Agenda and minutes

17.1     The Committee RESOLVED to agree the minutes of the meeting held on 23 September 2024 as a correct record.

18.1     Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Chris Collier, Julia Hilton (Councillor Georgia Taylor substituted) and David Tutt (Councillor Colin Swansborough 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.

19.1     Councillor Ian Hollidge declared a person, non-prejudicial interest under agenda item 8, Scrutiny Review of Local Speed Limit Policy, as he is a supporter of the Liviing Streets campaign.

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 was notification of one urgent item, which was consideration of the call-in of the Lead Member for Transport and Environment decision in relation to the Eastbourne Town Centre Movement and Access Package – phase 2a revised scope. This was considered under item 10 on the agenda (see minute 26 below).

·       Presentation from South East Water

o   Douglas Whitfield, Director of Operations

o   Nick Price, Head of Water Resources

o   Jo Shippey, Community Engagement Manager

·       Questions and Answers session

·       Presentation from Southern Water

o   Tania Flasck, Director of Water Operations.

o   Sandra Norvall, Water Strategy Manager

o   Hannah Morely/Mike Russell, Stakeholder Engagement Manager

·       Questions and Answers session

21.1     The Committee received presentation from South East Water (SEW) and Southern Water (SW) on their plans for future water supply in East Sussex and details of their response to recent water supply interruption incidents in the County. Both water companies are responsible for supplying water to different parts of East Sussex. Southern Water is responsible for providing waste water treatment services for the whole of East Sussex.

Presentation from South East Water

21.2     Douglas Whitfield, Director of Operations and Nick Price, Head of Water Resources gave a presentation to the Committee on the water supply future demand planning for South East Water. A summary of the presentation is given below.

21.3     South East Water supply drinking water over a large part of the southeast region. The east region is split into two areas, Sussex and Kent. Historically South East Water has developed over a number of years with the merger of a number of smaller water companies. This has meant that the design of the water supply network has evolved over time and would not be the way in which it would be designed today if starting from scratch. For example, the network has 86 water treatment works which is about the same number as Thames Water which supplies water to a much larger area.

21.4     There have been a number of water supply interruption incidents, including in East Sussex, as a result of weather extremes and water main bursts. In summer 2023 there was a short sharp hot spell which meant the demand for water increased. The Wadhurst area which was affected by a supply problem is on the edge of the boundary of the area that South East Water supplies, and it was not possible to pump enough treated water into the system to meet demand. This was not something South East Water wanted and was a result of a level of demand that had not been seen before. Post Covid there has been a change in the pattern of demand and periods of weather extremes (wet weather and spells of hot dry weather) have brought forward future demand issues. In response to this South East Water has brought forward a scheme to feed the water supply for the Wadhurst area from the Kent area to provide resilience.

21.5     In August 2024 there were multiple burst mains which affected the Robertsbridge area of northern Rother. South East Water’s staff responded to these bursts as quickly as possible, but the provision of bottled water was complicated by the subsequent burst of the initial burst main which was fixed and then failed again, and having to move the bottled water supply site.

21.6     South East Water has undertaken a review of its emergency plan to improve the response to water supply interruptions and is trying to react better to supply issues until infrastructure projects are completed to improve the resilience of the water supply network. The company has purchased two additional water supply tankers and has a further ten  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Report by the Chief Executive.

22.1     The Deputy Chief Executive introduced the report and the Chief Finance Officer provided an update on the Council’s financial position. In summary, throughout the year the Council has forecast a significant deficit in the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). In September Cabinet received a report that the Committee then considered on the Council’s financial and policy outlook and a proposed response to some of the challenges the Council was facing. At the end of October, the Budget was announced which contained a number of changes in the policy and financial outlook for the Council. The Government is expected to publish a more detailed Local Government Finance Policy Statement shortly, and the Provisional Local Government Settlement is expected to be announced on 19 December 2024.

22.2     In November Cabinet received a further update report on the Council’s financial position and details of a range of potential savings, which is contained within the meeting papers. The RPPR report provides the Committee with the opportunity to consider the savings proposals, the changes in the planning and policy context, the updates to the MTFP and capital programme set out in the Cabinet report, and to identify any further information or work for consideration at the Committee’s RPPR Board later in December.

22.3     The Chief Finance Officer gave an update on the Council’s financial position. The MTFP for 2025/26 contains a budget deficit of £57 million which with a number of planned scenarios takes the deficit down to £29 million. The potential savings put forward by all departments comes to a total of £16 million, which leaves a budget gap of around £13 million.

