Chanctonbury County Local Committee: Greyfriars Lane and ... · Agenda Item No. 6 Chanctonbury County Local Committee Ref: CBY07 (12/13) Greyfriars Lane and Church Street, Storrington

Agenda Item No. 6

Chanctonbury County Local Committee

Ref: CBY07 (12/13)

Greyfriars Lane and Church Street, Storrington – Proposed Traffic Regulation Order

Key Decision: No

5 December 2012 Part I

Report by Executive Director Customers and Change

Electoral Division(s): Storrington

Executive Summary Existing pressures of on street parking on Greyfriars Lane and Church Street have caused concern for residents and road users. The high level of parking has led to congestion and impeded visibility at the junctions. Additionally to this the approval of a planning application and associated conditions has led to a proposed change in the parking restrictions. Upon formal consultation with the public, five letters of objection, support from Councillor Wilkinson, and a letter of no objection from Sussex Police were received. The proposed double yellow line waiting restrictions are considered necessary to improve road safety and prevent dangerous parking near junctions; and the addition of a public car park will mitigate any loss in parking. The proposed changes to restrictions in the lay-by north of Browns Lane should be dropped and the restrictions should remain as they are. Recommendation That the Chanctonbury County Local Committee, having considered that the resulting benefits to the community outweigh the concerns raised, authorises the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to make the Traffic Regulation Order as advertised save for the amendment in Paragraph 3.4.

1. Background and Discussion 1.1 Church Street and Greyfriars Lane are narrow residential roads in the historic

conservation area of Storrington village. They also provide a link to an industrial estate to the south of the village. Due to their proximity to local shops and amenities these roads are used for parking by visitors, residents and commuters. Concerns have been raised by residents, businesses and road users that vehicular parking on the south-eastern side of Church Street and, on both sides of Greyfriars Lane, causes obstruction and restricts visibility.

1.2 Horsham District Council have granted planning consent on land to the

north-east of St Josephs Abbey, Church Street, Storrington comprising a residential development for retired people plus associated garages and off-street parking. The existing site access is in Browns Lane but this is

Agenda Item No. 6

unsuitable for the new development. The main site access will be in Church Street.

1.3 A condition of the planning approval is that no development shall commence

until action is taken to prevent vehicles from parking along the frontage of the site to provide adequate visibility splays at the Church Street junction. The approved planning application incorporates physical changes which will narrow the width of the road to the extent that will not allow vehicles to park because they would obstruct through traffic.

1.4 A length of double yellow lines is proposed along the Church Street site

frontage to achieve visibility and remove obstruction of the highway. To mitigate loss of parking the developers are creating a public car park for 29 vehicles within the site.

2. Proposals 2.1 It is proposed to introduce:

(i) Lengths of prohibition of waiting at all times (double yellow lines) on sections of the south-eastern side of Church Street, sections of both sides of Greyfriars Lane and the entire length of St Joseph’s Orchard.

(ii) Introduce 20 minute limited waiting bays operative 8am-6pm

Monday to Saturday on the south-eastern side of Church Street between Rosemary Close and Browns Lane to replace an existing length of single yellow line.

(iii) Introduce a length of single yellow line prohibiting waiting 8am-

6pm Monday to Saturday on the western side of Church Street, north of Rosemary Close, to replace an existing limited waiting bay.

2.2 The lengths of roads which are subject of the proposed Order are shown in

drawing number(s): • TQ0814SES • TQ0813NEN

These plans are included in Appendix A. 2.3 This Order is proposed to avoid danger to persons or traffic using the road or

for preventing such danger from arising and to facilitate the safe passage of traffic.

3. Consultation 3.1 At the design stage all statutory consultees were consulted including the

Local Member, Sussex Police, Ambulance, Fire Brigade, Horsham District Council and Storrington & Sullington Parish Council, no objections were made. A site meeting was held with Horsham District Council and Storrington & Sullington Parish Council to discuss how the impact of the construction stage of the development could be mitigated.

