Agenda and minutes

1.1       The Committee RESOLVED to agree the minutes of the meeting held on 12 March 2024 as a correct record.

2.1       Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Chris Collier (Councillor Webb substituting), Eleanor Kirby-Green and Steve Murphy.

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       Councillor Trevor Webb declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest under item 5 and 6, as he is a member of Hastings Borough Council. Councillor Paul Redstone declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest under item 5, as he is Vice Chair of Governors for a schools federation. Councillor David Tutt declared a personal, non- prejudicial interest under item 5, as he is a Director of the Cyber Centre of Excellence which offers services to local government.

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.

Report by the Chief Executive.

5.1       The Deputy Chief Executive introduced the report which starts the Committee’s consideration of the budget setting process. The report provides an opportunity for the Committee to look back at the Council’s performance through the year end Quarter 4 Council Monitoring report, and a look forward via the State of the County report. The key theme is the financial challenge the Council is facing through increases in demand for services and increasing costs. The State of the County report sets out in more detail the nature of the challenges for services in terms of cost and changes in policy. The report also asks the Committee to identify areas of interest or focus, and where it would like further information as part of its RPPR work and work programme.

5.2       The Chief Finance Officer outlined in more detail the Council’s financial position and that at the end of the financial year 2023/24 the Council had an overspend of over £30 million. After the use of corporate funding this was reduced to £10.5 million and required the use of one-off grants, collection fund surplus and corporate financial reserves to mitigate this and achieve a balanced year end budget position. This was the first time the Council has had to use the financial management reserve to balance the year end position.

5.3       The State of the County report contains the three year Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) which before scenario planning shows a forecast financial deficit of £55.3 million rising to £83.6 million by 2027/28. There are unallocated financial reserves of £16.7 million. However, even with scenario modelling there is a budget gap of around £26.6 million for the next financial year. Officers are seeking opportunities in all areas within departments to reduce this budget gap. This includes a review of the capital programme to reduce borrowing by scaling back projects as the cost of borrowing, which is £750,000 for every £10 million borrowed, has an impact on the revenue budget. There is a high degree of uncertainty regarding future funding, including from central Government, and different scenarios will continue to be modelled.

5.4       The Committee discussed the report and raised a number of questions and comments. A summary of the discussion is given below.

5.5       Councillor Hollidge asked for clarification on whether the Long Term Plan for Towns funding for Bexhill (page 76 of State of the County report) could be listed under Bexhill as the area rather than Rother District Council so it is clear which town the funding is for. The Director of Communities, Economy and Transport (CET) outlined that the funding may be listed by local authority area, but he could look at the way the funding is listed.

5.6       Councillor Hollidge also asked for clarification on the bathing water quality chart in the State of the County report as the Bexhill beach water quality (Edgerton Park outfall) has only been reported as ‘sufficient’ since 2019 according to Environment Agency data and this is not reflected in the chart  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Report by the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport.

6.1       The Performance and Service Development Team Manager introduced the report. The report sets out the first year performance of the highways maintenance contract with Balfour Beatty Living Places (BBLP) and an update on the implementation of the recommendations from the Scrutiny Review of Pothole Management. Ten of the recommendations from the review have been completed and the remaining three will be completed during the current financial year.

6.2       It was acknowledged that there have been some factors outside of BBLP’s control, but the performance of the highways contract is not where the Council would expect to be and this is being proactively managed. The report provides information on the performance against the Service Performance Indicators (SPIs) which were agreed as part of the re-procurement of the contract. The performance of some areas of the contract are measured in other ways and are not covered by the SPIs. Actions in these areas could involve early warning notifications, risk reduction meetings and improvement plans.

6.3       The report outlines that BPLP have met and exceeded expected levels for some SPIs, whilst other SPIs have not met the target levels set. These are being proactively managed by the Contract Management Group (CMG) and the contractor. Particular attention has been paid to the backlog and quality of pothole repairs through an improvement plan. There has been a marked improvement in performance over the last six weeks and there is no longer a backlog of pothole repairs.

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

Service Performance Indicators (SPIs)

6.5       The Committee asked if ESCC had got the Service Performance Indicators (SPIs) right for the contract bearing in mind the poor condition of some sections of road which need to be monitored, recorded and action taken. The Director of CET responded that in his opinion the Council had got the performance indicators right. There are metrics which measure the percentage of roads requiring repair and these drive the programme of planned repair works. The performance indicators are more about measuring the performance of the contract and have a commercial impact on the contractor if they are not met. So it is in the contractor’s interest that the required levels of performance are met. Also, the previous scrutiny committee reference group that worked on the re-procurement of the highways contract were involved in the performance indicators for the new contract to ensure they were the right ones, and a number of SPIs were developed as a result of input from the scrutiny group.

6.6       Quality Assurance SPI 6 Defect free works. The Committee asked for clarification on what ‘defect free’ meant in relation to quality of work and the actions being put in place to address the failure to reach the agreed quality standard for repair works. The Performance and Service Development Team Manager clarified that SPI 6 measure is made up of two elements, the quality of reactive pothole repairs and wider improvement schemes. It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Report by the Deputy Chief Executive.

7.1       The Chair introduced the report and went through the recommendations of the report. There were no changes to the work programme in appendix 1 and no items were identified from the Forward Plan for inclusion in the work programme.

7.2       Councillor Redstone, Chair of the Local Transport Plan (LTP) Reference Group commented that the Committee should note that the Reference Group is one of a number of stakeholders that are being engaged with, and the Group is not producing or driving the production of LTP4. The Group is meeting again in September to discuss the final version of the LTP which will be presented to Cabinet in mid-September and then on to Full Council for approval in October. The LTP4 is seen as a living document and there will be changes to over the course of the 26 years which the LTP4 will cover.

7.3       Councillor Hilton updated the Committee on the work of the Economic Growth Strategy Reference Group. There was general support from the Reference Group for the Strategy, although there were some reservations about the length of the Strategy which is up to 2050. The Reference Group also indicated it wished to see the implementation plan for the Strategy once it has been developed. The presentation of the Strategy to Team East Sussex for approval has been delayed by the General Election and will take place later in the year.

7.4       Councillor Hilton asked for some updates on the actions contained in the minutes of the previous meeting held on 12 March 2024. Minute 31.4 asked for an update on the trial of a different approach to securing Social Value commitments and arranging a demonstration of the carbon emissions reporting platform once the test or live system had enough data in it. The Chief Operating Officer responded that the trial was for a year which comes to an end at the end of July and will be reported to the Committee in September. Arranging a demonstration of the carbon emissions reporting platform will be actioned after the meeting.

7.5       Under the SPACES programme report the Committee asked if a mechanism could be put in place for notifying Local Members of SPACES projects taking place in their Division and those pending an external funding application. Councillor Hilton asked for an update on when the Committee might know what the mechanism is. The Chief Operating Officer agreed to provide an update after the meeting.

7.6       There was a request for the Waste Team Manager (minute 34.1) to approach Surrey County Council about their waste composition analysis to find out if there was a reason why there was so much food waste in their residual (black bag) waste. The Director of CET agreed to ask the Waste Team Manager to contact Councillor Hilton regarding the Surrey waste composition analysis.

7.7       The Committee RESOLVED to:

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

2) Note the items  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.