Decisions

The Community Initiative Fund is a County Local Committee (CLC) administered fund that provides assistance to local community projects.

The Director of Law and Assurance, in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Eastern Arun Area Committee and the Chairman of the Performance and Finance Scrutiny Committee, has used his delegated powers under Standing Order 3.45 to decide the following CIF application:

 

574/JEAAC – Littlehampton Sportsfield Trust, ‘Hedge trimmer’, £274.22 - For purchasing a hedge trimmer to reduce equipment hire and contractor costs.

15.1   The Committee received and noted a report by Strategic Planning, County Planning Manager (copy appended to the signed minutes) applications approved subject to conditions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 since the Planning Committee meeting on
7 July 2020.

 

WSCC/009/20 - Change of use from agricultural land to a construction/demolition/excavation waste recycling facility.  Land at Thistleworth Farm, Grinders Lane, Dial Post, Horsham, RH13 8NR.

 

13.1   The Committee considered a report by the Head of Planning Services (copy appended to the signed minutes).  The report was introduced by James Neave, Acting County Planning Team Manager, who provided a presentation on the proposals, details of consultation and key issues in respect of the application.

 

13.2   Mr Barry Davies, local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  Dial Post is subject the noise of a grinding machine and residents have lost enjoyment of their homes and gardens due to sound of deep thumping and rumbling from the site, which can be heard even inside the house.  The sound can be heard above the traffic noise from the A24 and screening does not work.  The village is not an industrial zone and should not have put up with disturbance from commercial operations.  The entrance to the site is a dangerous crossing on the A24 and introducing more HGVs is an accident waiting to happen.  It is questioned why this site has been allowed to operate for the last 2 years without planning permission.

 

13.3   Mr David Green of West Grinstead Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.  This application is retrospective, although with new elements.  The site has been allowed to operate for 2 years without planning permission or an Environmental Permit.  The site operator must have known that planning consent was needed and has flouted the law, with potentially dangerous materials being handled on the site without controls.  What kind of message does this send to those who do abide by the law?  Dial Post residents are concerned about noise, dust, hours of operations, numbers of vehicles accessing and using the A24 vehicles, including HGVs.  The Committee report suggests that Environmental Health has no objections, however, they did raise noise as an issue in the first instance, although it is conceded they withdrew their objections in light of the applicant’s comments.  There has been a recurring issue with retrospective planning applications in Dial Post and a number of local business have grown massively over the years.  There is considerable opposition to this application in Dial Post but residents have no faith that anyone will listen to their concerns.

 

13.4   A statement in objection to the application was read out on behalf of residents of Benton’s Lane, Dial Post.  The Noise Impact Assessment Report (NIAR) concludes the plant reduces noise by 1db; this is ridiculous.  Measurements were taken were in locations where higher than average noise from the A24 eclipses noise from the site, which seems to be a manipulation of the recording strategy in favour of the client.  Readings should be taken from within or to the west of Dial Post village: a number of specific locations were suggested.  Low frequency noise carries to greater distances than road noise.  An acoustic fence on top of the bund will not help.  The Council should commission its own NIAR and dates for monitoring noise should not be pre-notified to anyone.  Screening machinery should be enclosed within a roofed, sound absorbent structure.  It is questioned who will monitor or control the hauliers leaving the site and what action will be taken.  Consent should be temporary and subject to annual or bi-annual review to ensure conditions are complied with.

 

13.5   Mr Lionel Barnard, local councillor for Henfied spoke on the application.  Dial Post is cut in two by the A24 and noise is quite considerable with 60,000 vehicles per day using this road.  Some Hyatt and also Penfold Verall HGVs do turn right out of Grinders Lane when going north on the A24.  The objections received about this planning application are from people who have a right of say on matters within their village.  Cllr Barnard is member of A24 Action Group and it is noted that the Grinders Lane/A24 entry/exit is always raised as a concern.  Many vehicles do turn left, but it is turning right that is the trouble.  Noise from this site is dreadful and it not felt that a bund will stop it.  Residents already put up with a garden centre, solar farm, caravan park, showground and Penfold Verall site.  The County Council should not be there to destroy the countryside.

