Decisions

Use the search options below to find information regarding recent decisions that have been taken by the Cabinet, Cabinet Members and County Local Committees. Also included are key decisions by officers and decisions made by officers under the urgent action procedure. You can also find decisions taken by the full Council and decision-making committees.

Decisions published

27/11/2020 - Adur Community Initiative Funding (A06 20/21) Urgent Action ref: 1119    Recommendations Approved

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

Decision Maker: Director of Law and Assurance

Decision published: 27/11/2020

Effective from: 27/11/2020

Decision:

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

 

West Sussex Crowd

585/A – Apron, ‘Apron Community Garden’, £2,500 towards design and building a community garden at Buckingham Park, Shoreham-by-Sea.

 

Microfund

595/A - Women's Royal Army Corps Association Worthing, ‘Group Christmas hampers/gifts’, £500.00 - to provide and deliver food & drink hampers for 25 isolated members.

 

596/A – Over the Moon Shoreham CIC, ‘Adur Repair Café’, £270 - for the cost of publicity and consumables.  The application for insurance renewal is not supported as this is not appropriate for CIF as it is a general running cost.  

Lead officer: Monique Smart


27/11/2020 - Adur CLC Prioritisation of Traffic Regulation Orders (A05 20/21) Urgent Action ref: 1118    Recommendations Approved

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

Decision Maker: Director of Law and Assurance

Decision published: 27/11/2020

Effective from: 27/11/2020

Decision:

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

 

Manor Road,  Lancing – Double Yellow Lines

Oldfield Crescent, Southwick – Double Yellow Lines

Lead officer: Mike Thomas


27/11/2020 - The re-designation of Post 16 provision at Oak Grove College, Worthing - ES12(20/21) ref: 1117    Recommendations Approved

The County Council has been developing a new Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and Inclusion Strategy to support the inclusion of all children and young people, particularly those with SEND. One of the aims of the County Council’s Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and Inclusion Strategy 2019-2024 is to support the inclusion of all children and young people with SEND to participate in local mainstream schools and educational settings. 

 

Oak Grove College is a special school in Worthing that offers provision for students with learning difficulties from Years 7-14. Following assessment of options for post-16 provision for children with SEND it is recognised that many of the pupils with less complex needs who currently undertake their post-16 studies at Oak Grove could be successfully educated within mainstream Further Education Colleges, thereby enabling Oak Grove College to focus provision for students with more complex needs.

 

Redesignating the post-16 provision to become more specialist would also mean there could be a reduction in the number of Post 16 planned places at the College, from 56 to 24 by 2025/26.   The intention would be to retain the overall number of places at the school (256) by re-designating some of Post 16 places as Pre-16 provision.  This is in line with the current patterns of attendance.

 

A public consultation on the proposal that post-16 provision at Oak Grove is redesignated to become more specialist and cater for pupils with complex needs including; Complex Autistic Spectrum Condition, Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties and Severe Learning Difficulties took place during September and October 2020 and the outcome is set out in section 3 of the report.

 

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Education and Skills

Decision published: 27/11/2020

Effective from: 09/12/2020

Decision:

The Cabinet Member for Education and Skills has approved the following proposal:

 

(1)     The redesignation of post-16 provision at Oak Grove College to become more specialist focusing on pupils with complex needs with effect from September 2021.

 

Divisions affected: Northbrook;

Lead officer: Oliver Lane-Smith


26/11/2020 - Procurement of an Occupational Health Service Contract ECR03 20-21 ref: 1113    Recommendations Approved

An occupational health service forms part of the Councils’ overall people strategy ensuring that there are systems in place so that employees’ health and wellbeing is well supported and managers can make informed decisions on the fitness of employees to work. 

 

The current contract for the provision of occupational health services, which started in October 2016, covers the corporate requirement and is also accessed by some schools and District and Borough councils in West Sussex.   This contract will expire on 30 September 2021.

 

 

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Economy and Corporate Resources

Decision published: 26/11/2020

Effective from: 08/12/2020

Decision:

The Cabinet Member for Economy and Corporate Resources has endorsed:

(1)         The commencement of a procurement process for an occupational health service contract to start on or before 01 October 2021 for 3yrs + 1yr + 1yr (total 5 years) with a total value of approximately £1.500m.; and

(2)         Delegates authority to the Interim Director of Human Resources and Organisational Development to award the contract to the provider best able to meet the needs of the Council on a price/quality basis.

 

Divisions affected: (All Divisions);

Lead officer: Colin Chadwick


26/11/2020 - North Chichester Prioritisation of Traffic Regulation Orders (NC03 (20/21)) ref: 1114    Recommendations Approved

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

 

Decision Maker: Director of Law and Assurance

Decision published: 26/11/2020

Effective from: 26/11/2020

Decision:

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

The following TROs are agreed for progression:

 

-      Bepton Road: Parish council Request for a 30mph speed limit on a village road.

