Agenda and draft minutes

17.1     Cllr Hilton requested that the following comments she made about Queensway Gateway Road below be added to the minutes under the work programme item.

·         in her view there had been no proper independent challenge or scrutiny of the whole decision making process, in particular the risk register/assessment and the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) process which to her view should have been completed before any further funding was awarded, and asked what lessons there were for future oversight and scrutiny of major projects to ensure rigorous challenge of business cases at an early stage. She suggested that there appeared to have been no proper independent scrutiny of decisions throughout the whole project from 2015 onwards with South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP) not providing any serious scrutiny, and asked how the Committee could ensure this for future projects, such as the Exceat Bridge replacement.

·         whether the Council had demonstrated sufficient duty of care not to be sued for negligence by local businesses who have suffered major financial losses from the ongoing delays.

·         A shorter scrutiny review should take place, covering the process, timeline, project management, traffic management, communication and engagement plans since ESCC decided to complete the QGR itself and how a project timeline of 16 weeks turned into one covering 52 weeks and still counting.

17.2     The Committee RESOLVED to agree the minutes of the meeting held on 29 September 2025 as a correct record, subject to the above change.

18.1     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.

19.1     Cllr Hollidge declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest under item 23 as he wrote a regular column in a local newspaper which related to active travel, highways infrastructure and electric vehicles.

19.2     Cllr Hilton declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest under item 24 as Deputy Leader of Hastings Borough Council and Lead Member responsible for assets.

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.

20.1     There were no urgent items.

21.1     The Deputy Chief Executive introduced the report, and set out that the report provided an opportunity for the Committee to review the November 2025 RPPR report to Cabinet, which included an update on the financial and policy context, updates to the MTFP and capital programme, and the CIPFA Assurance Review report.

21.2     The Chief Finance Officer provided an update on the Council’s financial position, explaining that the Council had a projected deficit of £55.8m and it did not have sufficient reserves to bridge this. Despite this, the CIPFA review had reflected good governance and financial management and the Council having a clear understanding of the financial challenges it faced. In light of the challenges Cabinet had requested further savings options be brought forward but these were not sufficient to address the deficit and the Council was therefore beginning the process for applying for Exceptional Financial Support (EFS).

21.3     At the end of November 2025, the financial policy statement and response to the Fair Funding Review 2.0 was announced, which modelling suggested would likely cause a real-terms loss in funding for ESCC, as well as many other county areas. This loss in funding was due to council tax equalisation being set at 100%, the Area Cost Adjustment only being reflected in Adult Social Care (ASC) and the new ASC formulas shifting weighting to working-aged people. In addition the Government was continuing the Recovery Grant, which ESCC did not benefit from. The Government indicated that it expected the number of authorities applying for EFS to increase. The Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement was expected in December 2025, which would provide more detail on the Council’s position. The Autumn Budget was also delivered in late November 2025, which included an announcement that the in-year SEND deficit being taken into Government departmental budgets from 2028-29, though this money will be top-sliced from available local government funding. This would also not address the existing accumulated deficit, currently sitting on local authority balance sheets through a statutory override, which was projected to reach £14bn nationally by 2028/29.

21.4     The Committee discussed the report and update on the Council’s financial position and that Government had recently published the new Indices of Multiple Deprivation which showed significant deprivation across the county, and in particular in parts of Hastings. Members noted that the reduction in funding the Council would receive would not support addressing the needs of the population of East Sussex.

21.5     The Committee commented that in the report the natural environment was a constraint to economic growth, and requested that this language be reviewed to reflect the benefits of the county’s natural environment and that economic growth must work alongside the needs of the environment. The Deputy Chief Executive agreed to review this language in future reports.

21.6     The Committee discussed the areas of greatest spend which were in on ASC and Children’s Services and suggested that it would be helpful to understand the level of spending figures for private sector and out-of-county placements, however it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

22.1     The Chief Operating Officer introduced the report, which sets out the details of the trial of the qualitative approach to the Social Value (SV) and the proposed new East Sussex SV model, along with the new Model Assessment Criteria (MACs), proposed edits to the SV policy and proposed changes to the associated Council Plan measure. The East Sussex Social Value model had been developed on the recommendation of scrutiny, and had been well-received by Small-Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) and officers in procurement. It was therefore proposed that the East Sussex SV model be permanently adopted.

22.2     Anne Epsom elaborated on the benefits of the new model, including improving alignment with the Procurement Act and ensuring that ESCC follows best practice and helping to embed SV into the general ways of working in the Council. The new approach would also increase consistency across the wider public sector, including at Surrey County Council and local NHS organisations, and this consistency would help suppliers to reduce costs in the long-term. The proposed changes to the policy and changes to the Council Plan measure would go to the Lead Member for Resources and Climate Change, and taken forward as part of the Council Plan review. This will be followed by updated guidance to officers and suppliers, departmental engagement, training for relevant officers and utilisation of employment and skills networks to embed the methodology. BSD were investigating the integration of reporting into overall contract management approaches, and the changes to the policy would be reviewed as appropriate.

