Decisions

4.1     The Director of Law and Assurance reported that, further to minute 10 of the last meeting, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman had written to the County Council again, to ask the County Council to comply with its original recommendations in relation to the case previously considered by the Committee.

4.2     The Director advised that as the findings could not be rejected other than through judicial review, he recommended that the County Council should comply with the recommendations of the Ombudsman, that an apology be made, £400 be paid and that procedures should be reviewed. He advised that the Education and Skills Service had now accepted this and he did not consider that accepting the recommendations would set a precedent as each case is individually assessed and it remains the case that the Council does not agree with but accepts the findings.

4.3     The Committee noted the Director’s advice as Monitoring Officer. The Committee remained concerned about the implications of the findings of the Ombudsman, but did not consider it appropriate to consider a judicial review into the matter. It noted that the alternative provision eventually provided for the student concerned was now proving effective and that it was providing a good educational outcome.

4.4     Resolved – That the Ombudsman’s recommendations on the education complaint case be agreed – that the Council will:

(1)     Apologise to Mr and Mrs X for not fully considering alternative approaches to ensuring an education for their daughter from April to July 2017;

(2)     Pay them £400 to recognise the loss of educational opportunity during this period, to be used for the benefit of Y’s education;

(3)     Remind relevant staff that the duty to provide alternative education may arise for reasons other than exclusion and illness.

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

6.2     The report was introduced by Charles Gauntlett (Senior Advisor, Democratic Services) who advised that the report was positive, with little casework during 2018-19.

6.3     The Committee welcomed the report as it highlighted the successful approach to conduct and standards by members of the County Council. It was hoped that the County Council’s good practice could be shared with other local authorities in the area.

6.4     Resolved – That the draft report be approved for submission to the County Council on 18 October 2019.

5.1     The Committee received a report by the Director of Law and Assurance (copy appended to the signed minutes), which set out proposals to implement two areas of best practice as defined by the Committee for Standards in Public Life.

5.2     The report was introduced by Charles Gauntlett (Senior Advisor, Democratic Services), who advised that it was proposed to add an explicit wording to the registration of interests form that a member would ‘confirm that I agree to abide by West Sussex County Council’s Code of Conduct’ as well as give notice of their interests. He confirmed that the other proposal was to add a list of other bodies which the Council owns or has set up to the Annual Governance Statement, confirming that they abide by the Nolan principles of openness.

5.3     The Committee welcomed the proposals and agreed that these would address the two gaps identified in the County Council’s best practice on standards. It asked that the declaration to be added to the registration of interests form be highlighted in bold type.

5.4     Resolved –

(1)        That the proposed amended wording to the registration of interests form in the appendix to the report be approved for use after future by-elections and elections, in bold type.

(2)        That the Director of Law and Assurance be asked to list separate bodies within future Annual Governance Statements, together with confirmation that they abide by the Nolan principles.

7.1     The Committee considered a report by the Director of Law and Assurance (copy appended to the signed minutes), which provided an update on referrals made through the Confidential Reporting (Whistleblowing) Policy.

7.2     The report was introduced by the Director of Law and Assurance, who invited the Committee to note the four referrals made and the outcomes from them. He advised that recommendations were to change the name of the Policy to the ‘Whistleblowing Policy’ and to publicise it to staff and through staff groups.

7.3     The Committee supported the proposal to rename the Policy as the ‘Whistleblowing Policy’ as it was plainer English. The proposals to publicise the Policy were also supported and it was emphasised that efforts should be made to publicise it to all staff. The Committee also asked for future reports to include a table of the number of cases from the previous year, to give some comparison information.

7.4     Resolved –

(1)        That the report be noted.

(2)        That the Confidential Reporting Policy be renamed the Whistleblowing Policy.

(3)        That the policy be promoted to all staff, including school staff, through appropriate methods of communication.

(4)        That staff groups be invited to provide feedback on staff perceptions of the policy and its effectiveness as a route for raising concerns and in meeting the primary obligations of confidentiality and no adverse consequences.

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 Adur County Local Committee and the Chairman of the Performance and Finance Select Committee, has used his delegated powers under Standing Order 3.45 to approve the following CIF Applications:

396/A – Beach garden development (The Shoreham Beach School Parent, Teachers and Friends Association), £750.00 - towards purchasing child-height planters and wicker dens for outdoor reading. 