Agenda Item No. 6

3.2 The three-week formal consultation period ran between 18 October 2012 and 8 November 2012. During this consultation period notices were erected on site, a copy of plans and statements of reasons were placed at the local library, on the County Council Website and a notice was placed in the local paper.

3.3 During this consultation period five objections were received from residents

of Church Street. A summary of the objections and the comments from Director of Service Operations can be found in Appendix B.

3.4 Some representations from members of the public have led to amendments

of the proposals. The amendment is for the proposed changes to restrictions in the lay-by north of Browns Lane to be dropped and the restrictions to remain as they are. This is outlined in the comments from Director of Service Operations in Appendix B. The amended proposals can be found at Appendix D.

4. Customer Focus Appraisal

4.1 The Committee should be aware that the Equality Act 2010 bans unfair

treatment and seeks equal opportunities in the workplace and in wider society. It also imposes a Public Sector Equality Duty. The protected characteristics are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage/civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

4.2 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.

4.3 The Customer Focus Appraisal (CFA) is attached at Appendix C.

5. Resources Implications and Value for Money 5.1 The proposals will be delivered and funded from existing highway revenue

budgets. 5.2 It is anticipated that the TRO will cost in the region of £1,000 to implement.

Maintenance costs will be absorbed through existing budgets. 6. Risk Management Implications 6.1 Should the proposed TRO not be made, the risk to the County Council is the

ongoing risk of injury or accidents occurring and the continuation of road safety concerns.

7. Crime and Disorder Act Implications 7.1 The County Council does not consider there to be any foreseeable Crime and

Disorder Act implications associated with this proposal. The views of the

Agenda Item No. 6

Police have been sought, who confirm they believe there are no issues in relation to the Crime and Disorder Act.

8. Human Rights Act Implications 8.1 It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a

convention right. The concerns of the officers set out in paragraph 2.3 and the policy objective to avoid danger to all road users and reduce congestion should then be set against these rights. Taking these points into consideration it is believed that the introduction of this TRO is still justified.

Geoff Lowry Diane Ashby Head of Highways and Transport Executive Director

Customers and Change

Appendices Appendix A – Plans of Advertised Proposals Appendix B – Consultation Response Summary Appendix C – Customer Focused Appraisal Appendix D – Plans of Amended Proposals Background Papers

Responses to statutory consultation Contact: Joel Sykes (Traffic Engineer), Ext. 29830

http://www2.westsussex.gov.uk/ds/clc/cby/cby051212i6a.pdf

http://www2.westsussex.gov.uk/ds/clc/cby/cby051212i6b.pdf

http://www2.westsussex.gov.uk/ds/clc/cby/cby051212i6c.pdf

http://www2.westsussex.gov.uk/ds/clc/cby/cby051212i6d.pdf

http://www2.westsussex.gov.uk/ds/mis/230113cby23f.pdf

Bishops HouseFB

Lodge

LB

8ASt Josephs Abbey

Glenfold

St Joseph's Mews

Gerston

April Cottage The Domain

Smugglers Hut

High Gardens

Downsway

MarunedMast

11

to

1 to 6

1 to 12

22

1012

74

40

73

36

3335

58

76

383227

61

13

2016

42

9

77

64 49

70

62

69

555754

25

21

71

7

26

17

8C

12

RAVENSCROFT

GREY

FRIAR

S LAN

E

RAVENSCROFT

West Sussex County CouncilInfrastructureThe GrangeTower Street Chichester West Sussex PO19 1RH

TILE REF NO:SHEET ISSUE NO TQ0813NEN

HORSHAM DISTRICT: STORRINGTON NO EXISTING WAITING RESTRICTIONS (22.08.2011)

Reproduced from or based upon 2010 Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of HMSO (c) Crown Copyright reserved.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings West Sussex County Council Licence No. 100023447