Lead officer: Mike Thomas


25/11/2020 - Endorsement of Design Fees for Burgess Hill Stations and Western Gateway Improvements OKD47 20-21 ref: 1112    Recommendations Approved

The Mid Sussex Growth Deal identifies a set of priorities for economic growth in Burgess Hill including the Burgess Hill Place and Connectivity Programme, comprising a package of projects aimed at creating safe, direct and attractive walking and cycling routes and high-quality public spaces to encourage people to choose to walk, cycle and use public transport, delivered in partnership with Mid Sussex District Council.

 

In March 2019 the Leader approved the Burgess Hill Place and Connectivity Programme LDR09 (18.19) and following approval of the business case by the Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership, delegated authority is given to the Executive Director of Place Services to progress the projects.

 

Subsequent to completion of Preliminary Design and Public Engagement in June 2020, the Burgess Hill Stations and Western Gateway projects are to progress to detailed design with combined design and project management fees requiring a Key Decision.

 

Decision Maker: Executive Director Place Services

Decision published: 25/11/2020

Effective from: 05/12/2020

Decision:

The Executive Director Place Services has endorsed that £620k be drawn down from the Burgess Hill Place and Connectivity Programme capital programme allocation to support the Detailed Design of the identified schemes at Burgess Hill and Wivelsfield Station and Burgess Hill Western Gateway to include Project Management fees and an allowance for surveys.

Divisions affected: Burgess Hill East; Burgess Hill North;

Lead officer: Paul Jackson-Cole


24/11/2020 - West Sussex County Council Economy Reset Plan 2020-24 (CAB11_20/21) ref: 1110    Recommendations Approved

The County Council’s Economic Growth Plan 2018-2023 sets out the Council’s priorities and opportunities for economic growth in West Sussex.  Work has progressed over the past two years and positive outcomes have been achieved. With the emergence of COVID-19 it has been agreed to `reset` the Economic Growth Plan to provide the framework for the Council’s response to the impact of the pandemic on the economy, businesses and residents. The economy reset will also inform the County Council’s Corporate Plan Reset in due course. The Reset Plan will be delivered within existing budget allocations for the economy.

Cabinet will be asked to endorse an update of the West Sussex Economic Growth Plan 2018-2023 as the `Economy Reset Plan 2020 – 2024’.

Decision Maker: Cabinet

Made at meeting: 24/11/2020 - Cabinet

Decision published: 24/11/2020

Effective from: 04/12/2020

Decision:

Following consideration of the report, Cabinet resolved to:

 

1.   approve the adoption of the West Sussex County Council Economy Reset Plan 2020-2024

2.   confirm the Economic Growth Plan 2018-2023 has been superseded by the Economy Reset Plan 2020-2024.

 

The call-in deadline is 3 December 2020.

Divisions affected: (All Divisions);

Lead officer: Carolyn Carr


24/11/2020 - West Sussex County Council Reset Plan (CAB12_20/21) ref: 1111    Information Only

Cabinet will be asked to recommend the approval of the new West Sussex Plan by the County Council in December 2020. The Plan will re-set the County Council’s priorities and outcomes for the year from April 2021.

 

The Plan will build on the framework approved by the County Council in July 2020 which identified the main priorities around which the plan will be built and the principles which will drive its development. It will capture existing activities of the County Council and those delivered with its partners as well as identifying those ambitions and outcomes which will be new. It will map the timetable for delivering these activities and describe the measures on which to judge the County Council’s performance in achieving them.  It will show how the activities are to be funded and managed within budgetary requirements whilst striving to deliver outcomes that are ambitious, realistic and achievable, particularly within the context of continued uncertainty, challenges and pressures associated with the local and national impact of the global pandemic.

 

Decision Maker: Cabinet

Made at meeting: 24/11/2020 - Cabinet

Decision published: 24/11/2020

Effective from: 04/12/2020

Decision:

Following consideration of the report, Cabinet resolved to:

 

1.   Approve the first iteration of the Reset Plan for further consideration by the County Council at its December meeting

2.   Approve the timeline for ongoing development of the Reset Plan

3.   Invite each of the scrutiny committees to consider in January 2021 how the Reset Plan’s measures and performance information can be set and used to enable effective scrutiny of the Council’s aims and agreed outcomes relevant to their areas of business; and to invite Performance and Finance Scrutiny Committee to provide guidance to the scrutiny committees in terms of principles and methods for effective scrutiny of performance to assist them in that task.

The call-in deadline is 3 December 2020.