22.3     Cllr Collier who chaired of the Scrutiny Review of Social Value, thanked officers for their work in this area, and welcomed the report and changes to the policy. He raised the changes to SV in the context of LGR and noted that it was important that the positive work in this area be embedded into any changes in services that come with LGR and the brining together of county council and district and borough council services.

22.4     The Committee asked if BSD had examined the SV policies of district and borough councils, and whether these could be aligned with East Sussex SV model through the LGR process. The Chief Operating Officer responded that discussions with district and boroughs would take place as part of the LGR, where the different authorities’ policies could be understood and aligned. The Assistant Director, Policy and Operations (Orbis) added that the methodology of the SV model could be adapted through LGR to be embedded in the new unitary, but as strategic priorities for the new authority are developed then adjustments could be made to the policy without altering the overall methodology. She added that her experience working with Surrey district and boroughs through LGR was that they often don’t have SV policies due to the low value of their spend, so it was hoped they could adopt the new policy with relative ease.

22.5     The Committee noted that the trials had been conducted in ASC, and asked if there were any  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

23.1     Ian Glover, Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project Manager, introduced the report, which provided an update on the procurement of the public electric vehicle (EV) on-street charge points contract and its roll out across the county. ESCC had been awarded £4.44m in Local Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (LEVI) funding from Government, and in 2024 Cabinet had agreed to procure a charge point operator using a concession model. ESCC received four bids from prospective operators and a preferred bidder had been identified, and the contract was expected to be confirmed in December 2025. The preferred bidder planned to deliver approximately 2,400 charge points across 500 locations in East Sussex. The roll-out is expected to take two to two-and-a-half years, and includes a number of rapid-charge points, including a mixed charging hub at County Hall. The bidder has agreed to deliver further funding for the project in addition to the LEVI funding and will operate the network for 15 years, after which it will revert back to the Council. ESCC had taken used an evidence-based approach to identify sites for installing charge points, in conjunction with district and borough councils and other local stakeholders. Mobilisation was due to begin soon, with installation of the points beginning in early 2026.

23.2     The Committee asked whether maintenance will be carried out by the contractor. The Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project Manager confirmed that the provider would be responsible for maintenance and repair and there would be a specific KPI which requires the contractor to carry out repairs within a specified timeframe.

23.3     The Committee discussed how expected usage of chargers had been modelled in order to determine the locations of chargers and the needs of residents. The Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project Manager explained that evidence-based modelling had been done to identify both on-street capacity needs of residents who do not have a driveway and cannot charge at home, as well as high-speed charging points around the county that best suited the needs of travellers. Locations had already been identified and this was reflected in the proposals from the bidders.

23.4     The Committee asked if charge points which were not well-used could become a liability when ownership of them reverts to ESCC. The Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project Manager responded that at the end of the contract the Council had the option to either take ownership of the charge points or reprocure a supplier to manage them on the Council’s behalf. At the end of the contract it would be possible to dispose of redundant sites if necessary.

23.5     The Committee asked if charge points would be part of a multi-vendor network, which could show residents the EV charging sites and their availability. The Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project Manager explained that the operator would only be responsible for the management of the charge points, but they would also be expected to take control of the payment platform initially. They could seek to have another operator be responsible for the payment platform, but the contract required that prices remained competitive,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

24.1     The Chair introduced the report, which was for the Committee to consider the call-in in relation to the decision by the Lead Member for Transport and Environment regarding the proposed relocation of Hastings Register Office. The decision was called in by Councillors Hilton, Murphy, Tutt and Wright. The Committee considered the call-in and the information contained in the report, a summary of the questions raised and comments made is given below.

24.2     Cllr Daniel, Local Member for the decision, was invited to speak and noted that he supported the original decision taken by the Lead Member. He made the following points in support of the decision:

• Both the Town Hall and the library are grade-II listed, and the library has received £9m recently in financial investment from the County Council to upgrade the facilities and ensure accessibility, while the town hall lacked the same accessible facilities.
• The library has a new, larger, lift and accessible toilets on all floors, whereas the ceremony space on the upper floor of Hastings Town Hall is only accessible by a small lift which is prone to breaking down;
• The proposed plan includes a mitigation for accessing the ceremony rooms in the event that the lift breaks, whereas the town hall does not have similar mitigation plans;
• Other options of the 34 alternative venues in the local area includes Hastings Museum, which is run by Hastings Borough Council;
• Accessible parking is available very close to the library, including the multi-storey car park, and underground parking off Robertson Terrace;
• In the context of LGR, he suggested the space in Hastings Town Hall could be used by a potential Hastings Town Council; and
• Communications with Hastings Borough Council at officer level had shown that staff understood the changes.

