Agenda item

35.1     The Chair introduced the report and outlined that the purpose of the report was to allow the Committee to consider the call-in in relation to the decision by Cabinet regarding the proposal to reduce the funding for the Housing-Related Floating Support Service.

35.2     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.

·       Use of consultations – Councillor Cross commented that 92% respondents to the public consultation either strongly disagreed or disagreed with the proposal and expressed concern about public engagement in future consultations if residents felt their views had not been heard, which could impact on a future unitary council. In response the Director of ASCH commented that consultation responses had been considered and that the value of the service and potential impacts, including an increase in demand, had been acknowledged and debated by the Scrutiny Committee and by Cabinet.

·       Impact of decisions on district and borough councils– Some Members commented that district and borough housing teams had estimated an additional annual cost to housing authorities of £9m if the service had not been available and sought clarification about conversations with district and borough councils about alternative funding arrangements. Some Members commented that, although they understood that the Housing-Related Floating Support Service was not a statutory responsibility, reducing the funding would have significant financial implications for district and borough councils and, in light of local government reorganisation, that these implications, as well as plans for the transition period, needed further consideration.

In response, the Director noted that, although the £9m cost to district and borough councils was unverified, the impacts had been transparent in the original Cabinet papers and had been considered in detail by the Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet. The Director clarified that ESCC made up approximately 50% of the referrals to the service (although noted that most referrals were housing related), and the remainder came from district and borough councils (approximately 25%), other organisations (approximately 20%) and self-referrals (approximately 5%) and noted that it was currently fully funded by ESCC. The Director clarified that, as well as the consultation, formal and informal conversations had been taking place with district and borough councils since prior to the publication of the proposals and that these were continuing. ESCC had requested funding from district and borough councils to support the service, but as of yet this had not been forthcoming. If the implementation of the decision was delayed for six months, as requested by the districts and boroughs, ESCC would need to identify £1.9m of savings elsewhere. The Director reiterated that, although the implications of reducing the service had been considered by Cabinet, housing and homelessness prevention was not a statutory duty for ESCC.

The Chair noted the discussion at the pre-decision scrutiny board where it was recognised that this proposal would have an impact on the district and borough councils but the Committee, in light of the financial situation, had understood it was not a statutory duty of the Council.

·       Impact of decisions on a future unitary authority – Some Members raised concerns that the proposal did not align with the draft East Sussex Local Government Reorganisation Interim Plan which set out in principle that councils would consider the interests of the future unitary council in  decision making, and noted that district and borough councils had requested to delay the proposal in order to seek alternative funding arrangements. Councillor Wright expressed concern that there was a risk a future unitary authority would need to issue a Section 114 notice if funding for support services, including Floating Housing Support, was reduced.

In response, the Director reiterated that there was currently no formal agreement in place between the County Council and district and borough councils and final proposals for a unitary authority would not be submitted until September 2025. He also noted that the impacts of decisions on a future unitary authority had been considered in detail by the Scrutiny Committee and at Cabinet.

·       Draft Homelessness Strategy – Some Members raised concerns that the aims of the draft Homelessness Strategy had not been considered in Cabinet’s decision to proceed with the proposal to reduce funding for the Housing-Related Floating Support Service. In response the Director noted that housing related support was a key element of this strategy, and had significant preventative value, but that this could only be achieved with sufficient funding which required input from partners, and clarified that as yet, there had been no financial commitments from partners.

·       Future of the service provider – Councillor Cross noted the work of the service provider, BHT Sussex, and commented that their alternative proposal to reduce the contract value by £2m would enable them to continue supporting 3,500 people and she expressed concern about the sustainability of providing support if the funding were to reduce as set out in the proposal. In response, the Director recognised BHT Sussex as a valued strategic partner but commented that if the alternative proposal put forward by BHT Sussex were to be implemented, ESCC would need to identify £1.8m of savings each year from other services.

·       Impact on Children’s Services – Some Members commented on the original Cabinet report which noted a potential impact on Children’s Services with increased demand to prevent families from homelessness. The Director reassured the Committee that the service would continue to prioritise and support households with children at risk of homelessness. Priority would also be given to adults at risk of presenting with Care Act eligible needs if their housing needs were not met.

35.3     The Lead Member for ASCH and the Lead Member for Education and ISEND commented that Cabinet had given due consideration to the impact of this proposal on district and borough councils.

35.4     Councillor Cross moved a Motion that the matter be referred to the County Council on the grounds that a full mediated assessment of the position of the district and borough councils on the proposal was needed, and that further consideration was needed about the impact of this proposal on a future unitary authority. Councillor Webb seconded the Motion.

35.5     A recorded vote was taken on the motion moved by Councillor Cross. The motion was CARRIED with the votes being cast as follows:

FOR THE MOTION

Councillors Cross, Murphy, Shing, Swansborough, Webb and Wright

AGAINST THE MOTION

Councillors Belsey, Geary, Howell and Redstone

ABSTENTIONS

None

35.6     The Committee RESOLVED to refer the matter in relation to the decision by Cabinet in relation to the proposal to close the Linden Court Day Service for people with a learning disability and merge it with Beeching Park day service to Full Council.