 

Divisions affected: (All Divisions);

Lead officer: Becky Shaw


23/11/2020 - JEAAC Community Initiative Fund (EA06 20/21) Urgent Action ref: 1109    Recommendations Approved

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

Decision Maker: Director of Law and Assurance

Decision published: 23/11/2020

Effective from: 23/11/2020

Decision:

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

 

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

Lead officer: Monique Smart


08/09/2020 - Report of Delegated Action ref: 1044    Information Only

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 08/09/2020 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 23/11/2020

Effective from: 08/09/2020

Decision:

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

 


08/09/2020 - Planning Application: Waste ref: 1043    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 08/09/2020 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 23/11/2020

Effective from: 08/09/2020

Decision:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Road Safety

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Drainage

 

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

 

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

 

Dust suppression system

 

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

 

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

 

Landscaping - Scheme of planting

 

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

 

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

 

Noise

 

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

 

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

 

Condition 13 – Noise Management Plan

 

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

 

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

 

Area of Search

 

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

 

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

 

Access shared with the Showground

 

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

 

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

 

Reversing Alarms

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

          5 – Surface Water Drainage

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

          6 – Landscaping Scheme

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

 

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

 

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

 

13.12  Resolved – That planning permission be granted subject to:

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

 

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

 


23/11/2020 - Rustington: Angmering Way and The Leas - Proposed Parking Restrictions (EA04 20/21) Urgent Action ref: 1107    Recommendations Approved

The Director of Law and Assurance, in consultation with

the Chairman of The Joint Eastern Arun Area Committee

and the Chairman of the Environment and Communities

Scrutiny Committee, has used his delegated powers under

Standing Order 3.45 to approve the attached decision.

Decision Maker: Director of Law and Assurance

Decision published: 23/11/2020

Effective from: 23/11/2020

Decision:

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

Lead officer: Chris Stark


23/11/2020 - JEAAC Prioritisation of Traffic Regulation Orders (EA05 20/21) Urgent Action ref: 1108    Recommendations Approved

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

Decision Maker: Director of Law and Assurance

Decision published: 23/11/2020

Effective from: 23/11/2020

Decision:

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

 

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

• Littlehampton - Fort Road - Request to extend waiting restrictions

Lead officer: Mike Thomas


20/11/2020 - Care and Support at Home Framework Extension OKD46 (20/21) ref: 1106    Recommendations Approved

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Decision Maker: Executive Director Adults and Health

Decision published: 20/11/2020

Effective from: 02/12/2020

Decision:

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

 

Divisions affected: (All Divisions);

Lead officer: Juliette Garrett


06/11/2020 - Proposed Modifications to the Soft Sand Review of the West Sussex Joint Minerals Local Plan ref: 1081    Recommendations Approved

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Decision Maker: County Council

Made at meeting: 06/11/2020 - County Council

Decision published: 20/11/2020

Effective from: 06/11/2020

Decision:

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

 

48.2     Resolved –

 

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

Divisions affected: (All Divisions);

Lead officer: Rupy Sandhu


20/11/2020 - Extension of Dynamic Purchasing System for 16+ services - OKD44 (20/21) ref: 1104    Recommendations Approved

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

 

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

 

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

Decision Maker: Executive Director Children, Young People and Learning

Decision published: 20/11/2020

Effective from: 02/12/2020

Decision:

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

Divisions affected: (All Divisions);

Lead officer: Shelly Dichello


20/11/2020 - Financial Support to the Care Sector - Infection Control Grant, Round 2, 20% Allocation OKD45 (20/21) ref: 1105    Recommendations Approved

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

 

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

 

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

 

Decision Maker: Director of Law and Assurance

Decision published: 20/11/2020

Effective from: 20/11/2020

Decision:

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

 

Divisions affected: (All Divisions);

Lead officer: Juliette Garrett


17/11/2020 - Worthing CLC Community Initiative Fund (W05 20/21) Urgent Action ref: 1099    Recommendations Approved

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

Decision Maker: Director of Law and Assurance

Decision published: 17/11/2020

Effective from: 17/11/2020

Decision:

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

 

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

Lead officer: Monique Smart


02/11/2020 - Member Officer Relations Protocol Report ref: 1093    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Standards Committee

Made at meeting: 02/11/2020 - Standards Committee

Decision published: 17/11/2020

Effective from: 02/11/2020

Decision:

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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


02/11/2020 - Standards Committee Annual Report ref: 1091    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Standards Committee

Made at meeting: 02/11/2020 - Standards Committee

Decision published: 17/11/2020

Effective from: 02/11/2020

Decision:

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

 

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

 

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


06/11/2020 - Governance Committee: Merger of Planning and Rights of Way Committees ref: 1082    Recommmend Forward to Council

