DOCSLIB.ORG

40 Mph Speed Limit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
40 Mph Speed Limit Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport Ref: HT17(12/13) April 2013 Key Decision: No Elsted Road, Elsted Marsh – 40mph Speed Limit Part I Report by Director of Service Operations and Electoral Head of Highways and Transport Division(s): Midhurst Executive Summary At the meeting on 20 March 2012 the North Chichester County Local Committee considered a report by Director of Communities and Infrastructure. The report provided the results of traffic surveys on the Elsted Road, Elsted Marsh. The report identified that this road does not meet the County Council’s Speed Limit Policy for a 40mph speed limit in its current condition. Conclusions At its meeting on 20 March the CLC considered the report and resolved that dispensation is sought from the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport to depart from County Council policy and so enable the advertisement and consultation of a permanent 40mph limit on Elsted Road, Elsted Marsh. Recommendation That a departure from the County Council speed limit policy to allow the formal advertisement and statutory consultation for a permanent 40mph limit under the Road Traffic Regulation Act on Elsted Road, Elsted Marsh is authorised and in the event of there being no unresolved objections, that the order be made. Departure from policy to be granted on the basis of the unique characteristics of the rural settlement of Elsted Road, Elsted Marsh and the benefit to the local community that this speed limit would bring. 1. Background 1.1 In June 2011 the North Chichester County Local Committee (CLC) approved Elsted Road, Elsted Marsh as a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) priority for the financial year 2011/12. It was noted at this meeting that Elsted Road TRO did not meet the speed limit criteria for a 40mph speed limit. It was also noted that if approved this may be progressed as an experimental TRO. Clarification has been sought from the legal team and, as a highway authority outside of Greater London, WSCC does not have powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act allowing Speed Limit Orders to be made on an experimental basis. 1.2 Traffic speed data was collected to enable this location to be reviewed against the County Council’s speed limit policy (see Appendix A) for a 40mph limit. This length of road is currently the subject of a 60mph national speed limit. 1.3 The County Council has adopted as policy, a framework for assessing requests for new speed limits based on advice from the Department for Transport (DfT). The DfT advice reinforces the principal that the need for new speed limits should be evidence led, self explanatory and seek to reinforce people assessment of what is a safe speed to travel. 1.4 The criteria set out in Appendix A to this report are used to determine appropriate speed limits for roads and incorporate two principal factors for assessments of new speed limits. Traffic Speed Character of the road 2. Results 2.1 The traffic speeds at five locations within and around the settlement of Elsted Marsh were surveyed (see Appendix B). The sites were surveyed from 31 October 2011 to 9 November 2011. 2.2 The table below shows the results from the speed survey. The results show the mean average speed in miles per hour (mph) for each site in both directions of travel. Location Traffic Direction Speed East 47 Site 1 West 45.9 East 37.5 Site 2 West 37.5 North 27.2 Site 3 South 28.5 East 43.8 Site 4 West 42.3 East 44.3 Site 5 West 43.9 2.3 For a 40mph speed limit to be introduced in accordance with the County Council’s speed limit policy, average traffic speeds must fall below 42mph (see Appendix A). The data collected show that average speeds at sites 2 and 3 meet the speed assessment criteria. However, the average speeds at sites 1, 4 and 5 are not below the 42mph threshold. The speed data for site 4, which is situated at the extent of the settlement area shows that speeds are marginally outside the threshold by 1.8mph in the eastbound direction and 0.3mph in the westbound direction. 2.4 Sites 2, 3 and 4 are situated within the most developed and densely populated area of the rural settlement of Elsted Marsh, whereas sites 1 and 5 are located on sections of Elsted Road that have limited development or frontage access, presenting a more rural feel. 3. Discussion 3.1 In view of the speed survey results the County Council felt it pertinent to ask for Sussex Police’s position on the proposal of a 40mph order. Sussex Police made a number of comments that are summarised below, the full response can be found in Appendix C. Sussex Police noted that with the exception of sites 2 and 3 (speeds being influenced by the presence of a junction etc) the other three sites on Elsted Road all showed average speeds well in excess of 41.9mph, which indicates that the proposed limit is outside the speed assessment criterion. They raised concern over the high level of non- compliance that further statistical analysis revealed and without the introduction of intrusive engineering measures to manage down speeds, there is likely to be a high number of drivers travelling at speeds above the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) enforcement guidelines and therefore a Crime and Disorder Act issue may be generated where there has not been one previously. Sussex Police also take the view that the route assessment criterion is not met. They understand that the County Council has a philosophy of self enforcement when setting local speed limits, a position supported by the Police. They feel however that this proposal falls outside of the criteria outlined in our speed limit policy and that there is likely to be a Crime and Disorder Act issue generated as a result. Therefore unless adequate traffic engineering measures are introduced to influence vehicle speeds Sussex Police would not support the proposal. 