SCALE:±

1:1250SHEET ACTIVE FROM - DD/MM/YYYY at A3 size

kdaz7760

Typewritten Text

kdaz7760

Typewritten Text

Appendix A

kdaz7760

Typewritten Text

kdaz7760

Typewritten Text

kdaz7760

Typewritten Text

kdaz7760

Typewritten Text

kdaz7760

Typewritten Text

No waiting at any time

RAVENSCROFT

GREY

FRIAR

S LAN

E

RAVENSCROFT

Bishops HouseFB

Lodge

LB

8ASt Josephs Abbey

Glenfold

St Joseph's Mews

Gerston


High Gardens

Downsway

MarunedMast

11

to

1 to 12

22

1012

74

40

73

36

3335

58

76

383227

61

13

2016

42

9

77

64 49

70

62

69

555754

25

21

71

7

26

17

8C

12

West Sussex County CouncilCommunities & InfrastructureThe GrangeTower Street Chichester West Sussex PO19 1RH

TILE REF NO:

SHEET ISSUE NO 1_CHA9001TQ0813NEN

HORSHAM DISTRICT: STORRINGTONPROPOSED WAITING RESTRICTIONS (28.05.2012)


SCALE:±


kdaz7760

Typewritten Text

kdaz7760

Typewritten Text

Appendix A

West Sussex County CouncilHighways & TransportThe GrangeTower Street Chichester West Sussex PO19 1RH

TILE REF NO:

SHEET ISSUE NO 3

TQ0814SESHORSHAM DISTRICT: STORRINGTON

WAITING RESTRICTIONS


±SHEET ACTIVE FROM - 30/07/2007


No waiting 8.00am-6.00pm Mon-Sat

Waiting limited to 20mins No return within 40mins 8.00am-6.00pm Mon-Sat

MEADOWSIDE

WALK

CLOSE

GRE

YFRI

ARS

LANE

BROWN'S LANE

REC

TOR

Y

MANOR CLOSE

ROSEMARY

HANOVERCHANCTONBURY

WALK

MEADOWSIDE

WALK

Church

Cou

rt

Whi

te H

orse Eastbrook

St Mary's

Place

Rectory

Lindale Place

Club

Ham

mon

d Pl

ace

HighbrookMalden Place

Langton

Hall

Abbo

ts

FB

Appl

etre

es Abbey Cottages

Fairfields

Foxmead

Horse CroftThe

The Old School

Cottage

Whitebeam Cottage

Castle

Ivy Cottage

War

Mem

l

Smalley

El Sub Sta

Community Centre& Museum

Orchard

Bungalows

Patc

h

Thorn

Pavilion

MarylandSt

ock-to

1 to 4

School House

67 to 72

73 to 78

79 to 84

18 to

23

85 to 88

61 to 6657 to 60

12 to 15

WrenField

Hou

se4

2

9

7

95

5

6

8

1

3

31

56

20

19

21

13

40

22

46

29

33

1734a

89

10

51

14

12

11

37

35

15

6a

34b

34

1624

18

41

32

1

1

7

1

5

1

19

Cottage

14

2

2

7

1

8

1

16

1

8

3

1

7

1

3

7

20

to

1

4

4

6

34

22

8

11

1

14

Place

2

11

Court

Eastbrook20 1

10 2

5

1

2

1

83

4

CHUR

CH S

TREE

T

Path (um)

SCALE:

at A3 size1:1250

kdaz7760

Typewritten Text

kdaz7760

Typewritten Text

kdaz7760

Typewritten Text

Appendix A





MEADOWSIDE

WALK

CLOSERE

CTOR

Y

BROWN'S LANE

ROSEMARY

HANOVERCHANCTONBURY MANOR CLOSEWALK

MEADOWSIDE

WALK

Court

White

Hors

e Eastbrook

Place

Rectory

Lindale Place

Hamm

ond P

lace


Langton

Hall

Abbo

ts

FB

Apple

trees Abbey Cottages

Fairfields

Foxmead

The

Cottage

Whitebeam Cottage

Castle

Smalley

El Sub Sta

Orchard

Bungalows

Thorn

Maryland

11

Stock-

to

4 to

1 to 4

Wren

67 to 72

73 to 78

79 to 84

18 to 2

3 85 to 88

61 to 6657 to 60

12 to 15

Olde Rosemary Cottage

8 9

Field

Hous

e

Mano

r Cou

rt

4

2

9

7

95

5

6

8

1

3

56

20

19

27 2321

13

22

40

46

29

33

1734a

89

10

51

14

12

35

15

6a

34b34

1624

18

41

32

7

1

1

1

Eastbrook

22

Cottage

1

1

7

1

7

7

1

16

1

8

1

14

11

3

11

1

83

2

34

13

18

1

5

2

14

2

4

Court

2

3

9

4

20

Place

8

2 1

1

20 21

7 64

ORCHARDST JOSEPH'S

CHURCH STREET

SCHOOL LANE

GREY

FRIAR

S LAN

E

Path (um)


TILE REF NO:

SHEET ISSUE NO 4_CHA9001

TQ0814SESReproduced from or based upon 2010 Ordnance Survey mapping with permission of the Controller of HMSO (c) Crown Copyright reserved.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings West Sussex County Council Licence No. 100023447

SCALE:±

1:1250SHEET ACTIVE FROM DD/MM/YYYY at A3 size


kdaz7760

Typewritten Text

kdaz7760

Typewritten Text

kdaz7760

Typewritten Text

Appendix A

Agenda Item No. 6 – Appendix B Objections and comments to Church Street Storrington waiting restrictions

Objection/Comments Comments from Director of Service Operations

1 Resident of Church Street Lives in a flat in Church Street with no garage or drive and has 2 vehicles. One resident is a chef and works shifts. Asks where they can park in close proximity to their residence. Presently park up the top side of Church Street away from the high street where there are no parking restrictions. Has never seen a collision on this road and no damage has ever been caused to their vehicles. Believes people park carefully and with consideration. Believes that the proposal is purely to assist the building development with no consideration to the residents of Church Street but the provisions leave them with no where to park. States the majority of residential houses in Church Street don’t have off-street parking. Asks if the proposal considers the impact on residents some of whom are elderly? Believes the proposal is weighted towards the benefit of the developer. If access could not have been secured to the development then planning permission should not have been granted. Believes residents should not have to bear the expense of planning permission not considering the access issue

It is a countywide issue that is seen on a daily basis. It is a result of the ever-increasing number of vehicles on our roads today coupled with older residential areas not designed to cope with such high levels of vehicular use. These two factors combined create great demand for on-street parking which has to be accommodated within the public maintainable highway wherever possible. We do, however, have to strike a balance between the demand for parking, local residents, their environment and road safety issues. The proposed parking restrictions are a condition of the planning consent for the new development on the grounds of road safety. It was considered unsafe to allow the new development be built with a new junction that does not have junction protection to provide ample visibility. Through the planning process the provision of parking and the impact on residents have been taken into account. As a result, the development must provide a new car park to mitigate the loss of any on street car parking. The length of the new restrictions fronting the development is 40m which is the equivalent to eight parking bays, whereas the new car park will have 29 spaces which more than mitigates any loss.


2 Resident of Church Street Believes the new restriction on Church Street should wait until after the developer has actually delivered the 29 parking spaces in the development. Past experience is that promises by such organisations should not be taken at face value Believes visibility splays do not justify the measures as there is no splay at the Brown’s Lane/Church Street junction Is interested to know dates , details and findings of visits to Browns junction Believes the TRO fails to tackle the problem. The new parking space north of Browns’ Lane is in daily frequent use by vehicles reversing, turning and facing-off due to congestion caused by the totally inadequate Brown’s Lane/Church Street junction. Would like the Brown’s Lane factor to be readdressed in conjunction with the planners at Horsham District to find a solution. Suggests the existing site entrance be utilised

A condition of the planning consent is that the car park must be complete prior to any properties becoming inhabited, as shown below. ‘No sheltered dwelling, hereby approved, shall be occupied until the public car park within the site has been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved site plan and a car park management plan to be submitted to and approved by the planning authority.