399/A – Welcome to the Morris Side! (Sompting Village Morris), £552.11 - including contribution towards civic venue hire for ‘Have A Go’ sessions open to the public, purchasing three first aid kits and the production of recruitment flyers. 

In May 2019, the Chief Fire Officer agreed to commence the procurement of 35 vehicles to replace those currently provided to staff to support operational cover through a Flexi Duty System (FDS) (OKD_03_19/20).

The total value of the purchase of vehicles, including emergency response conversions and livery, is expected to be approximately £750,000. Funds have been allocated to the purchase of these vehicles through the Fleet Asset Management Plan.

A procurement process, compliant with West Sussex Standing Orders and European Union Procurement Directives, has been undertaken and the (Acting) Chief Fire Officer has awarded the Contract to the successful bidder.

The (Acting) Chief Fire Officer has approved the award of the contract to purchase 35 vehicles (with emergency response conversion) from Volkswagen Group United Kingdom Ltd trading as Skoda UK.

WSCC/050/18/BK       Erection of replacement dwelling, including acoustic bunds along east, west and side boundaries.  Dan Tree Farm, London Road, Bolney, West Sussex, RH17 5QD.

6.1    The Committee considered a report by the Head of Planning Services (copy appended to the signed copy of the minutes).  The report was introduced by James Neave, Principal Planner, who gave a presentation on the proposals, details of the consultation and key issues in respect of the application.

6.2    Mr Alan Potter, specialist on waste planning policy on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  Mr Potter declared that he recently worked with the County Council on annual reports on construction waste management capacity and the formulation of the current WLP.  The application is compliant with at least five out of nine criteria of Policy W8 of the WLP: it provides clear benefits; involves only material that cannot be recycled or treated and is suitable for the purpose; does not involve unacceptable impacts on natural resources or other environmental constraints, and does not sterilise mineral reserves.  The criterion requiring a genuine need to use waste material is about proposals not being advanced solely on the basis of providing outlets for waste; it should not be construed as a ‘need’.  The bund is not a waste development, it is only being heard as such because of the County Council’s insistence that it is.  The bund may be constructed of material that is not defined as waste.  Regarding criteria for amount of material, the design will minimise the amount used whilst achieving performance in noise mitigation.  The applicant was given no opportunity to demonstrate an identified need for disposal of inert waste.  The County Council itself predicts an exhaustion of recovery capacity in 2019-20, so the assertion that material could be otherwise managed through recovery is not supported by facts.  The application will help meet local needs.

6.3    Mr Peter Radmall, author of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA), spoke in support of the application.  Design of the bunds must strike a balance between acoustic mitigation, the natural terrain, ease of construction and proportion of the residential land used.  Local topography is already extensively modified, mainly due to the A23 and there is acoustic bunding immediately to the south so engineered landforms are already characteristic in the area and the bund would not be incongruous.  Earthworks on the A23 have become densely vegetated and are readily assimilated into the landscape; vegetation on the proposed bund will soften the effect.  The current site contributes little to the character of the area.  The development will not affect the vegetated boundaries which already screen the site.  Development will be most visible during construction.  A planting scheme will be agreed.  Regarding the AONB Management Plan, the site has no bearing on settlements or routeways, supports neither woodland nor heathland and is not part of any historic field pattern, so does not impact on the character of the High Weald.  In terms of natural topography, the bunds may not replicate the natural undulating ridge-line but it remains intact beneath.  The development is of modest scale in relation to the size of the AONB, which local exhibits few of its special qualities in this locality.

6.4    Mr Simon Bareham, Director at Lewis and Co Planning, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  Noise from the A23 means neither the house nor garden will achieve satisfactory noise levels in accordance with World Health Organisation guidance.  Sealed windows and mechanical ventilation will not achieve noise reduction when using the garden; also, mechanical ventilation would increase energy use.  Acoustic bunds would provide a satisfactory residential environment.  The bunds do not need to be constructed out of inert waste but it would make more sense to use waste that would otherwise be diverted elsewhere.  Bunds would be a visibly superior to acoustic fencing.  The Environmental Health Officer recommends approval of the application.  Proposals are supported by numerous reports.  The recommendation is inconsistent in that the neighbouring site to the south [Bolney Park Farm] has an acoustic bund. The proposed bund is on residential land, is shorter, lower and less than half as wide as the bund to the south and it uses less than half the material, and it would result in a 6dB reduction in noise in the garden. The bund at Bolney Park Farm is on agricultural land and produces a 9dB reduction.  The justification for the bund in both applications is to improve acoustic quality.