3.2 A 50mph limit could be considered for all or part of this route. However, with average speeds in the mid to low 40's, by posting a 50mph limit this may be seen by some to be a target or acceptable speed and so potentially lead to increases in speed (as identified by national research on speed limits). Whereas a derestricted limit does not display a specific figure and therefore drivers do not react in the same way. Any increase, or decrease, in average speeds has been shown by research to have a corresponding effect on collision rates (for small numbers, generally each 1mph change in average speed leads to a 5% change in collision rates). The risks associated with the introduction of a 50mph limit here are considered to be relatively low. 3.3 Evidence shows that Orders for speed limits do not automatically result in lower speeds with signing alone. Although the speeds are above the speed limit policies criteria, it is felt that if light engineering measures were implemented to ensure a permanent speed limit was adhered to, along side the introduction of a 40mph speed limits associated signs and roundels, it would be deemed acceptable over the settlement area. To introduce any speed limit which falls outside of the speed limit policy, the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport has to make an exception to the Speed Limit Policy. 3.4 Speed surveys show that average speeds which support a 40mph limit are in the most developed area of the rural settlement of Elsted Marsh (sites 2 and 3), another location (site 4) within the developed settlement area marginally falls outside of the speed limit criteria, however speeds are higher in the remaining sections (sites 1 and 5). 3.5 It is clear from discussions with Elsted and Treyford Parish Council that the introduction of a 40mph limit over the most densely populated section of the settlement would not meet the expectations of the community. It has therefore been agreed that the limit should cover the area depicted in Appendix E. This has been agreed in principal on the proviso that village gateway signs are erected and funded by the parish council to act as additional traffic engineering measures. It is felt that these additional measures in conjunction with the speed limit terminal signs, repeater signs and roundels will bring the traffic speeds down to a more suitable level. 3.6 The CLC considered one of the following options: A. Accept that Elsted Road, Elsted currently meets criteria for a derestricted limit and should remain derestricted; B. Impose a 50mph speed limit on Elsted Road, Elsted; or C. The Committee ask the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport to make an exception to the Speed Limit Policy and authorises a 40mph speed limit proposal be progressed. 4. Conclusion 4.1 CLC considered the report and resolved that dispensation is sought from the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport to depart from County Council policy and so enable the advertisement and consultation of a permanent 40mph limit on Elsted Road, Elsted Marsh. 5. Equality Act 2010 Customer Focus Appraisal 5.1 The protected characteristics have been duly considered and assessed in the course of the consideration of this proposal. No relevant or disproportionate impact upon any of the protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010 has been identified in the consideration of the proposals detailed in this Report. 5.2 The Customer Focus Appraisal (CFA) is attached at Appendix D. 6. Resources Implications and Value for Money 6.1 Of the options mentioned at 3.6, all options will be delivered and funded from existing Highway Revenue budgets.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Trotton with Chithurst Parish Council to the LGCBE Draft Recommendations for Chichester District
    “Steps”, Trotton, Nr Petersfield, West Sussex, GU31 5JS Response by Trotton with Chithurst Parish Council to the LGCBE Draft Recommendations for Chichester District Trotton with Chithurst Parish Council considered the draft recommendations at a meeting held on Wednesday 14th. September 2016. We are delighted that the proposal to move Trotton from Harting ward was rejected. However, we continue to have grave concerns regarding the proposal to move Elsted and Treyford Parish from Harting ward to Midhurst ward. Our response to the initial consultation included four points relating directly to Elsted parish, and we would repeat and strengthen these here: 1. Trotton no longer has a school, shop, village green, sports ground, village hall or public house and must rely on its neighbours' facilities. Our population centre (albeit a small one) is situated to the south of our parish, about a mile from the public house at Lower Elsted, which hosts events for Trotton residents each month. The Village hall and sports ground at Elsted give a good view across Trotton and are often used by Trotton residents. Trotton and Elsted Parishes are similar in size and nature and the two Parish councils have recently been exploring options for closer working, including the potential for a Common Parish Council. We have strong links to Elsted, which in turn has strong links with Harting Parish. 2. Like our neighbours in Elsted parish, Trotton also has strong links to its larger neighbour Rogate as the two parishes share a Rector across the four churches which make up the United Benefice. Given the small size and sparse facilities of our parish, we also value our links with Rogate for its school and for allowing us to combine with them for celebrations such as the recent Queen’s birthday.