22.4     The Budget announced on 30 October contained a number of increases in revenue and capital funding, with around £1.3 billion for local government. Included in this figure is £600 million for social care, of which the Council would expect to get around £6 million. A further £700 million was announced of un-ringfenced expenditure which will be allocated to meet need aligned to deprivation. This has been the focus of some lobbying work with MPs and central Government as East Sussex is not a typical southeast council in this respect. One concern is that if the methodology of the allocation of grants changes this could be to the detriment of the Council. There is also an impact from the increase in the National Living Wage and the National Insurance increases on the care sector to consider, both in terms of the level and threshold at which employers start to pay National Insurance.

22.5     The level of inflation modelled within the MTFP is based on the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) predicted rates. The current MTFP uses March 2024 rates, and the October Budget contained higher than predicted rates of inflation, as the expected fall in inflation has slowed down. This will need to be factored into the MTFP.

22.6     Overall, there appears to be a greater number of negative changes than positive ones in the Budget announcement and therefore the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Report by the Chief Fiance Officer.

23.1     The Chief Finance Officer introduced the report which provides information on the fees and charges made by the services within the remit of the Committee, which total £32 million for 2024/25 out of the overall total for the Council of £78.1 million. All departments are required to regularly review the level of fees and charges and comparisons are made with other local authorities to ensure fees and charges are set at an appropriate level. The levels of some charges are subject to regulatory requirements, with fee levels set by legislation. Fees and charges are varied and complex in nature. A list of fees and charges for those services within the remit of the Committee is provided in appendix 1 of the report.

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

23.3     The Committee asked if charges are set to recover costs wherever possible. The Chief Finance Officer responded that charges are set to recover cost where possible, but cost can be quite substantial and therefore it is not always possible to recover the full cost. Charges are set on a service by service basis and take into account the impact on individuals and their ability to pay.

23.4     The Committee asked if school exclusion review charges are paid by schools or cross charged to the Children’s Services department. The Deputy Chief Executive outlined that the Democratic Services Team provides support to Academies for school exclusion reviews which is charged to the Academy. The Communications Team also does work for Rother District Council and schools which is charged to them.

23.5     The Committee asked whether the income from fees charged for highways licences comes to the Council or is retained by the Highways contractor. The Director of CET clarified that the income from highways licences and permits is retained by the contractor as it is their staff who carry out the work. The reason for the highway licence process for things such as bus shelters is so that the Council can ensure that any structure placed next to the highway is safe and passively safe for road users and does not cause future problems.

23.6     The Committee RESOLVED to note the financial information on fees and charges income, the mechanism for reviewing fees and charges and the ongoing work to maximise fees and charges income.

Report by the Chair of the Review Board.

24.1     Councillor Hollidge, Chair of the Review Board, introduced the report. He thanked the Review Board members, officers and Sussex Police for their work on the review. The Committee decided to undertake the review after it was invited to look at the topic of local speed limit policy following a Notice of Motion in June 2023 and as a result of the number of road safety requests received by councillors. The review analysed the purpose of the local speed limit policy; whether it aligned with the Department for Transport guidance; the approach taken by other local authorities; did it correspond with national and local evidence and; how the Council communicates the policy to the public. The Board found that by and large ESCC’s polices were robust and in line with the DfT guidance. Recommendation 1 of the report recommends that the policy is reviewed if the guidance changes.

24.2     It was agreed that the review would be a two part review as it was not possible to complete examining everything the Review Board members wanted to look at within the timescales for completing the review. Councillor Hollidge commented that it will be important to consider the influence of the Local Transport Plan 4 (LTP4) which was being developed whilst the review was taking place and other developments such as the launch of the Living Streets Pedestrian Pound report, Active Travel and the impact of lower speed limits on health. Councillor Hollidge endorsed the report and recommended the report of the Review Board to the Committee for agreement and to present the report to Cabinet and Full Council for consideration.

24.3     The Committee discussed and commented on the report of the Review Board and a summary of the discussion is given below.

24.4     Councillor Taylor spoke on behalf of Councillor Hilton who was unable to be present at the meeting. She outlined that Councillor Hilton did not wish for her name to be on the report unless it can be made really clear that there is more work that remains to be done on the policy, especially 20mph speed limits. Unfortunately, she was not able to be present at all the review meetings and felt that her request for more detailed evidence on 20mph limits was not taken into account.