 

13.6   In response to points made by speakers Planning Officers provided clarification on the following (points of clarification are noted only here where they were not addressed during the debate by Committee, see minute 13.7 below):

 

·        The Noise Impact Assessment Report was considered by the Environmental Health Officer, who raised no objections subject to conditions that secure operational controls for noise.  Their final stance is set out in the Committee report.

 

·        Paragraph 9.1 of the Committee report recognises the retrospective nature of the planning allocation.  However, the application must be treated on its merits; the fact that it is retrospective is not material to the application.

 

·        Condition 17 ’Waste Types’ controls materials coming to the site.  An Environmental Permit or exemption from the Environment Agency would also be required by the operator.

 

13.7   During the debate the Committee raised the points below and a response or clarification was provided by the Planning and Highway Officers, where applicable:

 

Road Safety

 

Points raised – When entering the proposed site from the northbound carriageway of the A24 HGVs must right turn across the gap in the central reservation and over the southbound carriageway onto Grinders Lane.  Could the section 106 routing agreement be amended to require HGVs to continue north to the Southwater roundabout and return on the southbound carriageway in order to enter Grinders Lane from a left hand turn?  The suggestion was not supported by all.

 

Response – Such a proposal would have to be reasonable and proportionate.  It would only be applicable to HGV movements for this site: approximately 12 movements per day (6 HGVs entering and 6 leaving the site).  It would not be consistent with the section 106 routing agreement for HGVs exiting the nearby Penfold Verall site, which has no such requirement.  Also, that site has approximately 44 movements per day.  It would require HGVs to drive a considerable distance north to the Southwater roundabout and back south again.  It may also encourage HGV drivers to use other gaps between Dial Post and Southwater to turn south back on the A24, which may be unsafe.

 

Point raised – Is there an issue with vehicles queuing on the northbound carriageway of the A24 in order to turn right across the gap into Grinders Lane, causing safety concerns?

 

Response – County Highways are not aware of any issues or reports of problems with vehicles queuing on the northbound carriageway in order to cross the gap and turn into Grinders Lane across the southbound carriageway of the A24.

 

Point raised – What road traffic accidents have occurred in the area?

 

Response – In the last 5 years there have been five accidents (one fatality, three serious and one slight), with the main issue being vehicles turning right from the side roads onto the A24 (rather than crossing the A24 into side roads).  Driver error was the main cause of these accidents.

 

Point raised – The proposed section 106 routeing agreement that HGVs existing from the site must turn left onto the southbound carriageway of the A27 is sensible, because for HGVs to drive across the southbound carriageway in order to use the gap to turn north is dangerous.

 

Response – The proposed Section 106 routeing agreement is considered reasonable for the purposes of highway safety.  It is consistent with the agreement in place for the Penfold Verall site, and the distance to Ashington roundabout, to allow for turning on the northern carriageway of the A24, is circa 2 miles to the south and so considered reasonable.

 

Point raised – How will the section 106 routeing agreement be monitored and enforced?

 

Response – The section 106 routeing agreement would be legally enforceable.  Officers cannot be present to monitor the location all the time and so rely on reports from residents.  All reports are investigated, discussed with the site operator and action taken, where appropriate.

 

Point raised – Is it possible to erect a sign at the slipway to the A24 at Grinders Lane requiring traffic to turn left only?

 

Response – The proposed section 106 routeing agreement would only be applicable to HGVs leaving this site.  There is a similar agreement for the nearby Penfold Verall site.  There is no legal requirement for any other traffic to turn left onto the A24 from Grinders Lane.  A left-turn only requirement would have impacts on residents, other road users and local businesses.  The installation of such a sign cannot be considered as part of the planning process as it would not be proportionate to the impact of the planning application but may be something that can be considered when reviewing road network schemes at a later date.

 

Drainage

 

Points raised – There are already concerns about flooding on this section of the A24 and on the western end of the site.  The attenuation pond is within application boundary, but it is noted that land to south and east isn’t; however, it is within the applicant’s control.  The drainage systems at the site are vulnerable to loose debris and spoil, particularly from the spraying to dampen down dust; this includes the drainage channels within the site and near the site entrance, and at the west where they are close to uncontained stockpiles.  Following installation of the drainage scheme, a verification report is required only 1 month after, and this should be provided annually.  By doing so it would provide reassurance that maintenance will be ongoing.