    [Show full text]
  • Sunday 8Th March 2020 Second Sunday of Lent
    SUNDAY 8TH MARCH 2020 SECOND SUNDAY OF LENT 8.00 HOLY COMMUNION Service begins on page 236 of the Prayer Book. Collect and readings for the Second Sunday in Lent are on pp 88-89. 10.00 MATTINS Archer - Benedicte Responses: Radcliffe Farrant - Hide not thou thy face from us, O Lord Job 38: 1-7 Hebrews 4: 12 - end Psalm: 74: 13 - end Hymn: 415 (t. 346) Preacher: The Reverend Canon Tim Schofield, Precentor At the end of the service: The Lent Prose 11.00 SUNG EUCHARIST For full details of this Service please refer to the separate Order of Service. After the Sung Eucharist this morning, refreshments will be served in the South Transept, to which all members of the congregation are warmly invited. 3.30 EVENSONG Stanford in G Responses: Radcliffe Blow - Salvator mundi Numbers 21: 4-9 Luke 14: 27-33 Psalm: 135 Hymns: 357, 76 Organ Voluntary: Psalm Prelude Set 1 No. 1 by Herbert Howells (1892 - 1983) Notices Today Deacon Ish is preaching and leading the music worship at an all age family service at Bagley Baptist Church, in Somerset. Easter Flowers: The Cathedral flower arrangers would be most grateful for donations to help defray the costs of the Easter displays this year. Equally, if you would like to make a donation of £5 for a lily in memory of a loved one, please submit the details of the person to be remembered along with your donation. Names must be clearly written. All cheques should be made payable to ‘Chichester Cathedral Flower Fund’ and left in Reception.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ramblers' Association
    Portsmouth Group Spring - Summer (March – June 2016) Walks Programme The Ramblers' Association Working for Walkers The RA promotes rambling, protects Rights of Way, campaigns for access to open country and defends the beauty of the countryside Web site: Head office www.ramblers.org.uk Local http://www.portsmouthramblers.org.uk/ E-mail Email: Head office [email protected] Local [email protected] PORTSMOUTH GROUP WALKING PROGRAMME Correct as at 1st February 2016 The Portsmouth Group offers a variety of walks mainly in Hampshire, West Sussex and the Isle of Wight. On Saturdays these are moderately paced 5 to 9 mile walks whilst, on Sundays, they are faster paced 11 to 15 mile walks. The Group also has short Friday evening walks and some extra Saturday walks in more distant parts in the summer months. Most walks have a pub/cafe stop either at the end or at lunch time. INFORMATION FOR WALKERS New walkers always welcome. Just turn up at meeting place for shorter walks. For walks in excess of 10 miles, please contact leader first if you have not previously walked this distance. Grade A walks – for experienced walkers; brisk pace Grade B walks – regular pace Grade C walks – moderate pace Grade D walks – slow pace These are only general indications of the pace and will vary with the individual. All walks are circular unless otherwise stated. Wear stout footwear and carry waterproof clothing for possible wet weather. There will be stops for coffee and lunch, so please bring a flask and food. Walkers should not eat their own food in pubs/pub gardens without permission from the landlord.