6.5    Mrs Joy Dennis, local member for Hurstpierpoint and Bolney spoke on the application.  The site is higher than the A23, lined with woods and shrubs on the boundary including an Ancient Woodland to the north.  The neighbouring site to the south [Bolney Park Farm] is lower and its existing bund forms part of the landscape.  However, there are other equestrian centres in the area which don’t have bunds and get more noise.  To approve this application would be setting a precedent for other properties on main roads.  Bunds are not attractive in the context of the landscape and ancient woodland and it would take a long time for planting to establish.  The waste from existing building on the site would form only a small part of the 45,000 tonnes to be imported.  It was questioned when a minimal change becomes an overwhelming change.

6.6    In response to speakers, Planning Officers made the following points for the purposes of clarification – further points regarding the bund at Bolney Park Farm are noted in minute 6.7, below:

·           The existing planning permission for a dwelling was approved without bunds, indicating the noise environment is acceptable.

·           Approved plans of the bund to the south at Bolney Park Farm were shown to the Committee in order to provide context: the slopes are much less steep, bunds are wider, and they follow the linear features of the landscape, including the A23. The current application has much steeper sides, bunds are narrower and on one level. Each development must be considered on its own merits.

6.7    During the debate the Committee raised the points below and clarification was provided by the Planning Officers, where applicable:

Bunds at Bolney Park Farm

Point raised – Clarification was sought regarding the planning policy regime under which bunds at Bolney Park Farm were approved.

Response – The bunds at Bolney Park Farm were approved in 2012 prior to adoption of the current WLP and the policy relating to the deposit of inert waste to land.

Need

Points raised – The fact that the existing planning permission for a dwelling was approved without bunds negates the need to mitigate noise in the interests of residential amenity.  This is clearly disposal of waste because the site is not previously worked.

Response – None required.

Impacts on AONB

Points raised – This application is major development and in terms of the AONB it does not meet the exceptional circumstance test.  As to whether the development has a significant impact, because vegetation is not always permanent the bunds will be a prominent feature in the landscape when vegetation is sparse.

Response – None required.

6.8.   The substantive recommendation, subject to reasons for refusal as set out in Appendix 1, was proposed by Mr Patel and seconded by Lt. Cdr. Atkins and was put to the Committee and refused by a majority.

6.9    Resolved – That planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in Appendix 1 of the report, as agreed by the Committee.

WSCC/004/19/RW     Extension to the restoration of the former claypit, including the remodelling of the existing landform to enable a change of use to agricultural land (permanent pasture), internal traffic management improvement measures and a proposed scheme of landscaping improvements and ecological enhancement.  Rudgwick Brickworks, Lynwick Street, Rudgwick, Horsham,
RH12 3DH.

4.1     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 James Neave, Principal Planner, who gave a presentation on the proposals, details of the consultation and key issues in respect of the application.

4.2     Mr Chris Whitehouse, NextPhase Development Ltd, agent for applicant. spoke in support of the application.  The robustness of the committee report and grounds for refusal were questioned.  The only technical assessment of landscape is the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA), submitted as part of the application; this is not acknowledged or referenced in the Committee Report, however, it notes that the impacts on landscape and visual receptors will be temporary and restoration will provide beneficial change including a cohesive landform, an increase in tree cover and improved views.  There is no justification or reason as to how and why the Planning Officer has drawn an alternative conclusion.  Mr Whitehouse stated that the application is restoration and clearly accords with each of the nine criteria for Policy W8 of the Waste Local Plan (WLP).

