes representation from key organisations in West Sussex with major responsibilities for social care services, public health, health and wellbeing services.  The HWB’s responsibilities include developing a Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy (JHWS) which identifies priorities and sets out how local needs will be met.

The current 2015-2018 West Sussex Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy  has been reviewed. The new strategy will be used to inform local commissioning and delivery plans and determine what actions West Sussex County Council, NHS, and other partners need to take to meet health and social care needs, and to address health inequalities.

The Cabinet Member for Adults and Health Chairman for the Health and Wellbeing Board is requested to agree that the West Sussex Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy (JHWS) 2019 – 2024 is in alignment with the West Sussex Plan and is asked to endorse the Joint Health and Wellbeing Board’s Strategy on behalf of the County Council.

As the Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2019 -2024 has been ratified by the Clinical Commissioning Group governing bodies at the Governing Board meeting of NHS Coastal West Sussex Clinical Commissioning Group on March 26 2019, and at the North Place Governing Body Committee in Common, 28 March 2019 for NHS Crawley Clinical Commissioning Group and NHS Horsham and Mid Sussex Clinical Commissioning Group; the Cabinet Member for Adults and Health has approved;

the Joint Health and Wellbeing  Strategy (JHWBS) (see appendix 1) and requests its ratification at the West Sussex County Council Health and Wellbeing Board meeting on 25 April 2019.

New terms of reference for the Corporate Parenting Panel are proposed in order to deliver a more outward-focused Panel and to ensure that the voice of the child is central to all its work.  It is recommended that new terms of reference be agreed by the County Council as soon as possible, to ensure the best outcomes are being achieved for children looked after and care leavers in West Sussex at the earliest opportunity.  The key change is the proposal to widen the membership to become a multi-agency advisory panel, with members including a representative of Independent Reviewing Officers, a Foster Carer, Chairman or Vice Chairman of the West Sussex Foster Carer Association, a member of the Children in Care Council and a Care Leaver. These changes will be reviewed in six months and during this time it is proposed that there is consultation with the Children in Care Council to seek its views on how the Panel operates.

The Director of Law and Assurance has therefore used his powers under Standing Order 3.45(d), in consultation with the Chairman of the Governance Committee, to take the decision set out below.

13.1   The Council considered changes to the terms of reference of the Corporate Parenting Panel, in the light of a report from the Governance Committee (pages 47 to 52).

13.2   The Chairman explained that the anticipated Ofsted report into Children’s Services and the outcome of consultation with other partners might lead to a need to make some adjustments and she therefore sought Council’s agreement to allow the Director of Children and Family Services to make any necessary amendments to the Panel’s terms of reference in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People.  Any changes would be reported in the Members’ Information Service newsletter.

13.3   Resolved –

(1)     That the new terms of reference and membership of the Corporate Parenting Panel, as set out at Appendix 1 to the report, be approved; and

(2)     That the Director of Children and Family Services be authorised to make any necessary amendments to the Panel’s terms of reference as a result of the recent Ofsted inspection, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People, any such changes to be reported in the Members’ Information Service newsletter.

9.1     A schedule setting out the nominations for the re-appointment of the chairmen, vice-chairmen and members of Select Committees and non-Executive committees and substitutes was circulated.

9.2     The schedule was agreed, as set out at Appendix 2.

WSCC/049/18/LY    Creation of a 1.1km highway, with shared cycleway and footway, Pegasus crossing, viaduct, culvert, wetland areas, balancing pond and swales, street lighting and associated works on Land East of Lyminster village & between Toddington Nurseries & A284 Lyminster Road, Lyminster, Littlehampton.

99.1   The Committee considered a report by the Head of Planning Services, as amended by the agenda update sheet (copy appended to the signed copy of the minutes).  The report was introduced by Jane Moseley, County Planning Team Manager, who gave a presentation on the proposals, details of the consultation and key issues in respect of the application.

99.2   Mr Rob Huntley of Rob Huntley Planning Consultancy, representing Mrs R Andrew a resident of Lyminster and Hargreaves Properties Ltd., spoke in objection to the application.  They don’t object in principle but are concerned about highway safety.  The 2015 proposal was considered unsafe and withdrawn.  The objectors’ offer to work with the County Council was refused.  The current proposal is “near identical”.  It has the same design defects that encourage high speeds, and safety issues remain with the northbound tie-in to the A284.  This could be overcome using the objectors’ proposed alignment (shown to the Committee).  The design does not meet requirements in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.  Requests to see the terms and conditions for the Road Safety Audit and details of the Departures from Standard have been declined, so the assertion that the Council has “provided a compliant solution for the bypass” cannot be verified.  The WSCC Highways Officer asked for condition requiring further design and road safety details.  Due to the tighter bend and high speeds, accidents at the tie-in will occur.  Littlehampton Town Council, Lyminster and Crossbush Parish Council and others have raised safety-related concerns, including the design deficiencies mentioned.

