Open Hastings Search or ask⌘K

Minutes of the previous meeting held on 27 November 2025

Committee report · Place Scrutiny Committee · Thu 19 Mar 2026 · East Sussex County Council

Read the council's document ↗

What it recommends

In the report's own words. A recommendation is a proposal: the meeting can agree, change or reject it.

What the meeting decided

The minutes record: Agreed. “RESOLVED to agree the minutes of the meeting held on 27 November as a correct record. </AI1> <AI2> 29. Apologies for absence 29.1 Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Hilton (Councillor Wendy Maples substituting) and Hollidge. </AI2> <AI3> 30. Disclosures of interests 30.1 There were none. </AI3> <AI4> 31. Urgent items 31.1 There were none. </AI4> <AI5> 32.” minutes ↗

In plain English

Each sentence was checked against the passage it cites; how the checking works.

Noted · Received for information; no decision followed.

The Council's Chief Finance Officer told the Committee that East Sussex County Council had a projected budget deficit of £55.8 million and did not have enough reserves to cover it, and that the Council was starting the process of applying for Exceptional Financial Support from Government. p22

The Committee discussed a proposal to permanently adopt a new East Sussex Social Value model for council procurement, which had been trialled in Adult Social Care contracts. p28p29

2 further sentences of this summary were held back by verification and are not shown. We only publish claims that survived checking against the cited passages.

Show the 3 passages this is based on
  • p2221.1 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.
  • p2822.1 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.
  • p29He 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 expected challenges in implementing the policy within departments other than ASC, such as CET, as the contracts covered very different services. The Chief Operating Officer clarified that the new methodology had been socialised with CET during the trial period. Conversations with CET revealed they felt there was enough scope in the MACs that individual teams with specific procurement needs would be able to apply them to their circumstances, regardless of the service area.

Places and organisations it names

Other papers for this meeting

The council's document is the record; this page collects what Open Hastings knows about it. If something here is wrong, it is corrected in place and logged on the about page.