Decisions

As part of its capital programme management the Council continually reviews its

property estate and those assets which are likely to become surplus to operational requirements, i.e. no longer needed. In addition the Council acquires or develops assets to meet statutory and service requirements as well as the Council’s wider purposes, including investment or to promote social and economic development opportunities. From time to time these activities give rise to decisions to purchase, dispose of or to develop an asset. As a result of this continuous review the Cabinet Member is making this disposal decision.

 

 

 

The Cabinet Member has agreed to the disposal of the freehold of a parcel of land in Midhurst and that authority is delegated to the Executive Director of Economy, Infrastructure and Environment in conjunction with the Director of Law and Assurance to conclude the terms with the purchaser.

 

The County Council is committed to giving customers choice and control over their support services; one method of enabling this is through Direct Payments, where the customer receives a cash allocation to purchase support to meet their assessed care and support needs. A Direct Payment Support service is required to ensure that people can receive the appropriate advice and support to make the best use of their money, including the employment of a Personal Assistant.

 

Following Cabinet Member decision, in February 2018, to commence a competitive procurement exercise for a Direct Payment and Personal Budget Support Service and to delegate responsibility to award the contract to the Director of Adult Services (Reference Cabinet Member Decision Report AH6 17.18.) the Director of Adult Services now seeks to award the contract. 

 

A robust open tender procurement process in compliance with West Sussex County Council Standing Orders on Procurement and Contracts has been undertaken.  The procurement attracted a good number of competitive bids which have been evaluated robustly on both technical and financial aspects.  Prior to commencement of evaluation, it was agreed that the contractor submitting the most economically advantageous tender would be recommended for award of the contract and a successful bidder has been identified.

 

The Director of Adult Services seeks to award the contract to the successful bidder and to extend the contract, if appropriate, in accordance with the County Council’s Standing Orders on Procurement and Contracts, subject to this being affordable within the limits of planned budgets.

 

The Cabinet Member approves that a contract for a Direct Payment and Personal Budget Support Service for up to 7 (3 & 2 & 2) years be awarded to Independent Lives who submitted the most economically advantageous tender.

The Chancellor’s Autumn Budget 2018 announced £420million towards additional Roads Funding.

The Department for Transport (DfT) provided confirmation, via a letter dated 13 November 2018, of an additional £6.083million capital funding for the County Council. This funding must be spent on highway network infrastructure maintenance before the end of March 2019.

The decision is urgent due to the challenging time constraint in which to spend the grant funding.

The Director of Law and Assurance, with the agreement of the Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure and the Chairman of the County Council, used his delegated powers under Standing Order 5.23.

 

Pursuant to Regulation 11 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, notice is hereby given for a key decision which is not able to be included in the Forward Plan 28 days before the decision is taken.  The following decision has been taken under the urgent action procedure by the Director of Law and Assurance, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure, and with the agreement of the Chairman of the County Council (Standing Order 5.23(b) Part 4, Section 5, of the County Council’s constitution).

 

Urgent decisions are not subject to a call-in period and come into effect immediately.

 

 

The Director of Law and Assurance has:

 

1)        Approved the addition of the £6.083m Department for Transport Roads Funding grant to the existing Local Highways Maintenance Block allocation in the 2018/19 Capital Programme which will be reported for confirmation at a future meeting of the County Council.

 

2)       Authorised the Director of Highways and Transport to approve the delivery of schemes and works, to be identified under the DfT Road Funds programme, through the existing Term Maintenance Contract.

 

WSCC/030/18/SWInstallation of new lighting layout to the existing car parking area. The Glebe Primary School, Church Lane, Southwick, West Sussex BN42 4GB

 

79.1   The committee considered a report by the Head of Planning Services.  This item had been deferred at the previous meeting.  The report was introduced by Sam Dumbrell, Planning Officer, who gave a presentation on the proposals, details of the consultation and key issues in respect of the application.

 

79.2   The Chairman advised members that Debbie Kennard, one of the local members, had objected to this application.

 

79.3   Barry Candy, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  At the Chairman’s discretion, photographs from Mr Candy were circulated to committee members.  Objections include: on the planning portal, as a matter of public record, there was a conversation between the architect and the project officer about the lack of a brief for the lighting; the ‘Secured by Design’ standard is inappropriate for a small school car park and causes nuisance to residents; the scale of the columns is inappropriate and intrusive and bollards would be more in keeping with the environment.  There was already a separate fenced pathway for children and no vehicle movements during school hours so the arguments for this proposal were inconsistent.  The Chair of Governors had said the lighting columns were not required and the contractor had not involved the Head Teacher who would be happy with an alternative design.  The report implied that lighting was being installed for health and safety reasons - there are no health and safety standards for car parks; if there were, the majority of schools would not comply.  This committee was the final safety net for the community and for the 11 objectors.  There have been no amendments to the application other than rotating the lighting through 90 degrees; side baffles were in original application.  The issues of height, scale and lighting intensity have not been addressed.  Mr David Simmons, member for Southwick, objected to the application.