Decision Maker: County Council

Made at meeting: 06/11/2020 - County Council

Decision published: 20/11/2020

Effective from: 06/11/2020

Decision:

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

 

36.2     Resolved –

 

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

 

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

Decision Maker: Standards Committee

Made at meeting: 02/11/2020 - Standards Committee

Decision published: 17/11/2020

Effective from: 06/11/2020

Decision:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 


17/11/2020 - Worthing CLC Prioritisation of Traffic Regulation Orders (W04 20/21) Urgent Action ref: 1098    Recommendations Approved

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

Decision Maker: Director of Law and Assurance

Decision published: 17/11/2020

Effective from: 17/11/2020

Decision:

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

 

·       Wellesley Avenue, Goring – Request for Double Yellow Lines

Lead officer: Mike Thomas


17/11/2020 - JWAAC Community Initiative Fund (WA05 20/21) Urgent Action ref: 1097    Recommendations Approved

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

Decision Maker: Director of Law and Assurance

Decision published: 17/11/2020

Effective from: 17/11/2020

Decision:

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

 

West Sussex Crowd

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

 

Lead officer: Monique Smart


17/11/2020 - JWAAC Prioritisation of Traffic Regulation Orders (WA04 20/21) Urgent Action ref: 1096    Recommendations Approved

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

Decision Maker: Director of Law and Assurance

Decision published: 17/11/2020

Effective from: 17/11/2020

Decision:

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

 

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

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

Lead officer: Mike Thomas


17/11/2020 - Crawley CLC Prioritisation of Traffic Regulation Orders (C03 20/21) Urgent Action ref: 1095    Recommendations Approved

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

Decision Maker: Director of Law and Assurance

Decision published: 17/11/2020

Effective from: 17/11/2020

Decision:

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

 

 

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

·       Findon Road – Request for Double Yellow Lines

·       The Ridings – Request for Double Yellow Lines

 

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

Lead officer: Mike Thomas


13/11/2020 - Parklands Primary School, Chichester - Funding for remedial works programme - ES11 (20/21) ref: 1090    Recommendations Approved

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

 

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

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Education and Skills

Decision published: 13/11/2020

Effective from: 25/11/2020

Decision:

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

Divisions affected: Chichester West;

Lead officer: Philippa Hind


25/11/2020 - Emergency Active Travel Fund Cycle Lanes HI11 (20/21) ref: 1084    Recommendations Approved

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

 

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

 

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

 

A decision has now been made to determine the future of each of the schemes, the decision in relation to the Chichester scheme having been taken.

 

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure

Decision published: 03/11/2020

Effective from: 25/11/2020

Decision:

1)           The Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure has approved the removal of the two emergency active travel cycle schemes installed in Crawley.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

25 November 2020 The Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee, on 18 November 2020, considered the call-in of the emergency active travel cycle scheme installed in Shoreham and asked the Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure to reconsider his decision to remove the scheme.

 

The Cabinet Member has carefully considered all of the available information, including the call-in reasons and the comments made at the committee meeting. The Cabinet Member is also aware that the majority of comments received by the County Council (via the on-line survey and correspondence) were opposed to the scheme due to loss of parking, safety and lack of consultation though he recognises that the positive comments have been the highest for any of the county’s emergency schemes.

 

The scheme constituted significant changes to the highway but there was no time to undertake meaningful engagement with local stakeholders. The Department for Transport set out the funding criteria and the allocated funding on 27 May, and bids had to be submitted by 5 June - eight working days later. This resulted in an absence of public engagement/feedback and compromises in terms of the design, assessment and impact criteria.

 

As an emergency response to a unique set of circumstances the scheme has been a success but the conditions on the network have now changed and public transport options restored.  The Cabinet Member has, therefore, confirmed his decision to remove the Shoreham emergency active travel cycle scheme. The date of removal will be confirmed in due course.

 

The County Council is looking to progress a permanent cycle way scheme in Shoreham given the support and enthusiasm shown for a scheme through the ‘pop-up’ cycle way process. Any scheme in the town would be redesigned to make sure it is suitable as a permanent scheme. If taken forward as a priority for the County Council this would be subject to the Department for Transport agreeing additional investment as well as full and thorough consultation with the public and engagement with all relevant stakeholders. If agreed by the Department of Transport, this scheme would be added to the Tranche 2 cycle way work which will see permanent cycling improvements across the county.

 

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

 

Divisions affected: (All Divisions);

Lead officer: Matt Davey


18/11/2020 - Emergency Active Travel Fund Cycle Lane - A286 Chichester ring-road HI10 (20/21) ref: 1065    Recommendations Approved

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure

Decision published: 23/10/2020

Effective from: 18/11/2020

Decision:

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

 

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

 

Divisions affected: Chichester East; Chichester South;

Lead officer: Matt Davey