 

Response –Condition 1 ‘Approved Plans’, requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted Drainage Strategy report, which includes maintenance provisions and is considered acceptable to the Council’s flooding and drainage officers.  The required verification report under Condition 5 must be prepared by a qualified engineer and considered by the Council and if the proposed drainage system does not operate suitably a scheme of rectification must be submitted to and approved by the Council.

 

Dust suppression system

 

Points raised – It is proposed that the dust suppression system will re-use water from site operations, backed up my mains water, but because West Sussex is a water stressed area, reassurance is sought that this system is reliable and sustainable.

 

Response – It is proposed to harvest rainwater and supplement the system with mains water supply. 

 

Landscaping - Scheme of planting

 

Point raised – It is suggested that the proposed planting scheme should be extended to include planting on the top of the eastern bund.  Whilst there are no concerns about visual receptors, this would be a net gain in terms of biodiversity, as per paragraph 170(d) of the NPPF, and it would aid in dust suppression.

 

Response – The proposed additional bunds and fencing and the existing bund are considered to provide sufficient screening.  It is felt that the proposed scheme of planting for the northern, western and southern bunds is sufficient in terms of a net gain in biodiversity, and because the existing bund to east is 5 metres high and there no concerns with visual receptors, additional planting would not be required in order to make the proposal acceptable in planning terms.

 

Noise

 

Point raised – Concern was raised regarding noise that residents of Dial Post are experiencing from the site with one speaker noting that grinding and thumping can be heard when inside his house.

 

Response – Condition 15 ‘No Crushing Operations’ states that no crushing would be permitted on site.  Conditions 10 ‘Site Layout and Permitted plant’ specifies the machinery that can be used.  Regarding condition 11 ‘Hours of Operation’ the applicant originally sought half day operations on Saturday but following discussions with Environmental Health it was agreed that operations would be permitted only for weekdays with an additional hour in the morning to allow vehicles to arrive.  Condition 13 specifies that a ‘Noise Management Plan’ must be submitted to and approved by the Council.  Regarding the origins of noise, officer investigations have found it difficult to establish where noise is coming from or to be able to attribute it to the site.  Noted that the Penfold Verall site handles a 75,000 tonne throughput per year and this does have a crushing facility.  And recently there have been noisy demolition and construction works at garden centre.

 

Condition 13 – Noise Management Plan

 

Point raised – Clarification was sought on the phrase “but not limited to…” in the second sentence of Condition 13 ‘Noise Management Plan’.

 

Response – This condition requires the operator to comply with the requirements laid in respect of the (to be agreed) noise management plan, but it does not limit the plan to only these measures; as necessary, it may include other measures to mitigate noise impacts.

 

Area of Search

 

Points raised – No map was included in reference to the Area of Search, paragraph 9.14 of the Committee report.  The Area of Search in the Waste Local Plan is described as along the coast and in the north-west of the country, but this description does not seem to apply.

 

Response – The site is within the Area of Search, which is described as outlined above.  The Area of Search does also contain a spine through the centre of the county.

 

Access shared with the Showground

 

Points raised – Under ‘Representations’ in paragraph 8.2, bullet point 4 of the committee report it is stated that the site is a “shared drive also used by the Sussex Showground, which seasonally produces considerable traffic”, but the matter of the amount of traffic is not clarified within the report.

 

Response – The land known as the Sussex Showground has permitted development rights resulting from agricultural use, that allows for 28 days per year for events.  However, it is understood that the Showground is now no longer used for events.

 

Reversing Alarms

 

Point raised – Condition 14 mentions the use of white noise/broadband alarms. What is this? 

 

Response – A white noise/broadband reversing alarm has crow-like tone rather than emitting a bleeping noise.  The noise from bleeping alarms carries over distance but the noise from white noise/broadband alarms does not carry as far.

 

13.8   An amendment proposed by Cllr Montyn to require HGVs to continue north to the Southwater roundabout and return on the southbound carriageway in order to enter Grinders Lane from a left hand turn was withdrawn in light of officer comments because it was agreed that it would not be reasonable or proportionate.

 

13.9   The following amendment to Condition 5 was proposed by Cllr S. Oakley and seconded by Cllr Barrett-Miles:

 

          5 – Surface Water Drainage

 

Add the words and a verification report prepared by a qualified engineer to be submitted annually thereafterat the end of the condition.

