Decisions

The current housing related support contracts commissioned by the County Council end on 30 September 2019, further to the Cabinet Member for Adults and Health’s decision in December 2018 (Report Reference AH11 18/19).  These services need to be recommissioned based on the revised financial envelope for these services. 

To aid this process the council has rated the service using a RAG rating indicated the strategic fit with statutory duties and prevention.   Services rated as green are a high priority for continued funding, albeit with efficiencies.   These are services which support the Council’s statutory duties in relation to adults with complex needs and children.   The proposed approach for these services is a single tender re-procurement. 

Services rated red are unlikely to attract on-going funding as they do not meet statutory needs and work is underway to end this provision. 

Services rated amber are those services which have brought support as priorities across the district and boroughs and could form part of the Councils preventative offer.  The exact services commissioned will be subject to the outcome of a joint piece of work. 

The Executive Director People Services has approved the following contractual arrangements from the 1^st October 2019:

(1) The procurements of the eight HRS services set out in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.3 of the report for a contract duration of three years, plus provision for extension of up to two years.

(2) The procurement of the Change Live Grow (CLG) contract which supports ex-offenders for twelve months.

(3) A six month contract extensions for the remaining HRS set out in figure two of the report.

(4) The procurement of the remaining housing related support services set out in figure 2 of the report from April 2019, based on a contract duration of three years, plus provision for extension of up to two years

As part of the ‘Choices for the Future’ In-House Adult Social Care project, the Judith Adams day centre in Chichester and the Chestnuts day centre in Bognor Regis will be redeveloped. The existing centres are under capacity, with maintenance and compliance issues and cannot be used to their full capacity. These redevelopments will allow for an increase in numbers from the Wrenford Day Centre, which will then be surplus to service requirements. 

A procurement will be conducted using an open book tender and a decision will be based on quality and cost. A pre-tender exercise will be undertaken to determine quality of contractors prior to inviting to tender.

The Cabinet Member for Adults and Health has approved the allocation of funds from the ‘Choices for the Future’ capital programme for the first part of the day services rationalization programme (part A) which is estimated at £2.315m and the commencement of procurement, and the contract award be delegated to the Director of Adult Services and that the Wrenford day centre is declared as surplus to service requirements. 

This report seeks approval to commence the procurement process for the recommissioning of three contracts for services to replace the current Agricultural Management Contract which expires on 31 March 2020 and the current Valuations and Ratings Contract which has been extended and now expires on 31 August 2020.  The three new contracts will cover Agricultural Estate Management, Asset Valuations and Non-Domestic Rating Assessments.

The Cabinet Member has endorsed:

1.   The commencement of the procurement process for the re-commission of three contracts as follows:-

Contract 1:  Agricultural Estates Management 

Contract 2 : Asset Valuations

Contract 2:  Non- Domestic Ratings Assessments and Appeals

2.   Authority is delegated to Director Property and Assets to award the contract(s) to the bidder(s) submitting the most economically advantageous tender in terms of quality and price,

3.   The Agricultural Contract will commence from 1 April 2020 and the Contracts for Valuations and Ratings from 1st September 2020.  Each contract will be for a period of 5 years, with the County Council having the option to extend these contracts for a further period of up to 5 years (maximum contract period 10 years) and be subject to satisfactory contract performance, review of consultants capacity, and/or a major review of the professional services needed,

4.   In addition to West Sussex County Council, Contract 2: Asset Valuations, shall be available for use by the following Public Bodies should they wish to be included in the tender process: West Sussex based District and Borough Councils, as well as the South East 7 Group (SE7) authorities, Hampshire County Council, Kent County Council, Surrey County Council, Brighton & Hove City Council, Medway Council and East Sussex County Council. This option will enable increased alignment and resource management between public sector bodies.

The County Council, in its capacity as Highway Authority, has a duty to maintain the highway under Section 41(1) of the Highways Act 1980. However, the Act does not specify the levels of service required in order to meet that duty. In previous years, documents have been produced which detailed the highway maintenance service levels customers could expect to receive.

A document named “Well-managed Highway Infrastructure” was published in October 2016, replacing “Well-maintained Highways”, “Management of Highway Structures” and “Well-lit Highways”. Like its predecessors, “Well-managed Highway Infrastructure” is a national, non-statutory code of practice which sets out a series of general principles for highway maintenance. It is endorsed and recommended by the Department for Transport and its production has been overseen by the UK Roads Liaison Group (UKRLG) and its Roads, Bridges and Lighting Boards.