    [Show full text]
  • Elsted and Treyford Parish Council Met Again on 22Nd September to Consider Additional Information Regarding the Boundary Review for Chichester
    Electoral Review of Chichester District To whom in concerns:- Elsted and Treyford Parish Council met again on 22nd September to consider additional information regarding the Boundary Review for Chichester. As a result it wishes to reiterate all the comments contained in the e-mail response to the Commission dated 1st September. The Commission should note that all the adjoining Parishes including Midhurst Town Council and Chichester District Council have objected to the proposed changes and the vast majority of residents support the Parish Councils view to include E&T Parish within the enlarged Harting ward. It would appear that the reason that you haven’t recommended the inclusion of E&T parish in the proposed Harting ward seems to be because if done the variance in the ward electorate would be high It is about 1% larger in terms of the electorate than the preferred upper limit – in the case of Harting ward that is 30 or so too many voters The inclusion of E&T into Midhurst ward would reduce the variable on Harting ward to + 3%, and increase the variable on Midhurst ward to + 8%. Plus 8% is the greatest variable of any ward according to the LGBCE draft proposals. It wouldn’t take much for an increase in the relatively low housing rate of build currently proposed for Midhurst and the parishes within the draft ward that adjoin it to push that figure higher, perhaps more than 2% higher. If that is the case the issue of Harting ward being too large, which nobody hereabouts objects to, could be swapped for a similar one at Midhurst that could cause unknown outcomes.
    [Show full text]
  • Elsted and Treyford, and Harting – Request for Diversion of Parts of Footpaths (Fp) 871, 872 and 873; Creation of New Footpath on Disused Railway
    Agenda Item No. 5 (b) Rights Of Way Committee 12 June 2018 Highways Act 1980 Sections 119 and 25 Elsted and Treyford, and Harting – Request for Diversion of Parts of Footpaths (fp) 871, 872 and 873; Creation of New Footpath on Disused Railway Report by Director for Highways and Transport Executive Summary In December 2017 Orders were made to divert three public footpaths, together with the dedication of two additional paths, at Woodhouse Farm near Elsted following an officer delegated decision by the Principal Rights of Way Officer. A copy of the Decision Report is attached for information (Appendix 1). The Orders attracted two objections and so, in line with the agreed practice when an Order made following officer delegated decision is opposed, the Committee is asked to decide whether the Orders should be submitted for confirmation. This report summarises the points raised by objectors and considers their significance in the context of the legal tests for Public Path Diversion Orders. Conclusion Having reviewed the objections with the applicants’ agent, the officers’ view remains that the legal tests for making and confirmation are met. To enable the Diversion Orders to be progressed they will need to be submitted to the Secretary of State (The Planning Inspectorate) for determination and the Committee’s authority to make the submission is now sought. Recommendation That the Public Path Diversion Orders made in respect of footpaths 871, 872 and 873 in the parishes of Elsted and Treyford and Harting be submitted by the Director of Law and Assurance to the Secretary of State for confirmation.
    [Show full text]
  • INFRASTRUCTURE BUSINESS PLAN - Appendices SOUTH DOWNS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY
    Agenda Item 10 Report PC20/21-18 Appendix 3 INFRASTRUCTURE BUSINESS PLAN - Appendices SOUTH DOWNS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY October 2020 123 Agenda Item 10 Report PC20/21-18 Appendix 3 APPENDIX A: TOTAL CIL RECEIPTS PASSED ONTO PARISH / TOWN COUNCILS (REGULATION 121B) Total paid to Parish / Town Total spent by Parish / Town Council from April 2017 to Parish / Town (where CIL liable development has 31st March 2020 Council up until Notes commenced) end of 2019 / 20 Currently unspent financial year Aldingbourne Parish Council £532.50 Alfriston Parish Council £188.34 Bepton Parish Council £396.00 £1,125.00 Works to War Memorial and Village Gate Bramdean and Hinton Ampner Parish Council £21,572.15 Buriton Parish Council £20,094.16 Clapham Parish Council £24,679.26 £600.00 Purchased a defibrillator Coldwaltham Parish Council £300.60 Compton Parish Council £1,089.09 Corhampton and Meonstoke Parish Council £1,332.80 Ditchling Parish Council £17,904.00 Droxford Parish Council £4,798.24 £4,055.00 A new timber play fort has been provided. Easebourne Parish Council £2,450.85 East Chiltington Parish Council £771.90 East Dean and Friston Parish Council £3,125.23 East Meon Parish Council £1,683.12 £1,433.88 Playground equipment improvements. Falmer Parish Council £157.84 Fernhurst Parish Council £2,096.34 Froxfield & Privett Parish Council £3,631.20 Fulking Parish Council £1,690.00 Funtington Parish Council £30,831.32 Greatham Parish Council £8,229.00 INFRASTRUCTURE BUSINESS PLAN - APPENDICES PAGE 2 124 Agenda Item 10 Report PC20/21-18 Appendix 3 Total paid to Parish / Town Total spent by Parish / Town Council from April 2017 to Parish / Town (where CIL liable development has 31st March 2020 Council up until Notes commenced) end of 2019 / 20 Currently unspent financial year Hambledon Parish Council £304.00 Hassocks Parish Council £2,954.33 Hawkley Parish Council £0.00 £958.09 Play equipment and re-surfacing works.
