Issue - meetings

Report by the Chief Executive.

30.1     The Senior Scrutiny Adviser introduced the report which summarised the Committee’s involvement in the RPPR process for 2024/25. The purpose of the report was to provide an opportunity for the Committee to review its input into the process, suggest any improvements and consider if there were any RPPR related items that should be included in the Committee’s future work programme.

30.2     The Committee discussed the report and a summary of the comments made and questions raised by the Committee is given below.

30.3     The Committee suggested that it could look at fees and charges as part of the future work on RPPR. This could include examining whether fees and charges cover costs and if they could be used to support service activity. The Chief Finance Officer commented that the level of fees and charges is reviewed as part of the budget setting process and a report with some financial information about fees and charges could be brought to the Committee.

30.4     The Committee commented that at the March scrutiny meeting in the RPPR cycle it would be helpful to do some longer term horizon scanning over the next five years or so, to consider policies that may be changing. This would enable the Committee to take a longer term view of its work. The Committee also noted the comments submitted to Cabinet on keeping a watching briefing on the development of devolution deals.

30.5     The Director of Communities, Economy and Transport (CET) responded that the State of the County report does horizon scan for policy changes to some degree, but something longer term could be done. However, the policy environment is likely to change as a result of the forthcoming general election. In terms of devolution deals, it was announced in the Spring Budget Statement that Surrey County Council had been offered a level 2 devolution deal. There are no other deals that are that far progressed in the South East and this will be an opportunity to understand what is involved. The Committee asked if there is any scope for a council to influence what is devolved. The Director of CET outlined that it was his understanding that what is devolved can be negotiated with the Government.

30.6     The Committee RESOLVED to:

1) Note the report;

2) Request that a report on fees and charges is provided as part of the Committee’s RPPR work for 2025/26; and

3) Request that consideration is given to including some longer-term horizon scanning for policy changes to the March meeting stage of scrutiny’s work on the RPPR cycle.

Report by the Chief Executive.

22.1     The Committee considered a report on the Reconciling Policy, Performance and Resources (RPPR) process. The Chair introduced the report which provided the opportunity for the Committee to consider the latest position outlined in the November RPPR Cabinet report and identify any information it would like to consider at the RPPR Board meeting in December or further work to be included in the Committee’s future work programme.

22.2     The Chief Finance Officer outlined that since the Cabinet report the Autumn Budget Statement had been published, but did not include any additional funding for local government or measures to address the pressures in Children’s and Adult Social Care. The increase in National Living Wage at 9.8% was much higher than expected. This will need to be factored into the budget and may have an impact on Adult Social Care as costs in the independent care sector are likely to go up. The Local Government Provisional Settlement is expected to be announced later in December, closer to Christmas, which will contain more detail on local authority funding.

22.3     The Committee discussed the report and raised a number of questions. A summary of the discussion is given below.

22.4     The Committee asked about the transition of funding and responsibilities from the South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP) to ESCC and what will happen to the ongoing programmes. The Chief Finance Officer outlined that the Council was still awaiting Government guidance, which is expected to be published in January 2024, on what will happen once the Local Enterprise Partnerships are disbanded. Work is underway with SELEP to work through the disaggregation of funding and responsibilities to understand what this means for the Council.

22.5     The Committee asked how the Council can join up the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) funding awarded to Bexhill and Hastings with other economic growth projects. The Director of Communities, Economy and Transport responded that the Levelling Up funding allocated to Hastings and Rother councils is their funding not ESCC’s, but ESCC has some involvement with the projects and is providing advice on some schemes to the District and Borough councils. It will be for DLUHC and the District and Borough councils to agree the schemes.

22.6     The Committee asked about the capital programme which appears to have higher capital receipts for next year and the spending on the Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) which makes up a large proportion of capital expenditure. The Chief Finance Officer outlined that there is a report being considered by the Audit Committee on 24 November 2023 regarding the capital receipts for next year which provides more information. A review of the capital programme is being undertaken which will look at any potential slippage, and subject to the review there may be some re-phasing of the capital expenditure.

22.7     The Committee RESOLVED to:

1) Note the information in the RPPR Cabinet report of 7 November 2023; and

2) Discuss the RPPR process further at the RPPR Board on 6 December 2023.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22

Report by the Chief Executive.

13.1     The Senior Scrutiny Adviser introduced the report which summarises the Committee’s involvement in the RPPR process and outlines the further meetings planned during the Autumn. The report provided the Committee with an opportunity to consider what further work or information is required to support the Committee’s input into the RPPR budget setting process for the financial year 2024/25 and beyond.