Reason: To provide compensatory off road car parking spaces for the residents of Storrington in accordance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.’ (Horsham District Council, Planning Conditions DC/12/0747). The need for visibility splays is set out in current highway standards, such as the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. These design standards are applied to new developments, however it is deemed impractical to retrospectively impose current standards on old junctions and road layouts. The Browns Lane and Church Street junction already has double yellow line junction protection to remove parked vehicles from obstructing visibility which is the standard approach. Road safety is extremely high on our agenda and we will endeavour to do everything we can to make the roads in West Sussex safer. The funding available for improving road safety across the county is driven by reducing and preventing accidents. Having assessed the recent accident history at this location it suggests that there are


no safety issues. There have been no reported road traffic collisions in the past three years. Sadly, this is not the case elsewhere in the county and for this reason Browns Lane junction is currently not a high priority. The proposed addition of a parking space on the eastern side of Church Street, north of the junction with Browns Lane will be rescinded for reasons outlined below.

3. Resident of Church Street Would not like the introduction of 20 minute limited parking bays opposite their driveway which currently prohibits waiting 8am - 6pm Monday to Saturday. Last time a similar proposal was made someone from WSCC went to visit them and agreed that it would be extremely inconvenient and the proposal was therefore not put in place. The problem is that with a car parked behind their narrow driveway it is almost impossible to gain exit or access. The house is grade two listed and there is a prominent railing outside the front of the house, which is specifically mentioned in the listing and this means that turning into the road is further restricted. Currently without a parking restriction post 6pm when they know they will need to use the car they park it on street. If this TRO were to be approved they would not be able to use their driveway during the day and would have to park in the street.

During a walk around with members of Horsham District Council and Storrington & Sullington Parish Council it was suggested that additional parking space from businesses could be utilised by removing parking restrictions from the lay-by area on the eastern side of Church Street. At the time it was not clear why the restrictions were in place. The reason behind these restrictions has been identified and the proposals to change the restrictions at this point shall be rescinded.

Action Group co-ordinator Would like to consider making Church Street through Monastry Lane a one-way street as an alternative to the proposed parking restrictions This is practicable and provides a safer alternative. Believes that the proposed parking restrictions will be largely ignored after 4pm. After this time the double yellow lines already in the street are currently

The suggestion of a turning Church Street through to Monastry Lane one-way falls outside the scope of the proposals for this scheme. The introduction of a one-way system would need to gain County Councillor support and go through the Traffic Regulation Order Process. Making a series of roads one-way brings its own


ignored. It is no exaggeration to see cars parked on a nightly basis on the double yellow lines right upto the junction with West Street. There is no reason to believe that the addition of further double yellow lines will be attended to despite any initial campaigning to enforce the restriction. The juduicious use of double yellow lines with a one-way system – combined with residents parking is considered the best solution.

unique problems which must be considered. A common adverse affect of turning a route one-way is the increase in road speed and the addition of a large number of new signs which impacts the aesthetic character of an area and often urbanising rural locations. Specifically to Storrington, the suitability of the existing junctions and turning circles for larger vehicles would need to be investigated, especially considering the location of the industrial estate on Greyfriars Lane. Additionally it would increase the use of A283 West Street which will negatively impact the existing problems with congestion and air quality. The issue of the lack of enforcement is a matter for Horsham District Council, the County Council will contact HDC and request greater enforcement.