In order to demonstrate that the County Council complies with the principles of “Well-managed Highway Infrastructure”, a robust decision-making process must be demonstrated, an understanding of the consequences of those decisions, and how the associated risks are managed to ensure highway safety. As part of that process, a new Highway Maintenance Plan needs to be produced, which clearly sets out the levels of service customers may expect and which integrates with a revised “Safety Plus” inspection manual.

The Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure has approved a new Highway Infrastructure Maintenance Plan (see Appendix) including a review of service levels currently delivered and which details the revised service level for revenue works.

Transport for the South East (TfSE), a sub-national transport body that currently operates in ‘shadow’ form, is seeking to obtain statutory status.  The body has the twin purpose of facilitating the delivery of a regional transport strategy and promoting economic growth in the South East.  If it gains statutory status, TfSE will enable local transport authorities in the South East, including the County Council, to provide a single voice to Government on strategic transport issues and influence national investment decisions. 

TfSE is consulting on a draft proposal that will set out the membership, voting powers, decision-making arrangements, functions and general powers that it is seeking for the body through obtaining statutory status.

The Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure has:

a)     approved the County Council’s consultation response (Appendix B); and,

b)    delegated authority to the Director for Highways, Transport and Planning to endorse the submission of the proposal for the creation of TfSE as a statutory body to the Secretary of State, provided that no substantive changes are made to the final Proposal to Government prior to submission.

The A259 Littlehampton Corridor improvement scheme comprises dualling the existing single carriageway between the new Fitzalan Link Road (east of the Wick Roundabout) and the Body Shop Roundabout as well as between the Station Road Roundabout and A280 Roundabout. Additionally, new cycling and pedestrian facilities will be provided adjacent to but separated from the carriageway.

A decision was taken by the Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure (HI25 17/18) in January 2018 in relation to the plans for improvements to the A259 between Worthing and Littlehampton.

The Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure has approved:

(1)        the investment of additional funding totalling £10,504,000 towards the scheme, with funding sources as set out in Section 2; and

(2)        the award of the Phase 2 contract (the construction phase) and agreement of the Contract Target Price to be within the above budget constraints.

Authorisation for Chichester District Council to determine part of Planning Application (SDNP/18/04918/FUL) on behalf of West Sussex County Council.

88.1   The Committee noted that Mr S. Oakley advised there are questions over achieving the delivery and quality of the relocated football pitch.

88.2   Resolved – the committee noted the Urgent Action decision published on 30 November 2018.

WSCC/044/18/SR   Continuation of working the mineral (sand extraction), but with an enhanced restoration scheme for nature conservation and informal recreation involving the importation of 1.8 million tonnes of inert material over a period of eleven years.  Sandgate Park Quarry, Water Lane, Sullington, Storrington, West Sussex, RH20 4AS

100.1     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 Chris Bartlett, Principal Planner, who gave a presentation on the proposals, details of the consultation and key issues in respect of the application.

100.2     A statement in objection to the application from Mr and Mrs Lawrence, residents of Storrington, was read out.  They dread the proposed landfilling, but support the plans for Sandgate Country Park.  They have concerns about how the Country Park will be delivered; the planning application should set out how it will be implemented.  The proposals for the grassland areas are in conflict with the existing S.106 agreement with Horsham District Council, which requires public paths and open access.  However, the application scheme is superior, but land must be free of people and dogs to allow wildlife to thrive.  The Committee Report does not provide details of existing background noise levels, being based on noise level conditions from some years ago.  Noise readings were taken in the middle of the day; there is no assessment of the impact during noise sensitive hours (early hours until 7.30 a.m.).  Staff often arrive before the 7 a.m. start of site operating hours.  The 70 dBh level, which has not been consulted on, will have a harmful effect; a noise expert should advise the County Council on the impacts.  Mr and Mrs Lawrence also have concerns about vibration, air pollution and ecology.

