Agenda and minutes

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

9.1       Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Steve Murphy. Apologies were also received from Councillor Penny di Cara, Lead Member for Economy.

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.

10.1     Councillor Julia Hilton declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest under agenda item 5, Reconciling Policy, Performance and Resources (RPPR), as she is the Leader of Hastings Borough Council.

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.

11.1     There were no urgent items.

12.1     The Chief Executive introduced the report which continues the Committee’s consideration of the Reconciling Policy, Performance and Resources (RPPR) process. The Chief Executive highlighted that the situation the Council faces is extremely significant. There are two reports that Cabinet is due to consider on 26 September 2024, one is about the in-year performance which indicates the Council is facing a significant overspend. The other report details the implications for planning for the next financial year (2025/26), which is the report the Committee is being asked to consider. Cabinet is not being asked to make any decisions at this stage but is being asked to agree to go out to public consultation on a number of savings proposals, in order that as much information as possible is available on the savings proposals.

12.2     The Committee was invited to consider and comment on the report and identify if there was any further information the Committee would like to help in their consideration of the RPPR process. There will also be a Whole Council Forum on the afternoon of Wednesday 25 September 2024 to allow all councillors to consider in detail the information contained in the Cabinet RPPR report.

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

Impact of savings proposals

12.4     Committee members commented that the savings proposals affected some of the most vulnerable people in the community and would like to see an assessment of the impact on individuals of the proposed changes to services. The process of making savings needs to be fair and transparent. Committee members also commented that the Council would need to be careful not to have a knock impact on the District and Borough councils by increasing their costs (e.g. through changes to housing support) and it would be important to understand the reasons behind the proposals, why those services were selected, and the impact of the proposals in their entirety.

12.5     The proposed changes to services may also increase future demand for other East Sussex County Council (ESCC) provided services such as care services (e.g. changes to the drug and alcohol service). It may also lead to the increased ‘gatekeeping’ of care services and the departmental impact of changes to service will need to be understood.

12.6     The Chief Executive outlined that work had been done on the impact of the proposals on individuals, partners and services. The public consultation will add more detail to this work. Officers have been talking to the District and Borough councils and ESCC is acutely aware of the pressures on housing services. The provision of housing support is not a statutory requirement under the Care Act.

12.7     The Council would not normally be advocating changes to the services covered by the savings proposals, but they are the least worst option. The Council is aware that the proposals, if they go ahead, will likely lead to increases in demand for services in the medium term.

Council Tax

12.8     The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

13.1     The Chief Operating Officer introduced the report. Part of the Council’s Asset Management Plan is to reduce office accommodation post the Covid pandemic and the work on the County Hall site should be looked at in this context. The Council owns the freehold of the site, and the options developed reflect the desire to maintain an office base in Lewes given the locations that staff commute in from, and given that the office estate also has a footprint across the wider county in Hastings and Eastbourne. A detailed assessment of the site has been undertaken and the options outlined in the report reflect the constraints of the site.

13.2     The Assistant Director Property gave an overview of the options presented in the report. He outlined that there had been engagement with Lewes Town Council, Lewes District Council, the local ESCC Member and the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) in developing the options. The SDNPA is currently reviewing their draft Local Plan and have been made aware of the options the Council is considering, but they have not been formally notified nor has the Council requested the site be included in the Local Plan. The footprint of the site includes the current County Hall building, Westfield House, the former St. Anne’s School site and the car parks.

13.3     In summary, option 1 represents staying at County Hall with no change; options 2 -4 are redevelopment options; and options 5 and 6 seek to locate County Hall elsewhere. All options have been assessed using the Treasury Model. The property development market is not very buoyant at present, and the Council’s financial position limits the amount of money available to invest in any redevelopment of the site. These factors and the cost of building a new county hall impact options 2 – 4 making them financially unviable. Option 6 is viable in the medium term.

13.4     The options developed give the opportunity to reduce running costs; provide up to 240 homes; provide more modern office accommodation for staff and the possibility of community use. The options include a mix of residential housing to ensure that they are compliant with housing policy for affordable homes, and options 2 – 4 allow for potential access to grant funding.

13.5     The report also contains details of the current running costs for County Hall and the requirement to invest an estimated £8.4 million in the next 10-15 years to keep the building running. Detailed assessment work has also been carried out to establish the amount of future office space needed, which is around 3,500m². In the short-term, work is underway to look at mothballing and leasing out parts of the existing County Hall building to reduce running costs and to free up space for lettings.

13.6     Officers are seeking the Place Scrutiny Committee’s views on the options, particularly option 6, before they are put forward to the Lead Member for Resources and Climate Change for consideration.