Residents of 9 properties in Church Street Residents of 9 properties, both houses and flats, in Storrington without access to parking facilities. Believes the proposals make no concession to the residents of these properties. Collectively would like to request that arrangements are made to accommodate their parking needs before visitors to the street. Without this facility there will be numerous occasions when they will not be able to park within a considerable distance of their properties and will be forced to park in other residential streets some distance away from their homes. The North Street and Old Mill Square carparks are frequently full and are the only realistic alternative parking facilities to the ones they currently use in the street. Believe in other towns and villages where there are parking restrictions in operation it is custom and practice to introduce residents parking areas issuing parking permits for residents who do not have parking facilities. Request that parking bays and areas in Church Street should be restricted to residents who have been issued with parking permits on the basis

The County Council have considered the needs of all road users in these proposals and in collaboration with Horsham District Council, through the planning process, the provision of parking and the impact on residents have been taken into account. As a result, the development must provide a new car park to mitigate the loss of any on street car parking. The length of the new restrictions fronting the development is 40m which is the equivalent to eight parking bays, whereas the new car park will have 29 spaces which more than mitigates any loss. The County Council has introduced six Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ) across the county in the urban centres of the largest cities and towns. These CPZs allow the effective use of residents parking permits over a large geographical area. CPZ are rarely introduced in a single road as vehicles would more than


that they have no other access to parking. Believe this is a reasonable request and anything less would be an unreasonable restriction on them and would not reflect a fair consideration of their legitimate needs.

likely displace to the next road. If introduced over a wide area, the assumption is that non-residents would displace into the off-street car parks and residents would have a choice of roads to park in. The introduction of a CPZ is outside the scope if these proposals, however the County Council has a long term plans to conduct a parking investigation in Storrington but do not have any dates yet.

Agenda Item No. 6 – Appendix C

Customer Focus Appraisal 2012


Title of proposal Greyfriars Lane and Church Street, Storrington – Proposed Traffic Regulation Order

Date for implementation

CFA completed by: Name: Tel:

Joel Sykes 01403 229830

Email [email protected]

1. What information have you used to analyse the impact of the proposal on customers?

New waiting restrictions have been proposed in Greyfriars Lane and Church Street in response to complaints from local residents and businesses about inconsiderate parking. This parking is causing obstructions, subsequently creating safety hazards. Additionally, proposed waiting restrictions are the conditions of an approved planning application on the grounds of road safety. The proposed restrictions are designed to address these problems by prohibiting parking at junctions and bends where parked cars sometimes cause obstruction and dangerous reduction in visibility, whilst keeping parking available on the remaining parts of the roads. Any parking displaced as a result of these safety measures will be accommodated in the car park being built within the new development.

2. Are there any customers who are negatively affected by the proposal? If so, explain which customers and how they are negatively affected.

Restricting parking may negatively affect some local residents or general road users by reducing the amount of available parking places. This has been mitigated by only installing restrictions at junctions, in positions where the Highway Code states parking should not be taking place in any event or where parking limits visibility and impedes access. The safety benefits of improving visibility and preventing congestion outweigh these potential disadvantages and will positively affect all road users. The addition of a new car park will mitigate the loss in any parking.

3. Are there any customers who are positively affected by this proposal? If so, explain which customers and how they are positively affected.

As above, all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists will benefit from the safety improvements resulting from the better visibility and prevention of congestion at the affected junctions.

4. How does your proposal help to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation?

By seeking to improve road safety the proposal treats all road users equally and does not unduely disadvantage any one group of people over another.

5. How does your proposal help to advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not?



The proposal seeks to improve road safety in Storrington village by preventing parking too close to junctions, causing road safety problems. Removing such parking will aid vulnerable road users particularly pedestrians with impaired mobility or vision seeking to cross the road at the junctions affected by the proposal.

6. How does your proposal help to foster good relations between persons who share a protected characteristic and those who do not?

A proposal to prevent parking at junctions cannot by its nature directly foster good relations between persons who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. However the proposal does treat all road users equally and aims to improve safety for all road users. With regard to answer 6 above, the restrictions may prevent people with impaired vision or mobility from feeling angry towards car drivers who had previously parked their cars in ways which prevented them from crossing the road at the affected junctions.