 

79.4   David Seaman, architect, Seaman Partnership, spoke in support of the application.  The height of the columns had been reduced from 5 to 4 metres and they had proposed the installation of side and rear baffles which would protect adjacent properties.  If the height of the columns was reduced further, this would require the installation of additional columns in order to achieve the minimum required lux level.  The columns would be painted dark green (they were currently galvanised); the fittings changed to powder coated black and the T-bar rotated through 90 degrees to reduce the line of sight from adjacent properties.  The bulbs would be cool white rather than bright white.

 

79.5   Andy Prager, Paine Manwaring, the lighting designers/contractors spoke in support of the application and reiterated the points made by
Mr Seaman.  The lighting was not a security lighting installation rather it was to illuminate the car park for safety purposes.  Side shields would be fitted so no light would escape the school boundaries.  If the height of the columns was reduced more columns would be required.  If bollards were installed instead, more would be required to achieve the light levels needed.  Changing the bulbs from cool to warm white would be less harsh and the sensor would be relocated to ensure the lights did not come on during the daylight.

 

79.6   During the debate, committee members raised the points below and clarification was provided by the Planning Officers, where applicable:

 

Height of lighting columns

 

Point raised – Can the applicant be required to reduce the height of the lighting columns?

 

Response – Members were advised that the scheme as submitted should be considered.  Adur District Council offered no further comments and does not consider that the lighting will have an adverse impact on residential amenity.  If the height of the columns was reduced, there would be a need for additional lighting columns in order to provide the required level of light.

 

Hours of operation

 

Point raised – Clarification of the hours of operation of the lighting columns was requested.

 

Response – Members were referred to page 80 (and Condition 7) of the committee report which states that the lighting columns will be turned off between the hours of 21:15 and 07:00 and at all times when the car park is not being used for educational purposes.

 

Refusal of Regulation 3 application

 

Point raised – Can the committee refuse a Regulation 3 application?

 

Response – If, in the committee’s opinion, all the options to remedy the concerns have been examined and are not deemed to be suitable, the committee should propose an ‘in principle’ refusal.  The applicant would then need to consider whether to accept that decision and withdraw the application.  If not, the full County Council procedure would be invoked and the application would need to be considered and decided at the next County Council meeting.

 

Condition to ensure rotation of light fittings

 

Points raised – Where, in proposed condition 2 (page 78 of the committee report), is the rotation of the fittings (as per section 4.5 on page 75 of the report) referred to?

 

Response – There is no specific mention and condition 2 could be amended to include that requirement.

 

79.7   Ms Lord proposed that condition 2 is amended, in consultation with the Chairman, to take account of the wording about rotating the fittings included in section 4.5, page 75 of the report.  This was seconded by
Mr Barrett-Miles, put to the committee and approved unanimously.

 

79.8   The substantive recommendation, as amended by the change to condition 2, was proposed by Mr Atkins and seconded by Mr Patel.  It was put to the committee and approved unanimously.

 

79.9  Resolved – that:

 

a)     planning permission is granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of Committee Report from 11 September 2018 (repeated in Appendix A to the Supplementary Report and incorporating the proposed amendments to Condition 2 (Approved Plans/Documents) and the previously-approved amendment to Condition 5 (Tree Protection Statement)); and

 

b)     subject to Condition 2 being amended to ensure the fittings are rotated by 90 degrees to reduce their visibility from Oldfield Crescent and incorporate both side and rear baffles to ensure light is directed only into the car parking area and not into adjacent residential properties; the final wording of this condition to be agreed in consultation with the Chairman.

 

(Lt. Col. Barton, having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in relation to this item, left the meeting table whilst this item was considered and determined.)

 

WSCC/027/18/F     Proposed New Access Road.  New Circular Technology Park (former Ford Blockworks), Ford Airfield Industrial Estate, Ford, Arundel, West Sussex, BN18 0HY

 

78.1   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.

 

78.2   Councillor Colin Humphris, Clymping Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.  The objections included: the effect of increased HGV numbers on Church Lane on historic buildings, increased risks to pedestrians, cyclists and other road users; no safe controlled crossing points on Church Lane; no mitigation measures being recommended; extended delivery hours, and no control over delivery schedules; traffic surveys being undertaken on a quiet day during the summer school holidays, and the substantial increase in local traffic and pedestrian footfall once the new homes proposed for Yapton and Ford are constructed.  Councillor Humphris asked for the following on Church Lane: speed limit reduction; footpath and pavement redesign; safe crossing points; and junctions to be redesigned.  He also requested that current delivery hours and number of daily vehicle movements remain the same.

