Agenda and minutes

21.1     The Committee RESOLVED to agree as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 30 September 2015. 

22.1     Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Trevor Webb.

Disclosures by all members present of personal interests in matters on the agenda, the nature of any interest and whether the member regards the interest as prejudicial under the terms of the Code of Conduct.

23.1     Councillors John Barnes, Richard Stogdon, Rosalyn St. Pierre, and Francis Whetstone declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in agenda item 5 as Conservators of the Ashdown Forest, when discussing the road impact on Ashdown Forest.

23.2     Councillor Pat Rodohan declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in item 6 as he knows the owners of Check a Trade.

Notification of items which the Chair considers to be urgent and proposes to take at the appropriate part of the agenda. Any members who wish to raise urgent items are asked, wherever possible, to notify the Chair before the start of the meeting. In so doing, they must state the special circumstances which they consider justify the matter being considered urgent.

24.1     There were none.

25.1     Reports referred to in the minutes below are contained in the minute book.

Report by the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport

26.1     The Committee considered a report by the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport which provided an update on the strategic infrastructure in East Sussex. The Committee agreed to discuss the section of the report on the Superfast Broadband project first, to allow questions to be put from a number of other Councillors who were attending the meeting.

Superfast Broadband

26.2     The Director for Communities, Economy and Transport (CET) explained that the project includes an initial contract, awarded to BT Openreach, to provide fibre based infrastructure to enable properties to be connected to Superfast broadband services. This contract is the second best performing broadband contract in the UK in terms of coverage and speeds achieved. A second contract has been awarded to improve download speeds and to look at alternative solutions for hard to reach areas. The deployment of the second contract is due to start in June 2016.

26.3     Officers informed the Committee that the project has been working in all exchange areas across East Sussex, but is not allowed to deliver infrastructure improvements where the private sector is delivering or planning to deliver Superfast broadband in the next three years. Outside of the project there is nothing to prevent private individuals, or businesses, from paying for improved connectivity to meet their needs. As at December 2015 the take up of fibre based services was just over 25% against a target of 20%.

26.4     In response to questions from the Committee, officers set out:

• Value for money - The project has secured £10.6m of government funding and the value for money test and criteria are set by Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK, the Government department located within the Department for Culture Media and Sport). The value for money cap, which the project cannot exceed, has been set by BDUK at £1,700 per property. This can pose difficulties in rural areas where the distance to a fibre enabled exchange or cabinet can be greater. The project delivery costs are currently just under £500 per property, which has enabled funding to be re-invested in the second contract.
• Download speeds - Typically in rural areas properties are connected to cabinets by copper cabling. Broadband speeds are affected by the length of copper cable that connects properties to fibre enable cabinets or exchanges. So an area may be fibre enabled, but this may not lead to faster download speeds. The second contract aims to tackle this in addition to looking for other solutions to provide faster broadband in hard to reach areas.
• Hard to reach properties - They are defined by the cost of connecting them to the fibre enabled network and does not necessarily mean they are more geographically or technically challenging to connect to the fibre enabled network. As a consequence it is much harder to meet the value for money criteria for these properties.
• Responsibility for connecting properties to Superfast Broadband - The project aims to install the infrastructure necessary to enable access to faster broadband in areas that would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

Report by the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport

27.1     The Committee considered a report by the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport which provided an update on the provision of an alternative to the Buy with Confidence (BWC) approved trader scheme and work of the Trading Standards Service.

27.2     The Head of Communities introduced the report and outlined the main developments since the decision was taken in January 2015 to seek alternative ways of providing an approved trader scheme. The management of the BWC scheme will be transferred to Hampshire County Council who will maintain standards through background checks, peer reviews and the administration of the scheme.  ESCC has also partnered with a commercial provider, Check a Trade (CAT), whose quality standards will be monitored through the Primary Authority Agreement (PAP) with Kent County Council.

27.3     ESCC Trading standards will monitor both schemes via customer feedback and complaints. Having a Trading Standards approved trader scheme means that ESCC Trading Standards can say no to traders wishing to join the schemes and can suspend or remove membership if necessary.

Quality Standards for Approved Contractor schemes

27.4     Some Committee members had expressed concerns about the use of a commercial partner to provide an approved trader scheme. The Head of Communities outlined the checks and balances that had been put in place by the Primary Authority Agreement, which has driven up standards. For example all traders have to have standard terms and cancellation clauses in their contracts. Check a Trade provides open access to all records and Trading Standards can suspend membership if it has any concerns. There is an appeals process administered by CAT, and Trading Standards and CAT will work with traders to get them up to the required standard.

27.5     The Committee was satisfied that sufficient safeguards had been put in place to ensure the quality standards of the approved trader schemes are maintained.

27.6     The Committee discussed to following areas of Trading Standards work:

Capacity of the Trading Standards Team

27.7     The Committee noted that there had been a reduction in staff and questioned whether the team had sufficient staff and resources to deliver all the services (statutory and non-statutory), they are required to provide. It also asked how the prioritisation of work was being managed.

27.8     The Head of Communities responded that the reduction in staff included four posts linked to BWC scheme, so the impact on capacity was less that it appeared. More of the team’s work is intelligence led and there are other places, such as Citizens Advice, where consumers can get help and advice. The team takes a risk based approach to their work. They look at the level of consumer detriment that is apparent and target work accordingly.

27.9     The team will work with individuals and will offer one to one advice if the consumer is vulnerable. The team checks the national Trading Standards database for leads and holds fortnightly tasking meetings to agree priorities and investigation work.

Enforcement

27.10   The team would like to have more staff for enforcement work and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

Report by the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport

28.1     The Committee considered a report by the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport regarding the mitigation measures put in place following the launch of the Reformulated Supported Bus Network (RSBN).