7. What have you learnt from the analysis of the effect of the proposal on customers? What changes were made to the proposal as a result?

The TRO scheme was generated by genuine concerns for safety due to inconsiderate and hazardous parking. It shows that historical planning decisions/approval may have underestimated the growth of business in this area, with continual potential for growth. A minor change was made to the original design but this amendment was to keep the existing restrictions as they are.

8. If you did not make any changes to the proposal following the analysis please explain why.

9. How will the proposal be monitored and evaluated to make sure it continues to meet the equality duty owed to customers?

Correspondence received after the implementation of the restrictions will be monitored and the restrictions will be kept under review to ensure they achieve the intended aims of the project. This will also include liasing with Horsham District Council who are responsible for enforcing the parking restrictions in the area.

10. Who will be responsible for the monitoring and review?

Due to the nature of the proposal it is not proposed to schedule a review of the restrictions at this time. If a requirement for amendments is identified via the channels in Q.10 the C&ED team would be asked to open a review of the restrictions.



To be signed by an Executive Director, Director or Head of Service to confirm that they have read and approved the content of the CFA and the Action Plan.

Name Diane Ashby Date 20 November 2012

Your position Executive Director Customers and Change

Telephone 0330 22 22676 Email [email protected]



CFA ACTION PLAN

Actions identified through the CFA will be recorded, monitored and reported upon at regular intervals. You need to make sure that the actions identified by your CFA in relation to your proposal are incorporated into your action plan, business plan and, if appropriate, performance measures, and are followed-up.

Based on the CFA of your proposal, enter here the actions that have arisen and need to be taken forward. These are likely to be from your findings, and should include how you intend to monitor and review the effects your proposal is likely, or is expected, to have on customers and people with protected characteristics.

With procurement, outsourcing or commissioning, you need to ensure that the actions and findings of your CFA are used to inform the specification of the relevant tender and contract documents. The CFA and accompanying evidence will inform, and be reflected in, the contract to be managed and reported on by the contract manager. You need to ensure that any contractor or other company doing work on our behalf does not hinder you from meeting your requirements under the Equality Act.

In Business Plan (Y/N) Details of the action Who will the action be

reported to and how? Person

Responsible By When?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8



You can add more lines to the Action Plan if necessary

West Sussex County CouncilHighways & TransportThe GrangeTower Street Chichester West Sussex PO19 1RH

TILE REF NO:

SHEET ISSUE NO 3

TQ0814SESHORSHAM DISTRICT: STORRINGTON

WAITING RESTRICTIONS


±SHEET ACTIVE FROM - 30/07/2007




MEADOWSIDE

WALK

CLOSE

GRE

YFRI

ARS

LANE

BROWN'S LANE

REC

TOR

Y

MANOR CLOSE

ROSEMARY

HANOVERCHANCTONBURY

WALK

MEADOWSIDE

WALK

Church

Cou

rt

Whi

te H

orse Eastbrook

St Mary's

Place

Rectory

Lindale Place

Club

Ham

mon

d Pl

ace


Langton

Hall

Abbo

ts

FB

Appl

etre

es Abbey Cottages

Fairfields

Foxmead

Horse CroftThe

The Old School

Cottage

Whitebeam Cottage

Castle

Ivy Cottage

War

Mem

l

Smalley

El Sub Sta

Community Centre& Museum

Orchard

Bungalows

Patc

h

Thorn

Pavilion

MarylandSt

ock-to

1 to 4

School House

67 to 72

73 to 78

79 to 84

18 to

23

85 to 88

61 to 6657 to 60

12 to 15

WrenField

Hou

se4

2

9

7

95

5

6

8

1

3

31

56

20

19

21

13

40

22

46

29

33

1734a

89

10

51

14

12

11

37

35

15

6a

34b

34

1624

18

41

32

1

1

7

1

5

1

19

Cottage

14

2

2

7

1

8

1

16

1

8

3

1

7

1

3

7

20

to

1

4

4

6

34

22

8

11

1

14

Place

2

11

Court

Eastbrook20 1

10 2

5

1

2

1

83

4

CHUR

CH S

TREE

T

Path (um)