100.3     Helen Hudson of Hudson Planning, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  The application seeks to change the existing approved restoration plan and deliver an improved scheme in terms of environment and community benefits; it will greatly improve biodiversity; provide more interesting and connective footpaths, and overall there will be a softer shaped restored landform with additional features and it will extend the area of Sandgate Country Park.  Extraction the remaining 1.4 million tonnes of sand is permitted until 2042, but at a rate of 140,000 tonnes per annum this should finished in approximately 10 years.  1.8 million tonnes of inert material would be imported at a rate of 250,000 to 350,000 tonnes per annum over an 11 year period, slowing towards the end, resulting in an additional 134 vehicle movements per day - a worst case scenario.  A proposed S.106 routing agreement will mean vehicles would travel south on Water Lane and east on the A283 to the A24.  Number plate recognition technology will be used.  There will be no adverse impact on the environment or community.  Mitigation measures are built in.  The applicant is in discussion with Horsham District Council about the future of Sandgate Country Park.

100.4   A statement from Mr Paul Marshall, member for Storrington was read out.  In principle, he has no objections to the application because it will enhance the site for local use on completion.  A clear traffic plan should be in place to avoid increasing pollution levels particularly through Storrington Air Quality Management Area (AQMA).  All HGVs should use the wheel washer.  The concrete crusher should be located where it minimises environmental noise; relocation should be agreed with the Planning Authority.  Hours of use should be restricted to 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. weekdays only.  Due to safety concerns about mature trees on Water Lane being at risk from HGV movements and vibrations, a S.106 should be secured to monitor the trees and provide for tree work to be undertaken.

100.5   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:

·         Regarding the future responsibility for Sandgate Country Park, condition 5, the Ecological Management and Aftercare Plan allows for “provision of biodiversity and habitat management details for the 5 year period after restoration”, but the future ownership and responsibility for the Country Park is outside the remit of this application and not a material consideration.

·         Regarding the claim of conflict with the S.106 agreement with Horsham District Council, updated plans (shown to the Committee) are tied into the existing S.106 agreement.

·         Regarding noise, the Environmental Health Officer is satisfied with the assessment that has been carried out and also with the recommended conditions, which allow for enforcement action should there be an issue with noise.

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

Highway capacity, routeing and Storrington AQMA

Points raised – Will HGVs be required to use the A24 and will there be a sign at the entrance directing HGVs towards the A24?  What will prevent HGVs from travelling through Storrington and causing an adverse impact on the AQMA, and what assessments have been carried out in this respect?  Does the routeing agreement apply to HGV movements for sand extraction?  Would HGV movements of loads of rejected materials be included in the routeing agreement, and what numbers would this involve?

Response –A S.106 routing agreement, which only applies to HGV movements for the infilling operations, will require HGVs to use Water Lane (an advisory HGV route), the A283 and the A24.  It will ensure HGVs do not travel north along Water Lane or through the centre of Storrington, thereby avoiding the AQMA.  The routeing agreement would not apply to existing HGV movements for sand extraction, meaning these HGV’s could travel through Storrington village.  However, all HGV’s associated with the sand extraction operation are Euro VI compliant (a European emissions standard).  A sign will be placed at the site entrance.  There is no limit on HGV movements, but average movements for both operations have been provided.  Loads of rejected materials would be very small in number and, therefore, would have little impact on HGV movements.

Air Quality - other

Points raised – To protect air quality a condition should be included restricting burning at the site.  Reassurance was sought that the proposals will not fall foul of air quality legislation.

Response –Condition 19 – Permitted Restoration Materials states that imported and on-site materials should be inert, so there would be very little flammable material on site.  The Environmental Health Officer did not raise any concerns that the proposals would breach any air quality legislation.

Noise

Points raised – Concerns were raised in relation noise, with reference to Paul Marshall's statement: can the wheel wash be moved and can concrete processing be mitigated further through more restricted hours?

Response – Expected noise levels are based on the use of all equipment at the same time and are a worst case scenario.  The requirements in condition 6 – Noise Management Plan plus the additional noise bund and noise level limits will be sufficient to manage noise emissions.

Public Right of Way

Point raised – Will walkers be restricted by the proposed new footpath entrance to the public right of way?

Response – The proposals should not affect access for walkers.  The new footpath will be put in place once the sand extraction and infilling operations have ceased.

100.7   The substantive recommendation, as amended by the agenda update sheet and changes to conditions, as agreed by the Committee, was proposed by Lt. Cdr. Atkins and seconded by Mr Quinn and was put to the Committee and approved unanimously.