99.3   Mr Dan Montagnani, Chairman, Lyminster and Crossbush Parish Council spoke on the application.  The Parish Council supports the principle of a bypass but has some concerns.  The existing road is unable to cope with the traffic volumes resulting in gridlock; HGVs straddle the road around the tight bends; Speedwatch has recorded high numbers of vehicles speeding through Lyminster, and there are weekly accidents and countless near misses.  The tie-in south of the Crossbush Junction will present significant safety risks to cyclists, pedestrians and residents due to the high specification highway linking to narrow road with a single footpath, and there are health and wellbeing concerns for these residents due to noise, vibration and air quality deterioration.  Planning conditions should include more mitigation.  Lack of plans to upgrade or modify the Crossbush Interchange at the A27 will result in worse congestion: there is no joined up thinking with Highways England on the Arundel Bypass plans.  A condition should be included that traffic calming and safety measures be put in place on the A284 through Lyminster village to avoid it becoming a rat-run and prevent traffic backing up.

99.4     Sara McKnight, Project Manager, Major Projects, West Sussex County Council, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  The proposed road connects with the privately delivered southern section to provide a north-south route with improved access between Littlehampton and the A27.  The development has been in the Arun Local Plan since 2003.  It will deliver on strategic economic aims.  Proposals for the Crossbush junction would lie with Highways England and are outside the scope of this application.  The bypass will improve safety, reduce congestion, improve journey time reliability and reduce pollution in Lyminster village.  The current route, with its sharp bends and high traffic volumes is a recognised hazard.  Extensive consultation has been untaken with all stakeholders.  The design enables flood risk to be managed.  Mitigation measures will be put in place to protect flora and fauna.  Traffic flows will increase due to new housing developments and because this will be a more attractive route.  Assessment of pollution levels shows that some areas will be high but not unacceptable.

99.5         In response to certain points raised by speakers, Planning Officers provided clarification as below.  Other points raised by speakers were covered during the debate by the Committee:

·         In relation to the matter of the WSCC Highways Officer’s request for a condition requiring further design and road safety details, this relates to detailed design and can be satisfied at the second stage of the audit (design stage).

·         Highways England’s plans for the Crossbush junction at the A27 are unknown at this time.

99.6     During the debate the Committee raised the points below and clarification was provided by the Planning Officers:

Compliance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

Points raised – Does the proposal meet the requirements in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, especially regarding Departures from Standard. 

Response –The Manual sets out design criteria.  A design may not meet the ‘optimum standard’; but it is still compliant with the standard required by the Manual. 

Safety of cyclists and pedestrians

Points raised – Safety for cyclist and pedestrians was queried, particularly in relation to the tie-in to A284 at the northern end of the bypass.  The Committee’s points were as follows:

·      Would cyclists have to stop to join the old road at the tie-in?

·      There is no cycleway on the old A284 which has only has a single narrow footpath; was this assessed during the Road Safety Audit?

·      What is the purpose of providing a cycleway along the new bypass when there is no cycleway on the old A284?

·      Can a recommendation be included that the applicant should continue the cycleway to the Crossbush junction? 

·      Why is the foot/cycleway split across two sides of the bypass and were cycling groups consulted about this? 

·      Why is this a shared foot/cycle way; would separation be better for safety and will the unlit sections be safe?

Responses – As follows:

·      Cyclists and pedestrians will need to give way at the northbound tie-in.

·      Risks to cyclists and pedestrians have been assessed and in looking at the Departures from Standard it was agreed that installing signage, anti-skid surfacing for 200 m on the old road and lighting would be appropriate - final details will be approved during the design stage. 

·      The proposed shared foot/cycle way is betterment on existing provision. 

·      Any plans for a cycleway north beyond the new bypass is outside the remit of this proposal; it should be noted that there is no cycleway to link with at or beyond the Crossbush junction. 

·      The foot/cycle way is split across the bypass because at the southern end it will join a planned new cycleway on the southbound side, at the northern end the existing footpath on old A284 runs alongside the northbound carriageway.  Three cycling groups responded to the application.

·      Shared foot/cycle ways are considered better for the safety of users including where paths are unlit.

Traffic calming through Lyminster village

Point raised – Traffic calming should be considered for Lyminster village to prevent the old A284 becoming a rat-run.

Response – This is beyond the scope of the application but should the Committee wish to propose this then it can be included as an informative.

Pegasus Crossing

Points raised – Use of the Pegasus Crossing will bring the road to a standstill, and involve idling vehicles.

Response – The Pegasus Cross is necessary to maintain access to bridleway 2163 and also to allow safe access to the whole foot/cycle way.

Noise barrier

Points raised – Who will have responsibility to maintain the noise barrier?  Will planting in front interfere with maintenance?

Response – This noise barrier become a WSCC Highways ‘asset’, and responsibility for maintenance will lie with the County Council.  The area by the noise barrier will be laid to grass.