13.2     The Committee discussed the report and raised a number of points which are summarised below.

13.3     The Committee members highlighted further areas of work or where more information is required as part of the work on the RPPR process. These included:

• Further information on the costs and feasibility of providing 20mph zones around schools and children’s play areas.
• Further understanding of monitoring air quality in the County and in particular PM2.5 particulate air pollution.
• More information about the future of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and how the Council is going to support this activity in the future now that Government has announced that LEPs will be abolished, and their responsibilities transferred to upper tier local authorities.
• Rights of Way and the impact of inflation and Definitive Map Modification Orders. The Committee noted the additional information that had been provided and asked that it be considered at the RPPR Board in December.

13.4     The Director of Communities, Economy and Transport (CET) outlined that air quality monitoring is the responsibility of District and Borough councils and sought clarification as to whether the Committee was suggesting that East Sussex County Council (ESCC) starts monitoring air quality. It was clarified that the Committee was asking for information on which areas of East Sussex do not have PM2.5 monitoring. Committee members also commented that information on air quality is important when considering 20mph zones and Active Travel interventions such as School Streets, so that it can be considered when making decisions about Active Travel in the future.

13.5     Some Committee members commented on the tone of the wording in the State of the County report regarding the ageing population in East Sussex and the pressure on services this may lead to. The Committee noted that many older people contribute positively to the local economy and community life in East Sussex and asked if the State of the County report could mention their positive contribution to the County.

13.6     The Committee asked if the position regarding the forecast budget deficit of £28.4 million in 2024/25 is likely to improve or get worse. The Committee also asked if inflationary pressures on highway maintenance had been taken into account. The Chief Finance Officer outlined that the Quarter 1 Council Monitoring report shows the financial pressure the Council is under, with significant pressure on social care. There will be more clarity later in the year on the Council’s budgetary position, but the position at present is challenging. The inflationary pressures on the highway maintenance budget have been built in and recognised in the budget forecasts.

13.7     The Committee noted the anticipated delays in the Government announcement on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13

Report by the Chief Executive.

5.1       The Chief Finance Officer introduced the report which is the start of the Committee’s work on the Reconciling Policy, Performance and Resources (RPPR) process and sets out how that Committee can contribute to the process. The report contains the State of the County report which provides an overview of the current operating environment for the Council. The Committee is invited to identify any areas of interest for inclusion in the work programme or further information for presentation at subsequent meetings. The Committee is also recommended to establish an RPPR Board which will submit comments on behalf of the Committee to Cabinet on the budget for 2024/25.

5.2       The Committee made a number of comments and asked questions based on the report which are summarised below.

5.3       Emergency Active Travel Fund – The Committee commented on the £0.6 million underspend in the capital programme and asked whether ‘shovel ready’ projects could be developed including those linked to Rights of Way, to ensure future funding is fully spent. The Director of Communities, Economy and Transport (CET) responded that the delivery of projects under the Emergency Active Travel Fund were challenging due to the funding conditions and very tight timescales. The funding is being used to support the safe routes to school project, which also supports Active Travel. In future it will be important to build consensus on planned projects in advance of funding becoming available.

Hastings Bexhill Movement Access Programme

5.4       The Committee noted the slippage on the delivery of this package of schemes with £1 million being spent. As such, cost inflation pressures present a risk to delivery and the Committee asked what could be done to speed up the delivery of the schemes. The Director of CET acknowledged that inflation risk is a challenge to project delivery. Schemes can take time to deliver as some are controversial and require consultation before they can be delivered. Delays have also been experienced in the design and feasibility stages. The new highways maintenance contractor, Balfour Beatty Living Partnerships, has a new designer for schemes who is reviewing the current projects to see if they can be speeded up. Also, reducing the number of projects would improve delivery. The challenge is having the revenue funding to develop projects and a pipeline of projects is slowly being built within existing capacity.

Home to School Transport

5.5       The Committee noted current overspend and planned investment in home to school transport and asked if more information could be provided about the nature of this expenditure. The Director of CET explained that the demand for Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) home to school transport had increased expenditure. Work has been undertaken to optimise routes and share vehicles and chaperones where possible, but there are a number of individuals where it is not possible to share a vehicle due to their needs. The Chief Finance Officer clarified that £4 million out of the £8.9 million planned investment is for Home to School Transport. The Director of CET  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5