24.5     Councillor Murphy spoke on behalf Councillor Wright who had left the meeting. Councillor Wright was not entirely happy with the report and considered that the review should have received more direct evidence from other local authorities, including Oxfordshire, on the approach to local speed limits and 20mph limits.

24.6     Councillor Murphy commented that given the time constraints it was a good piece of cross-party work which looked at a range of evidence. He was quite pleased with the report and the way in which the Board had worked together and was happy to endorse the report.

24.7     Councillor Stephen Shing thanked the Review Board and officers for the report and commented that he thought the report was good. However, he  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Report by the Deputy Chief Executive.

25.1     The Chair introduced the report and invited Councillor Redstone as Chair of the Climate Emergency Action Plan (CEAP) working group to add any further comments on the update contained in the report. He commented that had no further comments on this particular piece of work undertaken by the CEAP working group, but there might be a need to clarify one of the future suggested scrutiny review topics on the work programme on climate change. It would be good to clarify whether this would look at reducing the Council’s carbon emissions footprint or climate change adaptation. It may be beneficial to split these topics up, but they could be considered at the same time.

25.2     The Senior Scrutiny Adviser reported that the Chief Operating Officer had invited the Committee to establish a working group to provide scrutiny input into an update of the Council’s Asset Management Strategy, and if agreed, to nominate members for the working group. The Committee agreed to establish a working group with Councillors Redstone, Murphy, Hollidge, Taylor (on behalf of Councillor Hilton) and Lunn indicating they would like to take part. Action: The Senior Scrutiny Adviser to check with other Committee members not present at the meeting to see if they wish to take part in the working group and establish a meeting date in early March 2025.

25.3     Following a question from Cllr Murphy about the collapse of the construction firm ISG, it was clarified that the Council did not have any contracts with them and was not affected by any companies that were in ISG’s supply chain.

25.4     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 upcoming items on East Sussex County Council’s (ESCC) Forward Plan in appendix 2; and

3) establish a working group to provide scrutiny input into an update of Council’s Asset Management Strategy as per minute 25.2 above.

Call-In of Decision Made by the Lead Member for Transport and Environment regarding Eastbourne Town Centre Management and Access Package - Phase 2a Revised Scope.

26.1     The Deputy Chief Executive introduced the report. A decision was made by the Lead Member for Transport and Environment on the 18 November 2024 regarding the Eastbourne Town Centre Management and Access Package - Phase 2a Revised Scope. A notification of a call-in request was received from Councillor Tutt, supported by Councillor Murphy and Councillor Stephen Shing within the timeframe for calling-in a decision. When a call-in request is made that complies with the requirements set out in the Council’s Constitution, the request is required to be considered by the relevant scrutiny committee within 10 working days of the request being made. This was why the Committee has been asked to consider this matter as an urgent item.

26.2     The report contains a copy of the report to the Lead Member in relation to the Eastbourne Town Centre Management and Access Package and the draft minute of the decision that was taken. The report also contains a copy of the call-in request which sets out the basis and grounds for calling-in the decision, and a copy of the response from officers in relation to the call-in request for consideration by the Committee. The Committee is asked to consider the call-in in the light of the information presented in the report.

26.3     Councillor Swansborough spoke on behalf of Councillor Tutt. He outlined that since the Access Package Phase 2a was originally devised, the costs of the scheme had gone up dramatically by around £1 million for a scheme that was originally costed at around £5 million. Under the de-scoping exercise, the scheme was subject to a comprehensive design review which led to changes being made to surfacing materials, road layout, and the proposed public space outside the Marks & Spencer store. The Local Member, officers and the bid team have all be notified of what the changes are, but the public have not been consulted or informed about these changes and there is a need for the public to be informed about the revised scheme due to the comprehension design review. The call-in asks for information on the changes to the scheme to be provided to the public via display boards.

26.4     The Assistant Director Economy commented that on the basis of the call-in, the department is happy to provide display material within Eastbourne Town Centre to alert the public to the changes that are being made to the scheme as agreed with Councillor Tutt in the previous week. In addition, meetings have been held with bid team and local businesses on the situation and this is in addition to the consultation that will be undertaken through the statutory Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process in the New Year. The de-scoping of the scheme was necessary as it was not possible to do everything we wanted to do, within the budget available for the scheme. The design  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.