Agenda and draft minutes

32.1     The Committee RESOLVED to agree the minutes of the meeting held on 13 March 2025 as a correct record.

33.1     Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Chris Collier (Councillor Trevor Webb substituted).

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.

34.1     There we 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.

35.1     There were no urgent items.

Report by the Chief Executive.

36.1     The Senior Scrutiny Adviser introduced the report which set out the Committee’s engagement in the RPPR process for 2025/26. The Committee were invited to review their input in the RPPR process and suggest any changes to the process. The report also provided an opportunity to identify any RPPR related items for inclusion in the work programme.

36.2     The Committee discussed the report, and a summary of the questions and comments is given below.

36.3     The Committee commented that it would like to include something about the progress towards Local Government Re-organisation (LGR) in the work programme, how LGR affects decision making and how it will be reflected in the RPPR process over the next three years.

36.4     The Deputy Chief Executive outlined that Full Council had earlier agreed to add Devolution and LGR to the Place Scrutiny Committee’s remit, and the Council would be setting up a scrutiny Board together with members of the People Scrutiny, to provide scrutiny input into this area of work. He acknowledged the point about how to incorporate the impacts of LGR into the RPPR process going forward.

36.5     The Committee RESOLVED to:

1) Review the Committee’s input to the RPPR process; and

2) Identify any potential areas for inclusion in the Committee’s future work programme on services or issues within the Committee’s remit.

Report by the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport.

37.1     The Team Manager, Passenger Transport Team introduced the report and gave a short presentation. He outlined the Bus Service Improvement Programme (BSIP) funding allocations which included the Digital Demand Responsive Transport (DDRT) Flexibus Service. The Flexibus Service covers over 90% of the County and over 1,500 Kilometres of roads in mainly rural areas. Flexibus also provides coverage in areas outside of East Sussex including Burgess Hill, Haywards Heath, East Grinstead and Tunbridge Wells providing connection to services in these towns and with rail services (including the Brighton mainline services). It has around 30,000 passenger trips per year. The Service does not cover Eastbourne or Hastings where bus services are provided by commercial bus operators.

37.2     The Flexibus Service has been in operation for almost two years and supports a high number of passenger trips. It has improved access to services in rural areas with 76% of residents within 30 minutes of the nearest town (this would be 9% without the Flexibus service) and 87% of residents of rural areas now within 30 minutes of the nearest GP surgery (this would be 44% without the Flexibus service). Following the Department for Transport (DfT) Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) it was found that the overall Benefit to Cost Ration (BCR) for the Flexibus Services was a BCR of 3.02 (high value for money).

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

Bus services in urban areas

37.4     The Committee observed that are still challenges with bus services in urban areas such as Eastbourne and Hastings as the commercial operators continue to withdraw and reduce services on the grounds of financial viability. The Committee asked if there were opportunities for the Flexibus Service to support residents in these areas. The Team Manager, Passenger Transport Team responded that although passenger numbers in these areas had gone back up to pre-Covid levels, commercial operators were struggling with cost pressures. The Council continues to provide funding for supported bus service routes across the County and has allocated BSIP funding to support conventional scheduled services.

Views of the Service and cancellation of booked journeys

37.5     The Committee observed that most residents thought the Flexibus Service was very good, and this was reflected in the customer satisfaction levels reported for the Service. However, one issue that has been raised involves the cancellation of booked journeys before they take place, which may deter some people from using the service if they cannot reliably get to where they need to go to, especially where the journey may be time constrained (e.g. to attend a GP appointment or catch a train etc.). The Committee asked if it would be possible to have some figures on the number of cancellations as this was often raised by Parish Councils.

37.6     The Team Manager, Passenger Transport Team outlined that when the Service first started it was the first large scale DDRT service to be launched, and no other local authority had previously provided  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

Report by the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport.

38.1     The Head of Service Highways introduced the report. He set out that of the thirteen recommendations contained in the Scrutiny Review of Pothole Management all of but one of the recommendations had been implemented, and only recommendation 1 remained to be completed. This was around the asset management approach for highway drainage, which is currently being work on, with completion anticipated to be in July when a report will be submitted to the Lead Member.