4.3     Mr James McClean of Restoration to Agriculture (for the landowners, the Harrison family), the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  The project is a gigantic recovery plan for 20 acres of abandoned, former clay pit and restoration of land to agricultural use to sustain existing farming operations.  Only 23,000m³ of the 85,000m³ of inert waste mentioned in the report (25%) will be infill to steep agricultural land, which is dangerous in some weather.  75% of the application deals with topographical changes, ecological enhancements and traffic improvements within the existing extant site, which is where the rest of the imported material will be placed.  The LVIA concludes the final landform will enhance views across the new meadows.  Woodland is already threatened; 16 trees have Ash Die Back and will have to be removed.  Bat surveys and checks have not noted bats in the 20 trees in the current woodland shaw; but mitigation measures and ecological enhancements have been developed anyway.  Contrary to the Planning Officer’s opinion, the applicant will use only the minimum amount of material necessary to achieve the objective; there will be no doming or mounding.  Operations have been conducted for 4-years with no complaints or statutory interventions.  The applicant has worked successfully with the liaison group and local community.  The Parish Council and Rudgwick Preservation Society support the application.

4.4        Cllr Richard Landeryou, Horsham District Councillor for Rudgwick and a Rudgwick Parish Councillor (formerly Chairman during the first three years of the infill of the clay pit), spoke in support of the application.  The landowners, whose farm is adjacent to the old Rudgwick Brickworks, have spent the last 4-years infilling the clay pit to return it to pasture for grazing.  The adjacent land/field contains a steep slope where it meets the reclaimed land – it is a health and safety hazard for turning tractors and is unfarmable in some weather conditions.  The proposal will eradicate the slope, bring it to the same level as the restored field and seamlessly joining the two fields, thereby bringing it back to agricultural use.  Removal of trees, most with Ash Die Back, will be mitigated by strategic planting along the existing hedgerow and a new area of woodland, resulting in a net increase in tree numbers.  Wetland will be enhanced.  Farming operations will no longer need to use Lynwick Street; a benefit to residents and road users.  The liaison group has addressed the original concerns about infill operations and traffic movements.  The application is supported by the Parish Council and Rudgwick Preservation Society.  There are no substantial or technical objections, subject to replanting and wetland conditions being imposed.

4.5     The Chairman read out the following statement from local member, Christian Mitchell, member for Broadbridge who was unable to attend:

“I am unable to attend.  But, please do record in the meeting that I support the application, which is contrary to the Officer's recommendation.

I have attended the Rudgwick Parish Council meeting tonight at 7pm [on 8 July 2019] and they support the application as correctly recorded in the report.  They do not uphold the concerns that are set out in the report.”

4.6    During the debate the Committee raised the points below and clarification was provided by the Planning Officers and Legal Officers, where appropriate:

Is the application considered recovery or disposal of waste

Points raised in favour of the application – this is a matter of interpretation of policy as to whether the proposal is recovery or disposal, and the applicant has proved that the application meets the criteria for Policy W8 of the WLP - that it does bring or restore land into beneficial agricultural use, some of which is steep and currently unusable.  It was also stated that the Officer’s assessment is academic rather than practical. 

Response - Sections 9.2 to 9.22 of the Committee Report sets out the policy criteria and Officer’s view which concludes the proposal is disposal, because it fails to satisfy the criteria of Policy W8. Principally it has not been demonstrated that the minimum amount of waste material would be used to achieve the benefits.  The proposed infill of the extension area would not be considered restoration and should be seen as land-raising as it would change the existing landform by deposition of material on an area of land that is undeveloped.  The infill of the former clay pit area is considered to be restoration because the extant permission will return the landform to as close as possible to what it was originally.

Points raised that support the recommendation to refuse - Policy W8 criteria are not fulfilled; the extension area is outside the original application site and so there is a lot of weight that can be given to the proposal being disposal of waste.  There is a fundamental difference between this application and the existing permission.  The infill to the north is greenfield not brownfield.  The existing woodland was unlikely to ever have been in agricultural use.  The objection by Horsham District Council was noted.

Response - The Committee Report sets out the benefits of the proposal, which have been weighed against the impacts. 

Other points - The judgement as to whether the application meets policy W8 of the WLP (recovery) as opposed to policy W9 (disposal) is finely balanced.  What is the minimum amount of waste that could be used for infill?

Response - Planning law requires a decision to be made in accordance with the development plan, which includes the waste local plan, unless material considerations suggest otherwise.  In relation to the minimum volume for infill, it was the Officer’s opinion that benefits could be achieved without the importation of the volume of waste proposed.