 

The Committee voted on the proposed amendment, which was approved unanimously. 

 

13.10  The following amendment to Condition 6 was proposed by Cllr S. Oakley and seconded by Cllr Burrett:

 

          6 – Landscaping Scheme

Add the word eastern, after the word, northern in the second sentence.  And in addition, add the wording and to ensure a biodiversity net gain to the end of the ‘Reason’.

 

The Committee voted on the amendment and rejected by the majority and the proposed amendment was lost.

 

13.11  The substantive recommendation, amended by the new condition as approved by the Committee and noted in minute 13.9 above, was proposed by Cllr Atkins and seconded by Cllr Quinn and was put to the Committee and approved unanimously.

 

13.12  Resolved – That planning permission be granted subject to:

(a)     the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1, as amended by the Committee; and

 

(b)     the applicant entering into a legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring all exiting HGVs from the site to turn south onto the A24.

 

The Director of Law and Assurance, in consultation with

the Chairman of The Joint Eastern Arun Area Committee

and the Chairman of the Environment and Communities

Scrutiny Committee, has used his delegated powers under

Standing Order 3.45 to approve the attached decision.

That the County Council Members of the Joint Eastern Arun Area Committee, having considered the objections to the proposal, authorises the Director of Law & Assurance to make a revised version of the advertised Traffic Regulation Order as detailed in Appendix B and for the amended restrictions to be implemented.

Community requests for Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) that cost under £3,000 to implement are considered annually by County Local Committees (CLCs). More complex TROs are considered for progression as a Community Highways Scheme and so fall outside the process.

The Director of Law and Assurance, in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Eastern Arun Area Committee and the Chairman of the Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee, has used his delegated powers under Standing Order 3.45 to agree to progress the two highest scoring TROs from the list attached at Appendix A. The following TROs are agreed for progression:

 

• Ferring - West Drive, South Drive, Ocean Drive and Florida Road - Request to introduce waiting prohibition on private street, along bus route (Build funded by residents).

• Littlehampton - Fort Road - Request to extend waiting restrictions

The Care and Support at Home Framework (2015) is the Council’s primary contractual arrangements for the provision of home-based services for people with assessed eligible care needs. In February 2020 (Report AH11 19/20) a decision was made to commence a procurement programme for a new Care and Support at Home Framework to replace the existing arrangements, including the reserve Domiciliary Care Framework (2009), with the new services scheduled to commence in February 2021.

 

The tender opportunity for the new framework was published on 6 March 2020 but due to the Covid-19 pandemic was suspended on 27 March 2020. The tender was re-published on 10 August 2020. As a result of the delay to the procurement it is not possible for the new Framework to commence as intended with the current timeline now targeting a July 2021 start date.

 

Contracts for services awarded under the Care and Support at Home Framework (2015) were extended in May 2019 until 31 January 2020 with the provision for a further three-month extension. In order to avoid a break in service delivery and to coincide with when the new services commence it is proposed to extend these contracts.

 

The Executive Director Adults and Health will be asked to approve the extension of contracts under the Care and Support at Home Framework (2015).

The Executive Director Adults and Health has approved the extension of the 2015 Care and Support at Home Framework until 3rd July 2021 to enable smooth transition to the commencement of new Care and Support at Home arrangements on 4 July, 2021.

 

The County Council, in partnership with the South Downs National Park Authority, is required to undertake a Soft Sand Review (SSR) of the West Sussex Joint Minerals Local Plan (JMLP), which is part of the statutory ‘development plan’ for West Sussex.  The SSR considers the need for soft sand during the plan period (to 2033) and identifies changes to the JMLP to meet this demand, including the need for new site allocations. 

 

Informal public consultation on issues and options took place in January–March 2019 (under Regulation 18) followed by a formal period for representations on proposed changes to the JMLP in January-March 2020 (under Regulation 19).  In April 2020, the draft was submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination.

 

Following hearing sessions for the examination in August 2020, the Government-appointed Inspector has indicated that the submitted changes need to be modified to make them ‘sound’ and suitable for adoption.

 

Following approval, public consultation on the Proposed Modifications will take place during November 2020-January 2021, before they are submitted to the Inspector.

 

The Inspector will consider the Proposed Modifications and the representations made on them.  He will then report whether they are ‘sound’ and, if they are, they will be adopted by both Authorities as formal changes to the JMLP.