100.8   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.

Henfield: Application for a Definitive Map Modification Order (Application No: 1/17) to add to the Definitive Map and Statement a public footpath along Dagbrook Lane

16.1   The Committee considered a report by the Director of Law and Assurance, amended by the Agenda Update Sheet, concerning an application to add to the Definitive Map and Statement a public footpath along Dagbrook Lane (copy appended to the signed version of the minutes).  Charlotte Nash, Legal Assistant, introduced the report.  It is considered that the legal tests for making the order have not been met.  For the avoidance of doubt the Council is required to consider whether the applicant has shown that on the balance of probability a right of way subsists, or that it is reasonably alleged to subsist.

16.2   Mr Mark Elsam, owner of Brookside Farm, spoke in objection to the application.  The route is an ‘occupation road’ linking Brookside, Pokerlea and Rye Farms; this is supported by archive maps.  Brookside Farm, including Dagbrook Lane which is part of the farm, has been owned by the Elsam family since 1940.  The proposed route is an important woodland wildlife corridor.  There are historical and ongoing problems with uncontrolled dogs causing a detrimental impact on wildlife and if the proposed route is allowed then even more people will roam off the route as well as on it causing even more harm.  The family has always sought to stop trespassing.  There have been many incidences of fencing being cut, locks damaged and gates propped open all over the farm.  Signs have been put up and repeatedly illicitly removed for years.  Suggestions that the family has not opposed trespassing over the years are untrue.  The family objects to the proposal in the strongest possible terms.

16.3   Mrs Hilary Pierce, an interested party, spoke in support of the application.  ‘Occupation road’ cannot equate to private access only; maps demonstrate the majority of the 24 occupation roads in Henfield, shown on the Henfield Tithe apportionment, now have rights of access of various highway statuses.  Early map evidence does suggest public access rights for the whole length of Dagbrook Lane, which is shown as a road on the first one inch OS map and the OS Survey Book of Reference and it is also shown on the Finance Act Map in 1910 which almost always supports public vehicular rights.  It is probable that routes like this, that join two other roads, are for use by the public.  The Committee should be sure that evidence provided of ownership of the route along Dagbrook Lane is sound because it has no registered owner.  The public have probably used the whole lane for centuries.  Good ‘User Evidence’ has been supplied with the application.

16.4   During the debate the Committee raised the points below.  Clarification was provided by Officers, where applicable:

·         Ownership of the proposed route along Dagbrook Lane was queried.  At the invitation of the Committee, Mr Elsam reiterated his ownership.

·         It is clearly evidenced that the Elsam family has continually tried to restrict access and that notices have been repeatedly removed.

·         The impact of harm to wildlife was acknowledged, but the Committee noted that this is not material to the application.

·         The proposed route does not lead to a place of public interest or a special view point and whilst at point C it does lead to a connecting path, that path is a permissive track used with permission and not ‘as of right’.

·         The conflict over the interpretation of archival evidence was acknowledged but the Committee noted that whilst the path is listed on several maps as an ‘occupation road’, as stated in the report, “none of the maps identified are produced for the purpose of confirming highway status”.  The meaning of ‘occupation road’ is a matter of interpretation but this is understood to be a term used to describe a road laid out for the benefit of occupiers of adjoining properties and not a public highway. 

·         The archive evidence considered as part of this application was not strong enough on its own to recommend an order be made and, therefore, the evidence of use submitted under S.31 Highways Act 1980 has been considered.  Officers concluded that while there is a conflict of evidence, given the account of locked gates and notices on site, as well as a user’s account of obtaining permission to use Dagbrook Lane, it is reasonable to conclude that the land owner has throughout time attempted to prevent the public using the route and that use of the route has not been shown to be ‘as of right’.

16.5.  The recommendation was proposed by Mr Patel and seconded by Mr Quinn, and was put to the Committee and approved unanimously.

16.6   Resolved – That a Definitive Map Modification Order, under Section 53(2) in consequence of an event specified in sub-section 53(3)(c)(i) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to add a footpath from FP 2563 and then east along Dagbrook Lane to an unmarked track in Henfield be not made.

West Hoathly: Application for a Definitive Map Modification Order (Application No: 2/16) the addition of a bridleway at Top Road, Sharpthorne and to upgrade footpath 51ESx to a bridleway.