Landscape and ecology

Points raised – Concern was raised about the length of time it will take for new trees and vegetation to establish, noting that the existing understorey of vegetation below the trees is currently well established and that the WSCC Tree Officer has noted the loss of semi-mature oaks and vegetation.  The impact of the loss of trees along the bat foraging route was noted, however the impact is lessened due to the low number of sightings.  Clarification was sought on how long the woodland belt has been in existence; what the benefits referred to by Mr Whitehouse are, and whether there are there any preservation orders on the oak trees.

Response – Information is noted in paragraphs 9.11 and 9.20 of the Committee Report regarding habitat including the matter of replacement planting as well as the issues relating to Ash Die Back, ecology and bats.  The WSCC Ecologist is satisfied with the proposals, subject to biodiversity mitigation and enhancement measures.  The woodland belt has been in existence since at least 1850 and so this part has not been in agricultural use since at least that time.  Mr Whitehouse refers to the Combined Benefit Statement (available on the County Council’s Planning website); it is acknowledged that the proposal has some benefits, which are summarised in paragraph 9.2 onwards of the Committee.  There are no tree preservation orders on the oak trees.

Drainage - culvert

Point raised – How would drainage be affected and would the existing culvert be retained under the infill?

Response – The culvert will remain but will be buried under the infill.  The WSCC Drainage Officer has concluded that the proposals are acceptable.

Weight given to assessments and consultees’ views

Points raised – What weight has been given to the LVIA/technical assessments, and also the view of Horsham District Council?

Response - A review of the LVIA and other documents and assessment is undertaken by Officers and the views of consultees, including HDC (the objection was only confirmed recently), are sought and taken into account.  Officers’ conclusions are based on all information and consultee comments.

Support versus objections

Point raised – It was noted that the Horsham District Councillor supports the application in opposition to the view of Horsham District Council Officers.  It was further noted that the Parish and County Councillor support the application as well.  Also that Natural England, the Environment Agency and local residents have not objected and it is clear that the Liaison Group feel listened to.  Is lack of objection a material consideration?

Response – It is acknowledged that the site and the local liaison group are well run.  The responses of consultees are considered; however, Officers did not feel this overrides the impacts or accordance with the development plan.

4.7    The substantive recommendation, subject to reasons for refusal as set out in Appendix 1, was proposed by Ms Lord and seconded by
Mr S. Oakley and was put to the Committee and refused by a majority.

4.8    Mr Barrett-Miles proposed the following motion:

It has been demonstrated that, on balance, there is a genuine need to use the waste material and that the amount of material to be used would be no more than is necessary to deliver the suggested benefits.  The site would be restored to a high quality standard and would be deemed to be acceptable with regard to impacts on the rural landscape.  The development therefore, accords with Policy W8 of the West Sussex Waste Local Plan (2014).

On balance, the proposed development would have an acceptable impact upon the locality by introducing an acceptable landform into a rural landscape that would maintain or enhance the countryside and recognise its intrinsic value and the landscape character of the area.  Thereby, according with Policies W8, W11 and W12 and W20 of the West Sussex Waste Local Plan (2014), Policies 25, 26 and 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (November 2015), and Paragraphs 127 and 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

And, that authority is delegated to the Head of Planning Services, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-chairman of Planning Committee, to set conditions and informatives.

The proposal was seconded by Lt. Cdr.  Atkins, and put to the Committee and approved by a majority. 

4.9    Resolved – That planning permission be granted subject to conditions and informatives, to be delegated to the Head of Planning Services and agreed in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-chairman of Planning Committee.

4.10  The Committee recessed at 11.42 a.m.  The Committee reconvened at 11.55 a.m.

Outside bodies are external organisations, including formal or informal partnerships to which the County Council is a party, which have requested that the County Council appoints an Elected Member or a representative to them or to which the Council expects to make appointments. 

A vacancy has arisen on the Littlehampton Harbour Board which the Cabinet is responsible for making Member appointments to. 

The Director of Law and Assurance, in consultation with the Leader and the Chairman of the Performance and Finance Select Committee, has used his delegated powers under Standing Order 3.45 to approve the appointment of Mr Bryan Turner to Littlehampton Harbour Board until the end of the Council term (May 2021).