    [Show full text]
  • Roadworks Report Date Report Generated: for Period: Road Parish
    Roadworks Report Date Report Generated: For Period: Road Parish Henfield Road Albourne Hook Lane Aldingbourne Lidsey Road Aldingbourne Park Lane Aldingbourne Aldwick Street Aldwick Fish Lane Aldwick Fish Lane Aldwick Rose Green Road Aldwick Turnpike Road Amberley Angmering Bypass Angmering Littlehampton Road Eastbound Angmering Roundstone Lane Angmering Bolney Road Ansty And Staplefield Burgess Hill Road Ansty And Staplefield Cuckfield Road Ansty And Staplefield Cuckfield Road Ansty And Staplefield Deaks Lane Ansty And Staplefield Rocky Lane Ansty And Staplefield Rocky Lane Ansty And Staplefield Valebridge Road Ansty And Staplefield Appledram Lane South Appledram College Road Ardingly High Street Ardingly Lindfield Road Ardingly Chichester Road Bersted Rowan Way Bersted Billingshurst Bypass Billingshurst Billingshurst Bypass Roundabout Billingshurst Daux Avenue Billingshurst Lower Station Road Billingshurst Natts Lane Billingshurst Natts Lane Billingshurst Hawthorn Road Bognor Regis Shripney Road Southbound Bognor Regis William Street Bognor Regis York Road Bognor Regis A285 Redvins Road To Tinwood Lane Boxgrove Crouch Cross Lane Boxgrove The Street Boxgrove Castle Lane Bramber De Braose Way Bramber Steyning Bypass Bramber Farthings Hill Roundabout Broadbridge Heath Old Guildford Road Broadbridge Heath Folders Lane Burgess Hill Keymer Road Burgess Hill Kings Way Burgess Hill Orchard Road Burgess Hill Royal George Road Burgess Hill St Johns Road Burgess Hill A27 Chichester Bypass Eastbound Chichester Broyle Road Chichester Fishbourne Road
    [Show full text]
  • Public Rights of Way Inspection Areas
    Worth Crawley East Grinstead Rusper Ashurst Wood Turners Hill Warnham North Horsham Rudgwick Colgate West Hoathly Slinfold Linchmere Plaistow Slaugham Loxwood Broadbridge HeathHorsham Balcombe Northchapel Ardingly Linch Lurgashall Itchingfield Horsted Keynes Fernhurst Lower Beeding Milland Southwater Ebernoe Nuthurst Kirdford Ansty and Staplefield Billingshurst Rogate Wisborough Green Lindfield Cuckfield Woolbeding with Redford Lodsworth Haywards Heath Lindfield Rural Bolney Trotton with Chithurst Easebourne Shipley Tillington Cowfold Stedham with Iping Petworth Midhurst West Lavington Fittleworth Pulborough West Chiltington West Grinstead Twineham Harting Stopham Shermanbury Elsted and Treyford Burgess Hill Heyshott Bepton Thakeham Hurstpierpoint and Sayers Common East LavingtonDuncton Cocking Coldwaltham Graffham Barlavington Ashington Ashurst Albourne Henfield Hassocks Woodmancote Bury Marden Sutton Parham Wiston 1 - Katherine Eels Compton Bignor Singleton Storrington and Sullington West Dean Upwaltham East Dean Washington 2 - Katrina Harper Amberley Steyning Poynings Pyecombe Newtimber Houghton Fulking Upper Beeding Stoughton Madehurst 3 - Darryl Hobden (until 1/3/17) Slindon Burpham Bramber South Stoke Findon Lavant Boxgrove Eartham Funtington Westhampnett Patching 4 - Vacant Westbourne Coombes Arundel Warningcamp Clapham Sompting Shoreham/Southwick Tangmere Walberton Lyminster and Crossbush Southbourne 5 - Nigel Bird Chichester AldingbourneEastergate Poling Angmering Lancing Fishbourne Worthing Oving Chidham and Hambrook Ford Littlehampton
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Main Issues Raised by the Representations Made Pursuant to Regulation 18