15.1   The Committee considered a report by the Director of Law and Assurance, concerning an application to add to the Definitive Map and Statement a bridleway at Top Road, Sharpthorne and to upgrade footpath 51ESx to a bridleway (copy appended to the signed version of the minutes).  Georgia Hickland, Legal Assistant, introduced the report.  It is considered that the legal tests for making the order have not been met.  For the avoidance of doubt the County Council is required to consider in relation to making an Order under S.53 (2) in consequence of an event in relation to 1) Point A – B on the application plan: under Section 53(3)(c)(i) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 whether evidence submitted by the applicant shows that a right of way which is not shown in the Definitive Map and Statement subsists or is reasonably alleged to subsist over land; and in relation to 2) Point B – C on the application plan under Section 53(3)(c)(ii) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 being the discovery of evidence which shows that a highway shown on the map and statement as a highway of a particular description ought to be there shown as a highway of a different description on the balance of probability.

15.2   Mr Martin Robinson, Manager at Blackland Farm Girlguiding Activity Centre spoke in objection to the application.  Girlguiding along with other landowners have researched maps for the route and concluded that where the proposed route is shown there is nothing to indicate it was ever a right of way.  Current Ordnance Survey maps show routes that are private tracks and driveways to farms that are not rights of way.  Any upgrade to FP 51ESx would necessitate the felling of trees to ensure the minimum required bridleway width of 3m.  There is no evidence to support the claim for the map modification to be made.

15.3   Mr Paul Brown, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  The 1724 Budgen map, 1840 East Grinstead Tithe map, and 1831
1^st Edition OS map do provide evidence of the route, contrary to the conclusions in the Committee report, and paragraph 8.1, in relation to existence of a ‘feature’ (a gate), is disputed because many bridleways do have gates.  The evidence of Major Grubb, supplied with the application, shows the route was used until the turn of the 20^th century/before WWI.  Regarding points B to C on the route, the Budgens maps, Major Grubb’s evidence, 1873 East Grinstead parish boundary sketchbook and 1997 archaeological study for the clay quarry extension would not have been considered in the 1950s.  Regarding points A to B a bridleway can be reasonably alleged to exist.  Regarding points B to C the higher legal test on ‘balance of probability’ may apply, quoting a Planning Inspectorate appeal on a similar application in 2017 who stated that where there are “different tests applied to the same evidence” which “may lead to different conclusions”… a “pragmatic approach would be for an order to be made…to a route as a whole”.

15.4   During the debate the Committee raised the points below.  Clarification was provided by Officers, where applicable:

·         The application should be considered as a whole.

·         Access to the route at point A is difficult to find; there is no signpost and it is accessed via a driveway between properties.

·         The route is steep at points along point A to B.

·         The conflict over the interpretation of archival evidence was acknowledged but the Committee noted that, as stated in the report, “none of the maps identified are produced for the purpose of confirming highway status” and it was, therefore, agreed there was no evidence of status.

15.5.  The recommendation was proposed by Mr Bradbury and seconded by Mrs Russell, and was put to the Committee and approved unanimously.

15.6   Resolved – That a Definitive Map Modification Order, under Section 53 (2) in consequence of an event specified in sub-section 53(3)(c)(i) and 53(3)(c)(ii) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, 1) to add a bridleway from point A, Top Road, Sharpthorne to point B, and 2) to upgrade footpath 51ESx to a bridleway from its commencement at point B to its termination at point C, Grinstead Lane, West Hoathly be not made.

(Application No: 3/18) to add to the Definitive Map and Statement for Chichester a footpathfrom West of Drove Lane off FP200-1 at Point A (SU972034), to point B (SU971034) and terminating at point C (SU907031), in the Parish of Yapton.

8.1     The Committee considered a report by the Director of Law and Assurance concerning an application to add to the Definitive Map and Statement a footpath from West of Drove Lane off FP200-1 at Point A, to point B and terminating at point C, in the Parish of Yapton.  Charlotte Nash, Legal Assistant, introduced the report.  It is considered that the lower legal test for making the order have been met, that is that it can be reasonably alleged that a footpath subsists.  For the avoidance of doubt the Council is required to consider whether the applicant has shown on the balance of probability that a right of way subsists, or that it is reasonably alleged to subsist.