SCALE:

at A3 size1:1250

kdaz7760

Typewritten Text

Appendix D





MEADOWSIDE

WALK

CLOSERE

CTOR

Y

BROWN'S LANE

ROSEMARY

MANOR CLOSE

HANOVERCHANCTONBURY

WALK

MEADOWSIDE

WALK

Court

White

Hors

e Eastbrook

Place

Rectory

Lindale Place

Hamm

ond P

lace


Langton

Hall

Abbo

ts

FB

Apple

trees Abbey Cottages

Fairfields

Foxmead

The

Cottage

Whitebeam Cottage

Castle

Smalley

El Sub Sta

Orchard

Bungalows

Thorn

Maryland

11

Stock-

to

4 to

1 to 4

Wren

67 to 72

73 to 78

79 to 84

85 to 88

61 to 6657 to 60

Olde Rosemary Cottage

8 9

Field

Hous

e

Mano

r Cou

rt

4

2

9

7

95

5

6

8

1

3

31

56

20

19

27 2321

13

22

40

46

29

33

1734a

89

10

51

14

12

35

15

6a

34b34

1624

18

41

32

7

1

1

1

Eastbrook

22

Cottage

1

1

7

1

7

7

1

16

1

8

1

14

3

11

1

83

2

34

13

18

1

5

2

14

2

Court

2

3

9

4

20

Place

8

2 1

1

20 21

7 64

ORCHARDST JOSEPH'S

CHURCH STREET

SCHOOL LANE

GREY

FRIAR

S LAN

E

Path (um)


TILE REF NO:

SHEET ISSUE NO 4_CHA9001TQ0814SESHORSHAM DISTRICT: STORRINGTON

PROPOSED WAITING RESTRICTIONS (12.07.2012)


SCALE:±


kdaz7760

Typewritten Text

kdaz7760

Typewritten Text

Appendix D

Bishops HouseFB

Lodge

LB

8ASt Josephs Abbey

Glenfold

St Joseph's Mews

Gerston


Smugglers Hut

High Gardens

Downsway

MarunedMast

11

to

1 to 6

1 to 12

22

1012

74

40

73

36

3335

58

76

383227

61

13

2016

42

9

77

64 49

70

62

69

555754

25

21

71

7

26

17

8C

12

RAVENSCROFT

GREY

FRIAR

S LAN

E

RAVENSCROFT

West Sussex County CouncilInfrastructureThe GrangeTower Street Chichester West Sussex PO19 1RH

TILE REF NO:SHEET ISSUE NO TQ0813NEN

HORSHAM DISTRICT: STORRINGTON NO EXISTING WAITING RESTRICTIONS (22.08.2011)


SCALE:±


kdaz7760

Typewritten Text

Appendix D


RAVENSCROFT

GREY

FRIAR

S LAN

E

RAVENSCROFT

Bishops HouseFB

Lodge

LB

8ASt Josephs Abbey

Glenfold

St Joseph's Mews

Gerston


High Gardens

Downsway

MarunedMast

11

to

1 to 12

22

1012

74

40

73

36

3335

58

76

383227

61

13

2016

42

9

77

64 49

70

62

69

555754

25

21

71

7

26

17

8C

12


TILE REF NO:

SHEET ISSUE NO 1_CHA9001TQ0813NEN



SCALE:±


kdaz7760

Typewritten Text

Appendix D

Documents

Chanctonbury County Local Committee: Greyfriars Lane and ... · Agenda Item No. 6 Chanctonbury County Local Committee Ref: CBY07 (12/13) Greyfriars Lane and Church Street, Storrington