Flood Risk

Point raised – Flood risk in relation to the ‘1 in 200 years (tidal) event’ for the viaduct over Black Ditch is good, reassurance was sought that the ‘1 in 100 years plus 40% climate change’ risk was taken into account? 

Response – Drainage proposals have been approved by the Environment Agency and the WSCC Drainage Officer, subject to relevant conditions as set out in Appendix 1 of the Committee report.

Landscape

Points raised – Could condition 7 – Detailed Landscaping Scheme -be amended to correct discrepancies in wording which refers to “prior to first use of the road” and “following commencement of the development”, by use of only the latter phrase.  Similarly, with condition 8 – Landscape and Ecological Management Plan.  In condition 7 replacement of planting should be changed from 5 years to 10 years.

Response – Officers did not consider a landscaping scheme was necessary prior to commencement, but should the Committee wish to propose this, and other amendments, then this would be reasonable.

Wick level crossing

Point raised – Are there any plans to close Wick level crossing?

Response – Network Rail have no plans to close Wick level crossing and this does not form any part of these proposals.

99.7         Mr S. J. Oakley proposed an amendment to condition7 to correct discrepancies in wording which refers to “prior first use of the road” and “following commencement of the development” by use of only the latter phrase throughout the condition, and also to amend the requirement for replacement of planting from 5 years to 10 years.  This was seconded by Mr Quinn, and put to the Committee and approved by a majority.  Delegated power was granted to the County Planning Team Manager to agree this amended pre-commencement condition with the applicant

99.8         Mr S. J. Oakley proposed that a new Informative be added as follows:

6.    The applicant is asked to investigate traffic calming measures on the old A284 though Lyminster village.

This was seconded by Mr Barrett-Miles, and put to the Committee and approved unanimously. 

99.9     The substantive recommendation, as amended by the agenda update sheet and changes to conditions and informatives as set out in Appendix 1 and as agreed by the Committee, was proposed by Mr McDonald and seconded by Mr Barratt-Miles and was put to the Committee and approved unanimously.

99.10   Resolved – That planning permission be granted subject to amended conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the report,

as agreed by the Committee, including the Secretary of State not calling in the application.

99.11   The Committee recessed at 11.47 a.m. and Mr Jupp, Mrs Russell and Mr Patel left the meeting.  The Committee reconvened at 11.54 a.m.

The Highway Infrastructure Asset Management Policy and Strategy communicates West Sussex County Council’s approach to highways infrastructure asset management, setting out the decision making framework for the maintenance of the roads in West Sussex.  Corporate processes are also in place for the identification, assessment, and prioritisation of local and community highway and transport improvements.  The rolling Forward Programmes for Highway Maintenance, Local Transport Improvement Programme (LTIP), and Community Highway Schemes (CHS) identify and prioritise future maintenance and improvement needs across the County Council’s highway asset groups. These forward programmes inform the future Annual Delivery Programmes.

The Highway Maintenance, LTIP and CHSForward Programmes provide robust and reliable information to identify the future maintenance need, or transport infrastructure improvements to be carried out within the next three to five years. The programmes are used to support forward financial planning and communicate the anticipated planned maintenance and transport improvements to elected members, County Local Committees, local West Sussex businesses and residents.

The Annual Delivery Programmeis developed and prepared from the integration of the Forward Programmes each year during autumn for approval in advance of the start of the new financial year. It prioritises maintenance and improvement schemes taking into account available funding for delivery and the relative need.

The Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure has approved:

(1)        The Annual Delivery Programme 2019/20 for implementation from 1 April 2019. (Appendix 1)

(2)        That the additional £8.046m of grant and S.106 funding as set out in paragraph 4.2 is utilised to deliver the Programme in 2019/20, and the Capital Programme updated accordingly.

(3)        The Annual Delivery Programme for 2019/20 to be circulated to County Local Committees and other appropriate stakeholders for their information and published on the West Sussex highways webpages. (Appendix 2 - part a and b)

(4)        The delegation of authority to the Director of Highways and Transport to adjust the 2019/20 Annual Delivery Programme to take account of budgetary pressures and any changes in priority arising as a result of network availability, emergencies, or other operational circumstances, in consultation with the Cabinet Member.

The area of the highway upon which the property has been constructed is unnecessary and of no public benefit. Given the highly unusual circumstances of this particular case, it is proposed that the highway forming the footprint of the house and garden be stopped up and the highway status therefore removed. This will regularise the position and enable the owner to properly market the property.

The Director of Law and Assurance, in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Eastern Arun Area Committee and the Chairman of the Environment, Communities and Fire Select Committee, has used his delegated powers under Standing Order 3.45 to approve the following:

That the Director of Law and Assurance be authorised to make an application to the Magistrates Court for an Order to stop up the highway as summarised in the Report and shown on the plan attached at Appendix A.