8.2     Mr Jonathan Cheal, solicitor, Moggers, Drewett, Wells, Somerset, representing Mr Langmead, the landowner spoke in objection to the application. Evidence in favour is unusually thin, evidence against is strong.  The law requires that documentary evidence should show, on balance, that it is sufficiently strong to infer dedication.  The land is and has always been privately owned farm land and there is no evidence of express dedication or acceptance/use by the public.  Route A-B forms part of an existing footpath, which historically will have formed a farm access to Denges Barn.  B-C is a non-existent route; maps are misleading – there is a drain [ditch/watercourse] immediately west of the route which looks like a path but is not, and also the alleged route is along the eastern boundary of a section of the parish.  The OS First Edition 1876, the 1896 OS Map and boundary remarks sketchbook plans are insufficient to prove a public right of way (PROW); these may show footpaths markings but they are not necessarily evidence of a PROW.  Section 5 of the report does not summarise evidential material against, but only contains the information provided by the tenant farmer: a balancing exercise would include primary sources where the route is not shown, which are: Yeakell & Gardner 1778, 1839 Yapton Tithe Map, 1867 Inclosure, 1910 Finance Act, 1949 Act (parish survey and definitive map), adding weight to the body of evidence against this being PROW.

8.3     Mrs Hilary Pierce, representing Mr Chris Smith, the applicant, and also a member of Mid Sussex Bridleways Group spoke in support of the application.  Mrs Pierce stated that the Committee report is fair and balanced in its conclusions to the recommendation that the order be made.  A similar route can be seen on Yeakell & Gardner’s 1778 map and is likely to be an ancient customary way.  The altered course of the route seen later was the result of the construction of the Portsmouth and Arundel canal around 1820.  It is unlikely that Ordnance Survey would have regarded a purely private path used by one household as a feature worthy of note on the boundary records.  It is asserted that the route is blocked by a post and wire fence and that no public have been seen using the route during the tenant farmer’s 48 year tenure.  Mrs Pierce stated that maps have not shown the route since 1910, but there is a legal maxim “once a highway, always a highway” and a highway continues to exist unless there is evidence the route has been legally stopped up.  Lack of use does not stop a route from carrying highway rights.  Concerns about inconvenience and amenity value are not relevant.

8.4     The Chairman noted that Mrs Jacky Pendleton, local member for Middleton is in support of the application.  Mrs Pendleton had no evidence but supports the addition of the route, which she considered could be a multi user path.  In order to avoid possible confusion, the Chairman confirmed that the application was not about a multi-user path but about the route of a footpath.

8.5     During the debate the Committee made the points below.  Clarification was provided by Officers, where applicable:

·         There is no evidence of use and this is a case made on historic archive evidence only.  Officers clarified that from the historic archive evidence provided it is possible to determine that the footpath may be reasonably alleged to subsist, which is a lower test than balance of probabilities.  If the evidence is finely balanced but there is no incontrovertible evidence that the claimed route could not subsist, then the test is met and an order should be made.  With reference to S.32 Highways Act 1980, the weight to be given to the archive evidence is at the discretion of the Committee.  The Committee noted that Mr Cheal made a strong case in opposition against the recommendation and the five documents mentioned by him, which support the case against, are significant.  The fact that old documents show ‘F’ or ‘FP’ is not necessarily determinative of public status.

·         Opinions were stated that route B-C does not go anywhere and that there is nothing of note at the end of the claimed route, but also that this should be considered irrelevant in determining the application.  Additionally, it was noted that there are other paths close by.

·         The case in support of the application has not been made and evidence would not hold up under the test of ‘balance of probabilities’.  It was also not considered that the evidence showed it was reasonable to allege the subsistence of a way.

The Committee requested clarification on whether additional exploration of the archive evidence would be helpful.  Officers advised that this would be unlikely to provide any further evidence or clarity – all archival evidence has been considered and commented on.

8.6     The motion below was proposed by Mr Boram and seconded by

Mr Patel, and was voted on by the Committee and approved by a majority.

8.7     That, having considered the archive evidence summarised in the report and having heard the representations, the Committee’s view on weight to be given to the archive evidence including, in particular, the antiquity of the documents and purposes for which the maps were produced, it is concluded that the claimed route is not reasonably alleged to subsist for the following reasons:

·         Yeakell & Gardner 1778 was produced before the Portsmouth and Arundel Canal was constructed and so is not strong or persuasive evidence of the existence of the claimed route A-C.