    South Downs National Park Authority South Downs Local Plan: Preferred Options Consultation September-October 2015 Summary of main issues raised by the representations made pursuant to Regulation 18 February 2016 1 2 Contents Introduction 5 Summary of Responses: General Comments 10 Chapter 1 – Introduction 16 Chapter 2 – Spatial Portrait – The National Park Today 19 Chapter 3 – Vision and Objectives 21 Chapter 4 – Core Policies 23 Chapter 5 – A Thriving Living Landscape – Strategic Policies 49 Chapter 6 – People Connected with Places – Strategic Policies 95 Chapter 7 – Towards a Sustainable Future – Strategic Policies 112 Chapter 8 – Strategic Sites 142 Chapter 9 – Site Allocations 147 Chapter 10 – Development Management Policies 167 Chapter 11 – Implementation and Monitoring 209 Inset Maps 210 Appendices and Glossary 212 3 4 Introduction 1.1 The South Downs Local Plan: Preferred Options was published for public consultation under Regulation 18 of The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. The consultation was launched on 2 September and ran for 8 weeks until 28 October 2015. 1.2 Local Plan policies have been formulated in consultation with local communities, building on extensive engagement on the Partnership Management Plan (PMP) and the State of the Park Report. The views and input of the local community are vital to us and we have undertaken a considerable amount of public engagement, particularly with the town and parish councils. The Authority also benefits from the active engagement with a number of local groups including the South Downs Land Managers’ Group and the South Downs Partnership, who give us a wide range of views from people who live, work and develop in the National Park.
    [Show full text]
  • Chichester Diocesan Intercessions: January – March 2021
    Chichester Diocesan Intercessions: J a n u a r y – M a r c h 2 0 2 1 JANUARY 10 THE BAPTISM OF CHRIST The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia 1 Naming and Circumcision of Jesus The Diocese of Aba – The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) PRAY for the Diocesan Safeguarding Team: , (Aba Province) Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser: Colin Perkins; Barbara Storer and GOSSOPS GREEN and BEWBUSH: Ann Alexander, I; Lizzie Green, Vicki Martin, Assistant Diocesan Safeguarding Advisers; Helen Asst.C. Irving, Independent Sexual Violence Adviser; Claire Coles, PCR2 THE HOLY TRINITY CE SECONDARY SCHOOL: Christine Millwood, Cases; Kim Nash and Micaela Mitchell, Administrators HT. 11 Mary Slessor, 1915 2 Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus, Bishops, The Diocese of Afikpo – The Church of Nigeria Teachers of the Faith, 379 and 389; Seraphim, Monk of Sarov, (Anglican Communion) (Enugu Province) Spiritual Guide, 1833; Vedanayagam Samuel Azariah, Bishop in HORSHAM: Lisa Barnett, TR; David Bouskill, TV; Rebecca Tuck, South India, Evangelist, 1945 Asst.C; Karen Ind, Peter Scofield, and Margaret Symonds, Simon The Diocese of Aba Ngwa North – The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Quail; Graham Rumney Rdrs. Communion) (Aba Province) ST MARY’S CEP SCHOOL: Alex Bird, HT; Claire Swarbrick, Chr FURNACE GREEN: Richard Poole, I; Marilyn Appleby, Rdr 12 Aelred of Hexham, 1167; Benedict Biscop, 689 The Diocese of North Africa – The Episcopal / Anglican Province of Alexandria 3 THE EPIPHANY OF THE LORD (SECOND SUNDAY OF CHISTMAS) ITCHINGFIELD with SLINFOLD: Sandra Hall, I; Rosemary Cattell, O God, who revealed your only Son to the Gentiles by the leading Ass.P; Carol Shepherd, Rdr.