13.7     The Committee discussed the report and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

14.1     The Chief Operating Officer introduced the report which provides an update on the implementation of the recommendations from the scrutiny review. The report includes details of any ongoing actions and a recommendation to extend the trial of the more qualitative approach to social value. The Head of Policy & Improvement, Orbis Procurement outlined that legislative changes contained in the Procurement Act have a higher focus on social value and improving innovation in the supply chain. Having an approach to social value more in line with the central Government’s model will be helpful.

14.2     Councillor Collier, who chaired the review board, thanked officers for the update report and the ongoing work that is taking place on social value. He commented that he was happy with how the recommendations were being implemented and supported the extension of the trial.

14.3     The Committee commented they were pleased with the success of the first stage of the trial and were happy to extend it. The committee noted that the Council now has a policy on carbon off-setting and asked how that is applied to the social value of contracts. The Head of Policy & Improvement, Orbis Procurement responded that social value in contracts is considered in conjunction with the Environmentally Sustainable Procurement Policy and in many contracts the off-setting policy will be applicable.

14.4     The Committee RESOLVED to:

1) To note the updates to the implementation of the recommendations and action plan set out in Appendix 1 of the report; and

2) Agree the recommendation to extend the trial of the Social Value Model as set out in Appendix 2 of the report.

15.1     The Team Manager Flood Risk Management introduced the report which provided an overview of the Council’s flood risk management and climate adaption work. The Council’s Climate Emergency Board has agreed a three-step approach to climate adaptation, largely following that set out in the Local Partnerships Climate Adaptation Toolkit. The steps are:

• Step 1 – A county-wide assessment of vulnerability and climate risks.
• Step 2 – Application of county-wide climate risks to ESCC business planning.
• Step 3 – Integration of climate adaptation into ESCC service planning.

15.2     In terms of the Council’s role as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) one of the main pieces of work is to review and replace the current Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for East Sussex which was adopted in 2016 and is due to be updated by the end of 2026. The other main part of the Team’s work is to respond to consultations on planning applications from the planning authorities and investigations or enquires for ordinary watercourse consent.

15.3     The Committee discussed the report and asked a number of questions. A summary of the discussion and comments made is given below.

Flooding and the Marine Management Organisation (MMO)

15.4     Members of the Committee outlined problems with flooding north of the coastal railway line that runs from Hastings and through Bexhill to Lewes. Problems have been identified with the outfalls, but the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is seen to delay the work by not issuing licences/consent in a timely way.

15.5     The Team Manager Flood Risk Management acknowledged that there were a lot of issues with surface water problems. Southern Water have been working with the Team on these issues in good faith and there is a good working relationship with the Stormwater Task Force. There appears to be a particular issue with the MMO which does take a while to get permission issued to carry out work. The problem is not with Southern Water but more about getting permits in a timely way.

15.6     Councillor Hollidge commented that something needs to be done about the length of time the MMO takes to approve works and grant licences as the lack of progress on works may cause a pollution risk, especially where foul water and combined sewers are involved. The Team Manager Flood Risk Management commented that he was not aware that there were significant delays, but this is a matter for Southern Water who are organising the works. ESCC’s involvement with the MMO is mainly related to bridge works and outfalls. ESCC’s ability to influence the MMO may be minimal and lobbying through the County Councils Network (CCN) or the Local Government Association (LGA) might be more effective. The Committee discussed what action could be taken and agreed to write to the MMO expressing the Committee’s concerns regarding the delays in granting permits.

New developments and flood risk

15.7     Committee members observed that the risk of flooding seems to have increased in East Sussex, but ESCC rarely objects to planning applications due to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

Local Transport Plan 4 (LTP4) Reference Group

16.1     Councillor Redstone gave an update on the work of the LTP4 Reference Group. He thanked all the Reference Group members for their participation in this piece of work and all the officers who had supported the Reference Group. The Group at its last meeting had been able to comment on the headline changes made to the LTP4 document prior to it being submitted to Cabinet on 26 September 2025, before going to Full Council for approval in October.

16.2     The Reference Group was one of a number of stakeholder groups consulted on the development of the Plan and it should be remembered that the LTP4 is a living plan which will be updated as work continues on strategies such is the Freight Strategy and updating plans such as the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan. What is done as a result of the LTP4 will depend on the funding available from Government to implement the policies and actions contained in the Plan. The Committee may wish to consider reconvening the Reference Group at some future date as the Plan develops and formal Government guidance is published.

Actions from previous meetings.

16.3     Councillor Hilton asked for an update on the waste composition analysis results from Surrey County Council requested at an earlier meeting. The Director of CET agreed to contact the Waste Team Manager to provide the information requested by the Committee.

16.4     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) Note the upcoming items on East Sussex County Council’s (ESCC) Forward Plan in appendix 2 to identify any issues that may require more detailed scrutiny; and

3) Note the update from the LTP4 Reference Group as set out in section 4.1 of the report.