48.1     The Cabinet Member for Environment moved the report on the Proposed Modifications to the Soft Sand Review of the West Sussex Joint Minerals Local Plan (pages 77 to 110).

 

48.2     Resolved –

 

That the Proposed Modifications to the Soft Sand Review, as set out at Appendix 1 to the report, be approved for public consultation on their soundness, followed by submission to the Inspector.

The County Council sources a range of different accommodation options as part of preparing young people aged 16 years and over who are looked after for living independently.  These accommodation services are accessed via a dynamic purchasing system (DPS), a mechanism that enables the Council to match a young person’s needs with a suitable accommodation provider.

 

The 16+ services DPS sets out the minimum standards that the Council requires to evidence that the organisations with which young people are placed are safe, appropriate and of good financial standing.  The DPS is the mechanism used to form a preferred provider list and enables the Council to carry out further inspections to ensure that services continue to operate in a safe and appropriate way. These processes and mechanisms are critical for 16+ services, as they are not regulated by Ofsted and therefore the Council must take full responsibility for monitoring.

 

The current DPS for 16+ services has run for an initial contract term of 3 years, which ended in March 2020.  The contract allows for an extension period of two years and it is proposed to utilise this option. New applicants are currently waiting to join the DPS, which would increase the supply of services available to young people. Extending the DPS will also allow the Children’s Commissioning and Contracts Team the time to consider future options for services for young people aged 16+, including reviewing the service model to enable greater strategic alignment with the goals of Children, Young People and Learning.

(1) The Executive Director of Children, Young People and Learning has approved the reopening of the Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) portal for accommodation services for young people aged 16 years and over and the extension of the DPS for 2 years from the point of closure, to 31st March 2022.

On 17^th September 2020 the government announced a second support package for adult social care providers backed by a further £546m infection control fund. The specified purpose of the grant is to provide continued support to adult social care providers, including those with whom the Council does not have a contract, to reduce the rate of COVID-19 transmission in and between care homes and support wider workforce resilience to enable improved infection control. The West Sussex allocation of this money is £10.958m. The expectation from government is that 80% of the money be passported directly to registered care home providers and other CQC regulated community care providers. 

 

Decision (Report Ref: OKD40 20/21) allocated 80% of the Infection Control Grant Funding be paid to care homes and other CQC regulated community care providers, in line with Government Guidance, subject to the government grant conditions, and the providers’ acceptance of the terms and conditions of the Council’s grant agreement with them. 

 

The allocation of the remaining 20% of the Infection Control Funding is the subject of this further decision. 

 

The Director of Law & Assurance, with the agreement of the Executive Director Adults and Health and the Chairman of the Health and Adults Social Care Scrutiny Committee, has used his delegated powers under Standing Order 5.23 and approved that; the 20% of the Infection Control Funding is paid to providers in line with the proposal in section 2 of the decision report, subject to providers’ acceptance of the terms and conditions of the Council’s grant agreement with them.

 

The Community Initiative Fund is a County Local Committee (CLC) administered fund that provides assistance to local community projects.

The Director of Law and Assurance, in consultation with the Chairman of the Worthing County Local Committee and the Chairman of the Performance and Finance Scrutiny Committee, has used his delegated powers under Standing Order 3.45 to decide the following CIF application:

 

594/W – Worthing Counselling Centre, ‘Equipping our service for a safe return face to face counselling, £749.63 - for purchasing perspex screens and other COVID-19 protective equipment. 

6.1   The Committee received a report by the Director of Law and Assurance (copy appended to the signed minutes) which sought approval from the Committee to a proposed replacement of the Protocol on Relationships between Members and Officers which formed part of the Code of Conduct section of the County Council’s constitution.

 

6.2   The Director Law and Assurance explained that, as part of the Good Governance work that had been undertaken this year, the council’s policies in the areas of discipline and grievance and those reflecting changes to the culture of the organisation had been reviewed and changes made to the Protocol attached at Appendix 1.  The Committee’s approval was sought prior to submission for decision at December County Council.  The Committee made comments including those that follow:

·       To note that a councillor had asked for a change to be made to add the word ‘specific’ at para 22 to ensure that committee members were able to ask specific officers to attend meetings

·       The need to highlight for both members and officers the guidance on keeping members informed and to emphasise how important this is in helping members to do their job

·       To propose an addition between paragraphs 12 and 13 to set out guidance for officers that they should not, when dealing with the public, endeavour to pass operational responsibilities to a member. 

