Agenda and minutes

1.1       The Committee RESOLVED to agree the minutes of the meeting held on 17 March 2025 as a correct record.

2.1       Apologies for absence were received from John Hayling, Parent Governor Representative.

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.

3.1       Cllr Webb disclosed a personal, non-prejudicial interest in agenda item 8, East Sussex Housing Partnership, as a trustee of His Place, Hastings and as a voluntary member of Maslow Housing Co-operative.

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.

4.1        There were no urgent items.

5.1       The Director of Adult Social Care and Health (ASCH) introduced the report which marked the start of the Committee’s input into the 2025/26 RPPR cycle and provided a stock take of the Council’s position for scrutiny’s consideration ahead of more detailed planning for the 2026/27 financial year. The report contained as appendices relevant parts of the Council’s Year-End Monitoring Report, which highlighted achievements and challenges for services the Committee scrutinised, and the State of the County report which looked ahead at demographic, financial and policy trends and challenges. The Director highlighted the challenges of demand, complexity and cost outlined in the State of the County report and noted the limited financial options available to the Council due to reduced reserves.

5.2       In relation to ASC the report set out a £10m overspend, mainly due to additional demand on the community care budget arising from increases in assessments and reviews as well as specialist work in mental capacity and deprivation of liberty. The Council remained in the upper quartile for its indicators and the recent ASC survey showed improvement in 5/6 areas of ASC services.

5.3       Priorities for the department remained around prevention, waiting times, safeguarding, quality and value for money. There would also be a focus on developing an action plan in response to the awaited Care Quality Commission (CQC) rating outcome from the recent assessment; responding to national reforms including the recently published NHS 10 Year Plan; and developing health and social care integration programmes with partners. 

5.4       The Assistant Director Commissioning and Transformation set out the key headlines in relation to Children’s Services (CSD) in the report which included an overspend of £13.6m due to staffing costs in localities, looked after children placements, and costs in Home to School Transport. The Assistant Director commented that the Dedicated Schools Grant position in March 2025 was surplus of £2.8m, however that was not expected to continue and the Department was forecasting a deficit at the end of 2025/26. The Assistant Director noted progress against targets with many met as well as areas for improvement, including education measures and attainment in Bexhill and Hastings areas. There was significant work underway in these areas to improve attainment and would remain a focus looking forward.

5.5       Other areas of focus for CSD including addressing areas of overspend, including placement costs and Home to School Transport; responding to national policy changes; and prevention and early intervention.

5.6       The Chief Finance Officer (CFO) outlined the key financial outlook in the report which set out the 2024/25 outturn deficit position of £7.6m, in addition to the £14.3m planned draw from reserves when the budget was set. The Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) in the State of the County projected a deficit of £36.5m for 2026/27.

5.7       The CFO commented that the recent Government Spending Review (Fair Funding Review 2.0) included some welcome announcements, including the updating of relative needs formulae, recognition of remoteness in an Area Cost Adjustment and the consolidation and simplification of grants,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.1       The Chair introduced the report which outlined the Committee’s latest work programme.

Transport for all Age Care Review

6.2 Councillor Pragnell, Chair of the Scoping Board, updated the Committee on the outcome of the recent scoping board on Transport for all Age Care noting that the Board had agreed to focus on Home to School Transport (HTST) but, due to expected national guidance and the Schools White Paper, it had been agreed to hold the next meeting in the autumn to ensure the Board was as informed as possible. Some Members agreed that a meeting in the autumn would allow the Scoping Board to make an informed decision on whether to proceed with a review. The Assistant Director commented that a meeting in the autumn would include an update on the recent HTST audit and clarified that although the updated guidance would include all aspects of HTST, it was expected to align with reforms in the Schools White Paper.

6.3       Councillor Cross noted her interest in exploring topics relating to work with suppliers to mitigate transport costs and work with other authorities to share best practice and expressed concern in delaying the start of a review. Councillor Cross requested interim information on the audit report and the Assistant Director confirmed that information about the scope of the audit could be provided to the Committee after the meeting.

Forward plan

6.4       The Committee reviewed the Council’s Forward Plan of executive decisions.

Work Programme

6.5       The Chair informed the Committee that an awayday would take place in the autumn to consider the work programme in detail.

6.6       The Committee RESOLVED to agree the updated work programme and to further review the work programme at the upcoming awayday.

7.1       The Head of Education: SEND and Safeguarding introduced the report, noting the legal requirement for a joint inspection of SEND services by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission (CQC). He commented that the inspection had taken place at a challenging time with high demand nationally in the SEND sector and that the report included lobbying work with central government as part of the national Change Programme to address key issues in the SEND system.

7.2       East Sussex was awarded the middle outcome with the inspection report noting inconsistent experiences and outcomes, which aligned with the self-assessment. An action plan had been developed in response to identified areas of improvement and work on this was underway. Another inspection was expected in three years at which point there would be an updated SEND strategy which would incorporate upcoming SEND reforms.