    [Show full text]
  • South Downs National Park Authority
    Unconfirmed minutes – to be confirmed at the next meeting of the Planning Committee SOUTH DOWNS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY PLANNING COMMITTEE 11 July 2011 Held at Cowdray Hall, Midhurst at 10:30am Present: Andrew Shaxson - Chair Barbara Holyome Neville Harrison Charles Peck Ken Bodfish Jennifer Gray Alun Alesbury David Jenkins Margaret Paren (ex officio) Tom Jones SDNPA Officers: Jim Redwood (Head of Planning) Pat Aird (Major Applications and Enforcement Lead), Michael Scammell (Historical Building Officer), David Townsend (Link Officer Chichester), Keith Reed (Local Development Framework (LDF) Lead), Claire Potts (Minerals and Waste Lead), Sam Dumbrell (WSCC) Becky Moutrey (Senior Solicitor) Rebecca Haynes (Member Services Officer). APOLOGIES 1. Apologies for absence were received from Minette Palmer, ELECTION OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR AND DEPUTY CHAIR 2. Andrew Shaxson was the only nomination and duly elected as Chair and presided over the rest of the meeting. 3. Barbara Holyome joined the meeting at 10:34am 4. Neville Harrison was the only nomination and duly elected as Deputy Chair. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 5. Andrew Shaxson declared a personal non prejudicial interest in agenda Items 6, 7, 8 and 10 as a member of Chichester DC. He explained that he is no longer a member of their Development Control committee, but was when Items 6 and 7 were considered by that committee as a consultee on 20 April 2011. He declared a personal interest in them at that time as a member of the SDNPA planning committee, and left the committee table when they were debated and therefore took no part in the proceedings. Andrew Shaxson also declared a personal, non prejudicial interest in agenda items 6, 7 & 8 as a member of Elsted and Treyford Parish Council, who sent comments for consideration to Chichester District Council (CDC) as the then planning authority as a result of a debate on items 6 and 7 at a SDNPA meeting on 25 November 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • HERITAGE at RISK REGISTER 2009 / SOUTH EAST Contentscontents
    HERITAGE AT RISK REGISTER 2009 / SOUTH EAST ContentsContents HERITAGEHERITAGE AT RISK AT RISK 2 2 Buildings atBuildings Risk at Risk 6 6 MonumentsMonuments at Risk at Risk 8 8 Parks and GardensParks and at GardensRisk at Risk 10 11 Battlefields Battlefieldsat Risk and Shipwrecks at Risk12 12 ShipwrecksConservation at Risk Areas at Risk 13 14 ConservationThe Areas 2009 at CAARs Risk Survey 14 16 The 2009 ConservationPublications and Areas guidance Survey 16 20 PublicationsTHE and REGISTERguidance 2008 20 21 The register – content and 22 THE REGISTERassessment 2009 criteria 21 Contents Key to the entries 21 25 The registerHeritage – content at Riskand listings 22 26 assessment criteria Key to the entries 24 Heritage at Risk entries 26 HERITAGE AT RISK 2009 / SOUTH EAST HERITAGE AT RISK IN THE SOUTH EAST Registered Battlefields at Risk Listed Buildings at Risk Scheduled Monuments at Risk Registered Parks and Gardens at Risk Protected Wrecks at Risk Local Planning Authority 2 HERITAGE AT RISK 2009 / SOUTH EAST We are all justly proud of England’s historic buildings, monuments, parks, gardens and designed landscapes, battlefields and shipwrecks. But too many of them are suffering from neglect, decay and pressure from development. Heritage at Risk is a national project to identify these endangered places and then help secure their future. In 2008 English Heritage published its first register of Heritage at Risk – a region-by-region list of all the Grade I and II* listed buildings (and Grade II listed buildings in London), structural scheduled monuments, registered battlefields and protected wreck sites in England known to be ‘at risk’.
    [Show full text]