 

78.3   Jenny Betteridge, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  At the Chairman’s discretion, three photographs provided by Miss Betteridge were circulated to all members of the committee. The objections included: the effect of increased HGV numbers on residents living on Church Lane in terms of additional noise and increased vibrations very close to their only amenity areas (the properties do not have rear gardens); increased danger to road users (Church Lane is part of the national cycle network and the south coast cycle route) and pedestrians; the traffic survey was flawed because it was undertaken on a quiet day in August; the impact on listed buildings and other protected historical assets and their settings.

 

78.4   The Democratic Officer read out a letter of concern from Vince Anderson, Friends of the Old Ford to Hunston Canal to the committee.  The letter referred to the Arun Local Plan 2011-2031 which stated that development would be permitted where it would not adversely affect the remaining line and configuration of the canal and features along it.  The letter asked that the remainder of the canal be protected and restored for other uses including a footpath, cycleway, ponds, open spaces, hedgerows and trees which would help people get to work, benefit wildlife and preserve canal features.  Committee members were invited to visit the site of the old canal.

 

78.5   Veronique Bensadou, Senior Planner for Grundon Waste Management Ltd, spoke in support of the application.  The new access route meets the Arun District Local Plan criteria, joins the existing service road used by the sewage works and Viridor’s waste recycling site and will move the site traffic away from existing and proposed residential areas.  As a result, an increased number of permitted hours for waste delivery is being sought which are similar to, but shorter than, the nearby Viridor facility.  Current recycling operations at the site experience a higher number of smaller lorries than envisaged and the proposed increase in the number of vehicles reflected this and would ensure that materials delivered to the site were generated locally rather transported from further afield in larger lorries.  All proposals had been rigorously assessed for their potential impact and no objections had been received from the statutory consultees.

 

78.6   In response to a matter raised in the letter of concern, Planning Officers provided clarification that the route of the former canal would not be physically impacted by the proposed development.

 

78.7   During the debate, committee members raised the points below and clarification was provided by the Planning Officers, where applicable:

 

Increase in number of HGV movements

 

Points raised – What is the proposed increase in the number of vehicle movements; is this a significant increase?  Will it affect total tonnages; and are movements from the Viridor facility included? 

 

Response - The details about numbers of vehicles are included on page 36 of the committee report.  Vehicle numbers/controls relate to the Circular Technology Park only; not to Viridor’s vehicle movements.  The proposed route of HGVs would be via an already well trafficked road, and additional vehicle movements proposed are not considered to give rise to unacceptable impacts.  The applicant is not proposing to increase total tonnages processed at the site.

 

Monitoring of vehicle movements and hours of operation

 

Point raised – How will the hours of operation and number of vehicle movements be monitored?

 

Response – This would be controlled by conditions and/or legal agreement.  The draft legal agreement at Appendix 2 of the committee report includes provisions such as record keeping; a requirement for letters to be sent to local residents explaining reporting of breaches; and remedial actions to be taken by the applicant should breaches be identified.

 

Vehicle size

 

Point raised – Can the size of vehicles be controlled?

 

Response – There is no existing control over vehicle size.

 

Prevention of use of existing outbound route

 

Point raised – Can the HGVs be prevented from accessing the facility from the existing outbound route?

 

Response – The proposed legal agreement would prevent the use of the existing east and west accesses.  Gates at these accesses would be locked or replaced with a continuous fence, the final details of which would be controlled.

 

Impact upon allocated housing land

 

Point raised – To what degree will the access road impact upon future housing e.g. through visual/noise impacts?

 

Response – Condition 5 on page 43 of the committee report refers to the landscaping requirements, which can be made as robust as possible.  Officers consider the proposed access arrangements, via an established route serving other development at the airfield, would have less of an impact upon future housing land than the current access arrangements.

 

Hours of operation

 

Point raised – Can the Planning Committee refuse to allow the application to increase the number of hours of operation in order to mitigate the impact on residential amenity?

 

Response – Yes, but the Committee would need to be clear of the impacts which they consider to be unacceptable if minded to refuse the requested hours.  The proposed hours of HGV movements are sought by the applicant to facilitate the operation of a waste facility with extant planning permission.

 

Sustainable transport

 

Points raised – Has the increase in the number of vehicle movements been communicated to Highways England?  Will there be an impact upon residents’ ability to access the new cycle route along the A259?

 

Response – Highways England were not consulted because the application site is a considerable distance away from a trunk road.

 

Traffic survey

 

Point raised – The traffic survey was undertaken in August, during the school holidays; can it give an accurate impression of the impact of the proposed increase in the number of vehicle movements?

 

Response – The survey complied with government guidelines; the original survey was undertaken in December 2015 and a subsequent survey should be undertaken within three years - the 2018 survey complied with this requirement.

 

Crossing points

 

Point raised – Can a crossing point on Church Lane be installed?