EqIA and accessibility concerns

24.3     The Committee discussed the Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA), which had not been included in the report to the Lead Member for Transport and Environment (LMTE) meeting where the original decision had been taken. Cllr Hilton raised concerns about accessibility at the proposed alternative venues, such as Hastings Library, which did not have a drop-kerb outside the entrance and asked how accessibility would be improved. The Assistant Director Communities reassured the Committee that drop-kerb access at Hastings library was being assessed by officers as part of the co-location plan should the decision go ahead. The library was subject to an extensive refurbishment in 2018 to be converted into an accessible building, and offers a lift, accessible toilets and hearing loops for residents who need them.

24.4     The Committee discussed the importance of EqIAs and the need for them to be presented at decision-making meetings, and asked why it had not been included with the report for the original decision. The Assistant Director Communities explained that the EqIA had not been included with the report as it showed that there were no material equality concerns that could not be mitigated, and accommodations for older people, disabled people and parents were included within the relocation plan,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

25.1     The Chair invited Cllr Field to introduce her Notice of Notion, which the Chairman of the Council had referred to Place Scrutiny prior to consideration at Full Council. Cllr Field expressed concern about driving on new estates, and raised evidence that 20mph speed limits reduces risk to pedestrians and increases quality of life for residents. She suggested it was possible implement 20mph speed limits in new developments, and requested that Place Scrutiny support the Notice of Motion to Full Council. Cllr Wright, who seconded the motion, commented that he thought that introducing 20mph limits in new estates would encourage active travel and improve the sense of place in new developments. Cllr Field and Cllr Wright did not support the amended Notice of Motion as set out in the report.

25.2     The Assistant Director Economy introduced the report responding to the Notice of Motion. He noted that the issue was considered during the Place Scrutiny Review of Speed Limit Policy, which found that the Council’s local speed limit policy was consistent with national guidance, but that it would be reviewed should there be any changes to the guidance. The Council’s own guidance clearly states that the design speed of streets in new estates should be to a 20mph speed, which could be achieved through the design of street scape to make it difficult to drive at excessive speeds, which the Manual for Streets (MfS) gave guidance on how to do. The role of ESCC in housing developments is that of a statutory consultee; the council examines proposals to ensure that they are in line with guidance and make recommendations on the design but are ultimately not the decision-maker. The aspiration of the Motion was therefore supported by the Department as it was consistent with its own guidance. The setting of speed limits is a separate matter to the design speeds of roads and can only be delivered when a development has been occupied for some time and speed surveys are undertaken, at which point formal speed limits may be set based on the average speeds people are driving at. Any formal limit also needs a separate Traffic Regulation Order process and Police support. The Department had therefore recommended an amendment to the Notice of Motion which better reflected what it was possible for the Council to achieve within legislation.

25.3     The Committee welcomed the ambitions of the Notice of Motion to try and reduce speeds and discussed the potential positive impacts of implementing 20mph design speeds, including encouraging more walking and cycling, making streets safer for people living there and a calmer environment for the local residents. The Committee noted that there had historically been difficulties implementing 20mph speed limits, but that the situation has changed in recent years meaning many areas of the county now had 20mph limits in place. The Assistant Director Economy commented that the MfS outlines that new developments should designed in a way to encourage active travel, and the Council followed this guidance.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

26.1     The Chair introduced the report which outlines future items for the Place Scrutiny Committee. The Committee discussed potential areas of interest in addition to the work programme.

26.2     The Committee discussed whether there was the potential to consider the Council role decision-making process in relation to street design and creating streetscapes, noting this was an issue that had come up and 2 previous items on the agenda.

26.3     The Committee discussed the recent incident at Camber Sands, regarding bio-beads washing up on the beach from the Southern Water plant, and asked if Southern Water and could attend the next meeting of the Committee with an update on it and other areas.

26.4     Cllr Murphy provided a briefing on the status of the Scrutiny Review of street works, which held it’s initial scoping meeting on 20 October 2025, and was due to meet again in January and February 2026, to take a report to the March 2026 Place Scrutiny Committee meeting.

26.5     The Committee RESOLVED to:

1)            agree the latest work programme as set out at Appendix 1 to ensure it reflects the correct focus of the committee including in relation to its role in the ongoing RPPR process;

2)            review upcoming items on East Sussex County Council’s Forward Plan as set out at Appendix 2 to identify any issues that may require more detailed scrutiny;

3)            agree the recommendation of the Scoping Board on Street Works to progress with a scrutiny review, and agree the membership and Chair of that review as set out at paragraph 2.2; and

4)            agree to form a reference group to scrutinise the Exceat Bridge replacement project, and agree the membership as set out at paragraph 2.7.

27.1     There were none.