·         Tithe Mapping - While the mapping does distinguish a route A-B it is not possible to be certain this is different to FP200-1, which runs along the tow path.  Route B – C is not clearly shown on the Order of Exchange - while route A-B is shown coloured sepia (like Drove Lane); route B-C is not shown.

·         While shown on early OS mapping, the status of the Claimed Route is not defined.  OS maps are not determinative as to status.

·         The claimed route did not appear on OS mapping after 1897.

·         The claimed route was not included on the original Definitive Map.

8.8      Resolved – For the reasons given in minute 8.7 above, that an order under S.53 (2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, in consequence of an event specified in sub-section 53 (3) (c)(i) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to add a footpath from West of Drove Lane off FP200-1 at Point A, to point B and terminating at point C (SU907031), in the Parish of Yaptonto the Chichester Definitive Map and Statement be not made.

Ansty and Staplefield – Request for Diversion of Part of Bridleway (Bw) 40CR at Mizbrooks Farmhouse

7.1     The Committee considered a report by the Director of Highways, Transport and Planning concerning an application to divert part of Public Bridleway 40CR at Mizbrooks Farm near Cuckfield.  Judith Grimwood, Senior Rights of Way Officer introduced the report.  It is considered that the legal tests for making and confirming the order have been met.

7.2     The Chairman read out the following statement from Mr Pete Bradbury, local member for Cuckfield and Lucastes who was unable to attend:

“Unfortunately I am unable to attend Rights of Way Committee on 25 [June 2019].  However, this application is in my division, I have no objections to it and to date have received no submissions about it either for or against.”

7.3     During the debate the Committee made the points below.  Clarification was provided by Officers, where applicable:

·         The application site is very rural and in a particularly attractive part of West Sussex.

·         The comments of the British Horse Society’s County Access & Bridleway’s Officer for West Sussex that the proposed diversion would be “enjoyable to use”, as recorded in 7.1 of the Committee report, were highlighted; whilst this is subjective the preference “not to be in close proximity to the house and garden” supports the case for better privacy and security of the landowner’s property.

·         Empathy was expressed for situations, such as in the case of this application, where landowners have public rights of way through their gardens.

·         The objection made by the Open Spaces Society is considered to be unreasonable in the case of this application, where the proposed diversion route is a perfectly acceptable alternative route.

7.4.    The recommendation was proposed by Mr Acraman and seconded by Mr Quinn, and was put to the Committee and approved unanimously.

7.5     Resolved – That the Director of Law and Assurance be authorised to make a diversion Order under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 in respect of bridleway 40CR and to take reasonable steps to implement the proposal.

33.1   The County Council was reminded of its statutory duty following recent changes in group affiliation to review the proportionality on its committees.  A report on the application of the proportionality rules and how they were applied was set out at pages 39 and 40 and a table showing the resulting number of seats on committees had been circulated.

33.2   Resolved –

That the review of proportionality on committees be agreed.

42.1   The Council considered the Annual Scrutiny Newsletter 2018/19 which summarised the work of the Select Committees and reported the performance measures to the end of the year, in the light of a report by the Performance and Finance Select Committee (pages 87 to 108).

42.2   Resolved –

          That the Annual Scrutiny Newsletter 2018/19, as attached at Appendix 1 to the report, be approved.

41.1   The Leader moved the report on West Sussex County Council Annual Report 2018/19(pages 41 to 86).

41.2   Resolved –

That the West Sussex Annual Report 2018/19 be noted.

34.1   The Council approved appointments as set out below.

44.1   The Council noted arrangements for a review of scrutiny and considered a delegation to the Standards Committee in relation to recommendations from the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman in the light of a report from the Governance Committee (pages 113 to 114).

44.2   Resolved –

That the terms of reference of the Standards Committee be amended to include the delegation set out in paragraph 8 of the report.

In August 2017 the Leader approved the Crawley Growth Programme (ref report: LDR04 17.18 ) and following approval of the business case by the West Sussex Local Enterprise Partnership, delegated authority to the Executive Director Economy, Infrastructure and Environment (now Director of Place Services) to progress the projects.

Eastern Gateway is a key project within the growth programme.