28.2     The Team Manager, Public Transport Services introduced the report. A lot of work has been undertaken to mitigate the impact of the changes brought about by the introduction of the RSBN and the address the concerns expressed at the time of the Cabinet report in December 2014. Fewer services and bus users have been affected than expected through the commercialisation of routes and other changes that have been made to services (e.g. through timetable changes and better connections to other services). The work with partners, such as Parish Councils, and providers has been a very positive development and has increased the level of understanding of the issues involved in bus service development.

28.3     The Committee thanked the officers for a thorough report, and discussed the following issues.

Dial-a-Ride

28.4     The Committee expressed some concern about the uptake and viability of these services. The Committee asked who was eligible to use these services and if it was possible to expand the publicity for them.

28.5     The Team Manager, Public Transport Services explained that these services are available to anybody who cannot use public transport (i.e. anyone who finds it difficult to use public transport). To use the service, you need to register will the Community Transport Operator first. There is a charge for using Dial-a-Ride services which is typically £2.50 for a single journey. They are not intended to compete with other services and are usually operated in conjunction with a number of organisations (e.g. for the Lewes and Newhaven area the Public Transport team works with Town Council and Community Transport provider).

28.6     The cost of Dial-a-Ride services is around £18 per passenger, and the costs a met from the main Passenger Transport budget. They are relatively expensive due to poorer utilisation rates as they are a door to door services and do not tend to carry as many passengers. In Eastbourne the Dial-a-Ride service typically carries 8 passengers a day. The Public Transport team are working to improve this with zoning and will review after six months. In many areas the accessibility of buses has been improved, which may have had an impact on the uptake of Dial-a-Ride services. In the case of Eastbourne there is also a very well developed network of commercial bus services.

Sustainability of smaller operators

28.7     The Committee expressed some concern about the financial viability of some of the smaller operators. It had heard, for example, that Compass was losing access to its depot in Lewes, which may lead to them ceasing to provide some services.

28.8     The Team Manager, Public Transport Services replied that it was important in the wider provision of bus services to have a mixture of smaller and larger operators. The department is in discussion with Compass to identify a suitable alternative operating base in Lewes.

Bus Operators  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

Report by the Chair of the Review Board

29.1     The Committee considered a report by the Chair of the Review Board concerning the Scrutiny Review of Highways Drainage.

29.2     The Assistant Director, Operations commented that the report makes the case for extra investment in the highway drainage infrastructure, but this will have to considered with other requests for funding as part of the Reconciling Policy, Performance and Resources (RPPR) process.

29.3     The Committee discussed the report and made the following comments:

• There appears to be a lot of run-off from farmer’s fields and the Committee asked if the department had enough resources for enforcement. The Assistant Director, Operations responded that the department did not have a great deal of resources for enforcement, but would undertake a piece of work to educate land owners through work with Parish Councils and the National Framers Union etc. The department will also undertake some enforcement action in high profile cases.

• Councillor Whetstone suggested that maps should be made available to Parish Councils that indicate clearly which drainage ditches and other drainage features are ESCC’s responsibility. It was noted that the report recommendations addresses the point about providing information on adjacent landowners and ESCC’s responsibilities.

29.4     The Committee RESOLVED to:

(1) agree the report of the Review Board; and

(2) support its submission to Cabinet for comment and County Council for approval. 

To review Scrutiny’s input into the RPPR process.  Report by the Chief Executive

30.1     The Committee considered a report by the Chief Executive which provided a review of the Committee’s input into the RPPR process for 2015/16 and sought views on how the process could be improved in future years.

30.2     The Committee discussed the RPPR process and made the following comments:

• The lack of clarity on the budget settlement in the run up to budget setting made the process very difficult.
• It would have been helpful to have more information on the corporate budgets that have an impact on the CET department and in particular the Corporate Resources and Business Services budgets.
• The Committee considered it was important to make the case for department’s budgets, as the Scrutiny Committee had the most detailed knowledge and understanding of the impact of proposed budget savings.
• Many of the savings proposals were offered without any real alternatives or options for how they might be achieved. It would be desirable to have some alternatives for the for the next RPPR process that is due to start in the autumn.

30.3     The Assistant Director, Operations commented that it was rational for the Committee to focus its work on the expenditure of the department. It was becoming increasingly difficult for Officers to provide savings alternatives as many areas for savings had already been explored and savings proposals taken. Some options have been tested before but it may be possible to re-visit them in the autumn RPPR process.

30.4     The Lead Member for Resources acknowledged that it is sometimes difficult to look at corporate issues, and the lateness of the settlement announcement had caused particular difficulties.

30.5     The Committee RESOLVED to request that:

(1)  further information be provided on corporate budgets for the next RPPR process; and

(2)  future budget savings proposals are provided with options, or alternatives, for the Committee to consider.

31.1     The Committee considered the Committee’s future work programme.

31.2     The Committee discussed the Scrutiny Committee’s future work programme and agreed to add the Scrutiny Review of Superfast Broadband with a report back to the Committee at the 9 November Scrutiny Committee meeting (see 26.10 above). 

31.3     The Committee agreed that it would like to have a report on the Local Transport Plan (LTP) second implementation plan. The Senior Democratic Services Advisor is to confirm with the Assistant Director for Economy that a report can be brought to the 14 September Scrutiny Committee meeting.

31.4     The Committee noted that a presentation on the new highways contract by Costain CH2M would be made to all Councillors after the County Council meeting on the 10 May 2016.

31.5     The Committee RESOLVED to note the programme and add the items discussed in 31.2 and 31.3 above.

The Forward Plan for the period to 30 June 2016. The Committee is asked to make comments or request further information.

32.1     The Committee considered the Council’s Forward Plan of Key Decisions.

32.2     The Committee RESOLVED to note the Forward Plan.