·       To question whether all members would have an opportunity to see the document again before it went before full Council.  It was agreed that it would be helpful for members and officers to have the opportunity and any further changes requested would be shared with Committee members for informal endorsement prior to submission to County Council in December

·       That it may be helpful to include this document in induction packs for new members.

 

6.3   Resolved that the Committee supports the proposed revised protocol with the:

a.   addition of the word ‘specific’ in paragraph 22

b.   addition of a paragraph setting out that officers, when dealing with the public, do not give the impression that members may be responsible for operational matters

c.    correction of the spelling of ‘behaviour’ at 2.1 and 2.2

d.   further circulation of the protocol to members and officers and that any additional revisions be circulated to the Committee for endorsement.

4.1     The Committee received a report by the Director of Law and Assurance (copy appended to the signed minutes), which set out a proposed Standards Committee Annual Report for submission to the County Council.

 

4.2     The report, outlining the priorities and activities of the Committee from April 2019 to March 2020, was introduced by Charles Gauntlett (Senior Adviser, Democratic Services).

 

4.3     Resolved - that the draft report be approved for submission to the County Council meeting on 11 December 2020.

36.1     The Council considered the proposed merger of the Planning and Rights of Way Committees, in the light of a report from the Governance Committee (pages 35 to 60).

 

36.2     Resolved –

 

(1)        That the merger of the Planning and Rights of Way Committees be approved; and

 

(2)        That the proposed changes to the Constitution, as set out in Appendices 1 and 2 to the report, be approved to give effect to the merger.

5.1   The Committee received a report by the Director of Law and Assurance (copy appended to the signed minutes), which concerned a recommendation to the County Council on 06 November that the Planning and Rights of Way Committee be merged.

 

5.2   The report was introduced by the senior adviser, Democratic Services who explained that it was the role of the Committee to consider the proposed revisions to the Code of Practice in Probity in Planning and Rights of Way.  The proposals set out in the report were noted to include changes to the name of the Committee to ‘Planning and Rights of Way’ throughout and to remove sections 10 to 13 which had not been used in 10 years and were therefore obsolete.

 

5.3   The Committee noted that the decision to merge the Committees lay with the County Council following endorsement of the proposal from the Governance Committee.

 

5.4   Resolved - that the proposed revisions to Part 5, Section 3 of the Constitution as outlined in the appendix to the report be supported for submission to the County Council for approval on 6 November 2020.

 

Community requests for Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) that cost under £3,000 to implement are considered annually by County Local Committees (CLCs). More complex TROs are considered for progression as a Community Highways Scheme and so fall outside the process.

The Director of Law and Assurance, in consultation with the Chairman of Worthing County Local Committee and the Chairman of the Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee, has used his delegated powers under Standing Order 3.45 to agree to progress the two highest scoring TROs from the list attached at Appendix A. The following TRO is agreed for progression:

 

·       Wellesley Avenue, Goring – Request for Double Yellow Lines

The Community Initiative Fund is a County Local Committee (CLC) administered fund that provides assistance to local community projects.

The Director of Law and Assurance, in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Western Arun Area Committee and the Chairman of the Performance and Finance Scrutiny Committee, has used his delegated powers under Standing Order 3.45 to decide the following CIF application:

 

West Sussex Crowd

584/JWAAC – The Bognor Makerspace, ‘New loos for Bognor Makerspace!’, £2,000.00 towards installing two toilets with baby changing facilities at the town's new community makerspace.

 

Community requests for Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) that cost under £3,000 to implement are considered annually by County Local Committees (CLCs). More complex TROs are considered for progression as a Community Highways Scheme and so fall outside the process.

The Director of Law and Assurance, in consultation with the Chairman of Joint Western Arun Area Committee and the Chairman of the Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee, has used his delegated powers under Standing Order 3.45 to agree to progress the two highest scoring TROs from the list attached at Appendix A. The following TROs are agreed for progression:

 

·       Yapton, St Mary's Meadow - Request for junction protection

·       Bersted, Oldlands Way - Request for DYL to improve HGV access to operating centre

Community requests for Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) that cost under £3,000 to implement are considered annually by County Local Committees (CLCs). More complex TROs are considered for progression as a Community Highways Scheme and so fall outside the process.

