Agenda and minutes

20.1     The Committee RESOLVED to agree as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 14 September 2016.

21.1     There were no apologies for absence.

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.

22.1     There no disclosures of interests.

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.

23.1     There were none.

24.1     Reports referred to in the minutes below can be found in the minute book.

Report by the Chief Executive

25.1     The Director of Communities, Economy and Transport (CET) introduced the report. Since the Committee discussed the savings identified in the medium term financial plan at the September meeting, additional savings have been identified for 2017/18. The Autumn Statement on the budget settlement for Local Authorities is expected on 23 November. The purpose of this report is to provide the Committee with an opportunity to examine the additional savings outlined in the October Cabinet report; suggest alternative areas of search for savings and; identify any further information needed in preparation for the RPPR Board in December.

Allocation of Additional Savings to the Communities, Economy and Transport department (CET)

25.2     The Committee noted that CET has an additional savings target of £537,000 in 2017/18 and £825,000 in 2018/19, and asked whether the share of additional savings burden had been fairly allocated.

25.3     The Director of CET responded that the financial pressures on services in Adult Social Care and Children’s Services are huge. The Council is a corporate organisation and therefore has to act in that manner. The Director views the allocation of additional savings for CET as fair, bearing in mind the overall context of the savings requirement for whole the organisation.

25.4     The Committee commented that although the savings allocation may appear fair, roads and other services that CET provides are as important to residents as the services other departments provide. Everybody uses East Sussex’s roads, which support the provision of other services and Council priorities such as the local economy. Year on year, the department has had to find further cuts. The Committee considers the approach to savings is fundamentally wrong where the quality of the Council’s assets are degraded leading to a long term negative effect.

25.6     The Director of CET responded that there had been a recognition of the importance of roads through the additional capital funding that has been allocated to highways.

25.7     The Lead Member for Economy outlined that representations had been made either directly to Government, or through the Local Government Association, about the punitive financial settlement for East Sussex. The ‘One Council’ Policy was agreed in 2013, which set out The Council’s corporate priorities. Investment in education is important for the local economy, as is protecting the vulnerable.

25.8     While it may be suggested that all departments are of equal importance, the Committee is uncomfortable with an approach to cost cutting, which fails to recognise the underlying importance of the County Council’s road network to every activity carried out by the Council on behalf of East Sussex residents.  Year on year cost cutting in relation to the work done by the County’s Highways operation has significant long term implications, best illustrated by what has happened in the past in relation to the long term deterioration of County Council’s drainage network.

25.9     The Lead Member for Transport and Environment commented that the majority other departments’ savings have been planned for 2017/18 and not 2018/19. He acknowledged that CET’s services are very visible to all  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

Report by the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport

26.1     The Assistant Director Operations introduced report. The report outlines two pieces of work on the Waste Contract. The first is the contract review undertaken by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), which produced four key recommendations. The fourth recommendation of the DEFRA review was to carry out an in depth savings review of waste contract. The department has engaged Local Partnerships, which is joint venture between the Treasury and Local Government Association to carry out the in depth review of contract. This piece of work will conclude around February or March 2017. The intention is to bring back the outcomes of the review to the Economy, Transport and Environment (ETE) and Audit, Best Value and Community Services (ABVCS) Scrutiny Committees in June 2017.

26.2     The Committee discussed the recommendations of the report and concluded that it was preferable to await the completion of the Local Partnerships review before undertaking further scrutiny work. The Committee considered that having a joint Review Board would be preferable to each Committee looking at this matter individually.

26.3     The Lead Member for Transport and Environment supported this approach and commented that it would provide more continuity by reference to the May 2017 elections.

26.4     The Committee RESOLVED to:

1)      Note the update on work with the Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and Local Partnerships; and

2)      Await completion of the work being undertaken with Local Partnerships on the Operational Savings Review before considering whether to undertake further scrutiny work jointly with the Audit, Best Value and Community Services (ABVCS) Scrutiny Committee.

Report by the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport

27.1     The Team Manager, Strategic Economic Infrastructure introduced the report and explained the background to current proposals for the A27. The 2013 study of the A27 identified a number of road traffic hotspots and included an assessment of the options to deal with these problems. The outcomes of this study were published in 2014 and £75m of funding was allocated for small scale capacity improvement schemes. Improvement scheme proposals to address traffic problem hotspots around Selmeston, Berwick, Wilmington and Polegate are currently out for public consultation.

27.2     The A27 Reference Group has continued to lobby for a better ‘off line’ solution, and is looking to include proposals for housing and employment in a revised business case for the ‘off line’ solution. The preference of the A27 Reference Group is for an ‘off line’ dual carriageway road to be constructed to the north of the existing line of the A27.

27.3     The Committee discussed the proposals described in the report for small scale capacity improvements and longer term solutions to the congestion along the A27. The main points raised in the discussion are summarised below.

• The Director of CET explained that the off line dualling (construction of a dual carriageway) of the A 27 would not have access to side routes to improve travelling times and to improve safety and road performance. It would also address the negative impact on the north-south movement of traffic that was caused by the poor performance of A27 and the consequent re-assignment of routes as drivers try to find ways to avoid the congestion.

• Although the Committee welcomed any improvement to the A27, it considered that the small scale capacity improvements do not adequately deal with the problem.

• The majority of the Committee supported the off line dualling of the A27 as the best long term solution, especially in view of 9,000 to10,000 additional new houses identified for construction in South Wealden. This would be the best option for the economy, to stop route diversion and improve road safety. The preferred solution would be to have the off line dual carriageway now rather that the smaller scale capacity improvements, which seem of little long term benefit.

• The Director of CET explained that the A27 Reference Group see the off line dualling of the A27 as the long term solution, but it will take around 10 years to deliver. The localised small scale capacity improvements will be delivered by 2020 and will deal with the problems the road has now. The department considers that the Drusillas roundabout and Polegate junction improvements deliver the most benefit. The Selmeston and Wilmington schemes do not offer much improvement or benefit.

• The department’s view is to undertake the two smaller improvement schemes with the most benefit (Drusillas roundabout and Polegate junction) and then focus work on the longer term solution. The department considers that the plans for the additional South Wealden housing improves the business case for the off line dualling of the A27.

• One of the Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

28.1     The Committee discussed the future work programme and agreed to move the Highways Drainage update report to June 2017 to allow time for the outcome of the capital programme review to be known.

28.2     The Committee also agreed to have a report on Climate Change Adaptation in March 2017; a report on the outcome of the Waste Contract review in June 2017 and; a progress report on the Grass Cutting savings in September 2017. The Assistant Director Operations is to confirm the timing for a report back to the Committee on the Countryside Access Strategy.

28.3     The Committee RESOLVED to amend the work programme as outlined in minute 28.1 and 28.2 above.

The Forward Plan for the period to 31 January 2017. The Committee is asked to make comments or request further information.

29.1     The Committee RESOLVED to note the Forward Plan.

30.1     There were none.