The £8.35m scheme will:

•        Improve connectivity between the town and key development sites in the vicinity of the proposals including the Town Hall, County Buildings, Crawley College and Telford Place;

•        Support the delivery of residential and commercial development in Crawley Town centre;

•        Improve the public realm and living environment in the town.

In February 2019, the Executive Director, Economy, Infrastructure and Environment approved the commencement of the tender process to secure a design and build Contractor through the WSCC Highways Design and Build framework.

Following completion of the Tender process, the Executive Director of Place Services is asked to approve the award of a design and build contract through the WSCC highways framework.

The Executive Director Place Services has approved to awards the design contract (stage 1) for the Crawley Eastern Gateway project to Volker Fitzpatrick Limited.

To enable fulfilment of the County Council's ongoing building related statutory and other obligations a contract award is required to for the provision of a broad range of essential property maintenance services in County Council buildings throughout West Sussex.

In accordance with Cabinet Member Decision report FR05 18-19 and following a competitive procurement exercise undertaken in accordance with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), it is recommended that the contract for the Provision of Building Maintenance Services in Council Buildings is awarded to SSE Contracting Limited.

The contract agreement will provide the building maintenance support services from 1 October 2019 throughout a 5 year core contract term, with the option to extend to a maximum of 10 years.  There is a break clause after the 5 year core term. In addition schools and academies will also be able to benefit from access to services under the newly procured contract.

The annual value associated with these contracts is £4.8m, which equates to £24m over the proposed 5 year core contract term and up to £48m if all extension periods are exercised.

The Executive Director Resource Services has approved the award of contract for the Provision of Building Maintenance Services in County Council Buildings to SSE Contracting Limited for a core contract period of 5 years commencing from 1 October 2019, with the option to extend to a maximum of 10 years.

In August 2017 the Leader approved the Crawley Growth Programme LDR04 17.18 and following approval of the business case by the West Sussex Local Enterprise Partnership, delegated authority to the Executive Director Economy, Infrastructure and Environment (now the Director of Place Services) to progress the projects.  Redevelopment of the County Buildings site in Crawley, currently within West Sussex County Council ownership, is central to achieving committed outcomes in both the Crawley Growth Programme and the One Public Estate Programme. Initial viability work has identified the opportunity to deliver up to 195 homes and 4,780sqm of commercial space on the site offering an annual yield of over £1m and a significant capital receipt.  Much of the site is empty, has been dormant for a number of years and was declared surplus to county council requirements in January 2018 FR17 17.18.  A few services remain on the site and work in underway to relocate these.

The Cabinet Member has approved:

a)  The progression of plans to re-locate remaining occupiers in the property owned by the County Council at County Buildings in Crawley

b)  The allocation of £0.857m of funding in the Capital Programme to enable the demolition of the property owned by the County Council at County Buildings in Crawley: and to

c)   Delegate to the Executive Director Place Services the authority to award the demolition contract and progress the proposals to re-develop the County Buildings, Crawley site.   Additional key decisions will be published as appropriate.

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. 

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. 

Vacancies have arisen on the Council of Governors for the Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust, Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust and Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which are outside bodies that the Cabinet Member for Adults and Health is responsible for making Member appointments to.

The Cabinet Member for Adults and Health has approved the following appointments to outside bodies vacancies until the end of the Council term (May 2021) as follows:

• Mrs Anne Jones to the Council of Governors for the Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust;
• Mrs Joy Dennis to the Council of Governors for the Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust; and
• Mrs Jacky Pendleton to the Council of Governors for the Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

In November 2018 Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Service (HMICFRS) inspected West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service (WSFRS). The report was published on 20^th June 2019. The report judges the service to require improvement in terms of both effectiveness and efficiency and to be inadequate in relation to people.

WSFRS has developed an improvement plan to respond to the recommendations of the report and to ensure the Council can provide residents and communities with confidence in its actions.

The Cabinet Member for Safer, Stronger Communities has:

(1)         endorsed the Improvement Plan attached as appendix 1 to this report, subject to such changes as may be made as the Plan is further developed and delegates to the Chief Fire Officer authority to take such decisions as are required to implement the Plan; and

(2)         agreed to secure and commit the resources needed to meet the requirements of the Improvement Plan and for these to be available to the Chief Fire Officer for the implementation of the Plan.