7.3       The Committee discussed and asked questions in the following areas:

• Waiting times for CAMHS – The Committee commented on the ongoing issues in relation to waiting times for Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) and challenges around recruitment and increases in demand. The Head of Education recognised the ongoing challenges with waiting times, including the availability of professionals and noted the work underway to provide support to families whilst they were waiting.
• Waiting times for wheelchairs - The Committee raised concerns about waiting times for wheelchairs and asked if there were performance issues with the provider. The Head of Education noted that this service was commissioned by the Integrated Care Board (ICB) and although there were no performance issues with the provider, there had been issues with funding due to increased costs for equipment. Interim funding had since been agreed to address this and the ICB had contributed to the action plan to address both waiting times for CAMHS and wheelchairs.
• EHCP caseloads – Councillor Clark commented that he had received a detailed response from CSD on Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) caseloads and expressed concern about staff levels to process new applications given the increase in demand. The Head of Education noted that high demand was a challenge for the department, however ESCC performed highly on its response times to EHCP applications. He also commented that the department was not always able to provide the service it wanted due to high caseloads, and it was currently unclear what the future framework for SEND would be. Once more detail was available, the department would be able to plan the resources needed.
• Post 16 support – The Committee asked about work to address the lack of provision for post 16 year olds noted in the report. The Head of Education informed the Committee that there had been a significant shift in provision for post 16 year holds over recent years with a reduction in level 1 and entry level courses at a local level. The department was working with providers to anticipate future need, develop new courses, and share information on the needs of current pupils through annual review  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.1       The East Sussex Housing Partnership (ESHP) Lead introduced the report which details the work of an East Sussex Housing Partnership multi agency group to develop a medium and long term vision for housing strategies in district and boroughs and set a framework for joint working.

8.2       The strategy identified key priorities including homelessness prevention; housing, health and care integration; housing standards; development and enablement; tackling climate change; and the private rented sector. The strategy was currently out for public engagement and feedback would be used to refine the strategy ahead of its adoption in the autumn. Once adopted, an annual implementation plan would be developed to address specific areas of work.

8.3       The Lead Member for Adult Social Care and Health noted the recent Member briefing on the ESHP and encouraged the Committee to watch the recording if they had been unable to attend.

8.3       The Committee welcomed the work to develop the strategy and discussed and asked questions in the following areas:

• Issues in housing planning – The Committee discussed issues with planning including delays to building once permission has been granted; a lack of social housing; accountability; restrictions under current legislation and affordability. The ESHP Lead responded that the Partnership was working closely with Developers East Sussex to look at these issues, including challenges with affordable housing delivery on section 106 sites and to explore opportunities for collaboration and funding. Housing authorities were also seeking to address these issues, and this had informed the strategy. Work was also underway with housing partners to input into local plans. The issue of affordability, including feedback from engagement would continue to be considered in the development of the strategy. In response to a question on collaboration with the National Housing Federation (NHF), the ESHP Lead clarified that the NHF was on its strategic board and had supported key areas of work including the production of a framework of good practice and a recent consultation on supported housing regulation.
• Funding – The Committee enquired about funding for the work of the Partnership, noting government funding for housing cooperatives, and enquired if this funding could be used by the Partnership. The ESHP Lead confirmed there was a funding allocation to Homes England to support those types of initiatives and part of the Partnership network was supporting community led housing initiatives; the Partnership would continue to explore opportunities and work would continue with districts and boroughs to support schemes at a local level. In terms of wider funding for the ESHP and why this work was happening now, the ESHP Lead noted a number of ongoing initiatives to support fuel poverty and homelessness prevention etc.; the strategy aimed to look at how these projects contributed to a longer term vision and how housing could work with system partners to develop the sector and address gaps in provision.
• Supporting people with multiple compound needs – In response to a question on a strategy to manage demand in relation to people who have been moved  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.1       The Consultant in Public Health introduced the report which provided an update on the implementation of the recommendations of the Healthy Ageing Scrutiny Review. The action plan included progress on the new Healthy Ageing Partnership, work to support older adults to be more active, and work with partners to support the Age Friendly Communities Age without Limits campaign to tackle ageism and develop age friendly communities. 

9.2       The Committee welcomed the positive outcomes outlined in the report and asked questions in following areas:

• Supporting older people in the workplace – the Committee asked what progress had been made with local employers to support older people in the workplace as well as work with ESCC on adopting Age Friendly employment principles. The Health Improvement Principal commented that work was progressing on these actions and was on track to complete on time. In response to a question on the definition of an ‘older worker’, the Health Improvement Principal clarified that the ESCC definition for an older person is anyone over the age of 50.
• Partnership working – The Committee welcomed the positive examples of partnership working, including the Active Partnerships to support people with physical activity as they age. There was also a request to hear more about progress of this work in the northern parts of the county.

9.3       Councillor Ungar, Chair of the Review Board, thanked members of the Review Board and officers for their work on the review and commented on the positive outcomes it had produced. Councillors Geary and Webb, members of the Review Board, also commented on their positive experiences working on the review, including engaging with knowledgeable witnesses.

9.4       The Committee agreed to note the report and to receive a further update report in six months’ time.

Meeting ended at: 13:44

Councillor Johanna Howell (Chair)