 

Response – There is already a crossing point by the open prison and some informal crossing points where the footpath changes from one side to the other where there are dropped kerbs and central bollards.

 

78.8   Mr Jupp proposed that the existing hours of operation should be retained and this was seconded by Lt. Col. Bartonand put to the committee.  Six members voted for the amendment and six members voted against.  The Chairman then voted against the amendment, using his second and casting vote.  The amendment fell.

 

78.9   Lt. Cdr. Atkins proposed that planning permission is granted for application WSCC/027/18/F as set out in the recommendations on page 24 of the committee report.  This was seconded by Mrs Duncton, put to the Committee and approved by a majority.

 

78.10 It was resolved – that planning permission is granted for the proposed new access road, subject to:

(a)  the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the report (as amended by the update tabled at the meeting); and

(b)  the applicant entering into an agreement under section 106 and s106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (‘the Act’) to deal with:

i)    amendments to the existing S106 agreement for the Circular Technology Park site to remove the current controls on routeing and to allow an increase in the number and hours of HGV movements; and

ii)  requiring the closure of existing vehicular accesses to the Circular Technology Park and routeing to/from the site only via the new access road and Ford Road/Church Lane.

 

Due to the need to provide additional places at Crawley Down Primary School the Cabinet Member for Education and Skills took a decision in October 2018 (decision reference ES11 (18/19)) to approve the allocation of £3.05m from the Basic Need Capital Programme to fund expansion works at the school.  This will increase the school’s admission number from 45 to 60 pupils in each year group in September 2019.  As part of the decision the Cabinet Member delegated authority to the Executive Director Economy, Infrastructure and Environment to award the contract to carry out the necessary works.

The Executive Director Economy, Infrastructure and Environment has approved the award of the construction contract to expand Crawley Down Primary School to E. W. Beard Ltd for the sum of £2,549,557.11 which is affordable within the overall budget for this project (£3,050,000.00).

The County Council has a statutory responsibility to provide a variety of accommodation and support services for children, young people and young adults. These obligations arise in relation to those young people who are at risk of entering care and those leaving or who have left care. In some cases the duty can continue until the age of 25 when the young person is in receipt of training or education. This statutory responsibility also extends to unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC).

 

Whilst the County Council provides some of these services it currently relies on purchasing the majority of accommodation and support from the private and voluntary sector to meet the needs of these young people.

 

Within the Children’s Commissioning Strategy for Complex needs 2018-2021, the County Council has committed to the introduction of a range of alternative accommodation models which ensure the availability, affordability and quality of the accommodation and support required for these young people. This includes the introduction of individual units of training accommodation – that is accommodation with support specifically designed to enable young people to move to independent living.

 

This report seeks approval to explore the feasibility of the County Council purchasing property to develop into ‘training accommodation’ for this group of young people, with a view to working in partnership with the market to support the pathways to independence. A proposal would then be progressed to a full business case to be considered within the County Council’s capital programme governance.  Should this result in the development of a proposal that meets the criteria for either an Officer or Cabinet Member key decision it will be subject to the appropriate key decision process.

The Cabinet Member for Children and Young People has :-

1)      Endorsed the proposal to identify options for acquiring and developing units of accommodation to support young people in moving from being looked after into independence.

2)      Approved the preparation of a business case to identify whether such a proposal is both feasible and economically viable for consideration via the County Council’s capital programme governance process. 

A planning application (SDNP/18/04918/FUL) has been submitted to the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) seeking planning permission for the erection of 18 dwellings and associated facilities, along with a replacement football pitch.  The site extends to four hectares in area, and is located on Pook Lane in East Lavant, within Chichester District, and partially within the South Downs National Park (SDNP).

 

For planning applications that extend beyond the boundary of a national park, under Schedule 1(i) to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the determining authority for the land outside of the park is the County Council.

 

However, it is considered that in it would be beneficial for Chichester District Council to be authorised to determine that part of the application as they have knowledge of the site and an existing agency arrangement with the SDNPA.

 

The Director of Law and Assurance, in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Committee, has used his delegated powers under Standing Order of the West Sussex County Council Constitution.

 

That West Sussex County Council enters into an Agency Agreement with Chichester District Council to allow that authority to determine the part of planning application SDNP/18/04918/FUL that lies outside of the South Downs National Park boundary.

This report concerns the procurement of a Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Subscription (EAS).  The current EAS will terminate at the end of March 2019.  A new EAS is required for a three-year period from the end of March 2019.

 

It is estimated that the total value of the contract would be approximately £4m over 3 years.

 

The Cabinet Member has agreed:

 

(1) the commencement of a procurement process for renewing Microsoft licensing for a three-year period from March 2019 to April 2022 for an approximate sum of £4m over the three years; and to

 

(2) delegate authority to the Director of Finance, Performance and Procurement to enter into the contract.