38.2     The Head of Service Highways outlined that the work on the asset management approach had been expanded to include the updating of other asset management plans including those for carriageways, footways, cycleways, and soft landscaping as well as the one for drainage. Work has started on reviewing these plans and it is expected to have a final draft ready for April/May time, with a view to presenting them to the Lead Member in July. There will be a second phase of work which will review asset management plans for lighting, traffic signals, signs and lines, carriageway skid resistance and structures which is due for completion in December. It was clarified that the Committee has seen a response to the letter written in regard to recommendation 2 regarding utility company regulation and re-instatement work.

38.3     The Committee discussed the report, and a summary of the questions raised, and points made is given below.

Drainage asset management review

38.4     The Committee commented that it would be useful to have a bullet point summary of what the review of the drainage asset management plan is covering. The Head of Service Highways outlined that it would be possible to provide a bullet point summary of what the drainage asset management plan will cover (Action: Andrew Turner). He considered it important that residents and the Committee have a clear understanding of what level of service can be delivered within the budget and capacity available. This will be included in the information about the drainage asset management plan.

Pothole safety defect repair flexibility

38.5     The Committee observed that recommendation 9 refers to the Council taking a flexible approach to repairing safety defects and that if repair gangs find other safety defects that meet the intervention criteria, they should have the flexibility to repair them at the same time as those that have been reported. Residents still question why the Council does not repair all safety defects at the same time and this inconsistency is a key issue for residents.

38.6     The Director of CET responded that the scrutiny review had explored the reasons why it was not possible to repair every pothole if they do not meet the intervention criteria. The Council has a limited amount of funds for pothole repairs, and it should be noted that safety defect repairs are paid for via a lump sum in the contract which remains the same even if all the safety defects are not repaired at the same time. If the Council fixed all potholes at the same time, it would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

Report by the Deputy Chief Executive.

39.1     The Chair introduced the report, and the Committee discussed whether to make any additions to the work programme. It was noted that the work on Devolution and LGR may have an impact on the work programme and the capacity of officers and the Committee to undertake other scrutiny work. Committee members commented that it should be prepared to prune and delay topics for consideration on the work programme if the work on LGR takes up a lot of time.

39.2     Councillor Tutt suggested adding an item on roadside litter and the frequency of litter clearing, including which roads the County Council is responsible for. The Director of CET outlined that litter clearing at the side of roads and street cleansing is a District and Borough Council function and not the responsibility of ESCC.

39.3     The Committee discussed recommendation 4 of the report, which was to form a reference group, together with members from the People Scrutiny Committee, to provide scrutiny input into the proposals and arrangements for Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation (LGR). Councillor Redstone suggested that the Committee should consider six points when considering this issue. They were:

• The need to be agile as things change.
• The broad scope of what the Committee will be looking at and what the needs are of conducting this piece of work. The Committee may need to split up the work into sub-groups to work on different issues and then report back to an umbrella forum of the reference group.
• The workload of officials and officers due to LGR and to look at what papers, reports and information are already available or could be provided with minimal work. The reference group will probably want to meet with representatives from other local authorities it a similar position or who have gone through the unitarization process already/recently.
• Quite a few of the policies will be Government policies not ESCC policies, which are outside of scrutiny’s remit or ability to influence.
• The reference group needs to be cross party and democratic, and to get people to work together on this issue.
• Often the Committee scrutinises things that are currently happening, whereas scrutinising LGR will require scrutinising things that are going to happen in the future, which will require a different mindset.

39.4     Councillor Hollidge added that as the report to Full Council on the changes to the Place Scrutiny Committee’s remit suggested, the Committee will have insight on and oversight of the LGR process and the existing system. There will also be a need for officers to suggest areas where scrutiny input is needed, as well as the Committee outlining areas of interest. Councillor Wright commented that this work will involve scrutinising documents from Government and those prepared by officers.

39.5     The Committee RESOLVED to:

1) Agree the agenda items for the future Committee meetings, including items listed in the work programme in appendix 1;

2) Consider a scrutiny review topic for progression by the Committee;

3) Review upcoming items on East Sussex County Council’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.