The Director of Law and Assurance, in consultation with the Chairman of Crawley County Local Committee and the Chairman of the Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee, has used his delegated powers under Standing Order 3.45 to agree to progress the three highest scoring TROs from the list attached at Appendix A. The following TROs are agreed for progression:

 

 

·       Martyrs Avenue – Request to formalise a disabled bay and request for Double Yellow Lines.

·       Findon Road – Request for Double Yellow Lines

·       The Ridings – Request for Double Yellow Lines

 

Members noted that the requests for Single Yellow Lines on Tangmere Road and Double Yellow Lines and Single Yellow Lines on Tushmore Avenue would be delivered as part of the Crawley Road Space Audit.       

During 2017 a construction project was undertaken to increase the number of pupil places and to expand Parklands Primary School in Chichester to become a two-form entry primary school.  Following completion, a number of significant defects were identified within the new building.  Defects continued to arise and new contractors were appointed to remedy these.  The original Contractor is now working with the County Council to rectify remaining defects.

 

This report is seeking approval for the funding required to complete the essential remedial works.  Reimbursement of these funds will be sought from the original contractor.

The Cabinet Member for Education and Skills has approved the allocation of £701,000 from the Basic Need Programme to fund the additional remedial and latent defect works at Parklands Primary School, Chichester, to achieve full use of the new extension as detailed in the report and summarised in the appendix.

Community requests for Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) that cost under £3,000 to implement are considered annually by County Local Committees (CLCs). More complex TROs are considered for progression as a Community Highways Scheme and so fall outside the process.

 

The Director of Law and Assurance, in consultation with the Chairman of South Chichester County Local Committee and the Chairman of the Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee, has used his delegated powers under Standing Order 3.45 to agree to progress the two highest scoring TROs from the list attached at Appendix A. The following TROs are agreed for progression:

 

•        Caspian Close, Fishbourne - junction protection and double yellow lines on bend

•        Hillfield Road, Selsey - double yellow line extension opposite bus stop

Supported Living services are care, support and accommodation services purchased by the Council on behalf of people who have been assessed as having eligible social care needs. These services support people to live more independently through the provision of personal care and outreach support.

 

The council currently commissions supported living services from two framework agreements; 1. Supported Living and Family Support Services for adults with learning disabilities and disabled children and young people and 2. Provision of Community Based Mental Health Support Services. Contracts are with circa 86 Providers and are due to end March 2021.

 

The Cabinet Member agreed to the procurement of a new single Supported Living Framework in August 2020 (AH08 20/21). This procurement timetable has been impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic, particularly for the Supported Living Provider Market, where the Council acknowledges additional challenges as a result of responding to a Covid-19 second wave, winter pressures and the national roll out of testing for supported living services in October/November.

 

Authorisation is sought to extend the current contract arrangements for 4 months until 31st July 2021, under the existing contractual terms and delay the publication of the tender until January 2021. A revised procurement timetable will enable the Council to offer an extended time for bidders to respond and offer support to the market at this difficult time.

 

The Interim Executive Director Adults and Health has approved a 4-month extension of contracts, up to 31^st July 2021, to the Supported Living Providers on the Support for Adults with Learning Disability Framework (SLFSSF) and Mental Health Frameworks.

 

In May 2020, the government announced an opportunity to bid into the emergency active travel fund (EATF) for funding to provide temporary schemes that would facilitate walking or cycling in place of mass public transport in response to the Covid-19 crisis.

 

The County Council, in co-operation with District and Borough councils, identified 7 schemes that would fulfil the government’s criteria and was successful in securing funding for all of these.

 

The schemes were implemented over a period of 8 weeks between July and September 2020.

 

The Chichester scheme has been operational since it opened on 24 August and sufficient data has been gathered to help assess its impact. A decision can now be made to determine if the scheme should be retained, removed or substantially revised.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure has approved the removal of the emergency active travel cycle scheme installed in Chichester.

 

Note: the decision was called in and considered by the Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee on 18 November 2020.  The Scrutiny Committee supported the decision and the decision came into effect on 18 November 2020.