NoM - Highways - Amendment - Liberal Democrat amendment

Proposed · This went to the meeting on Tue 24 Mar 2026. What was decided is in that meeting's minutes.

The amendment would delete wording that asks the Cabinet to bring the highways service back into council ownership and control by 2030. p3

The replacement wording describes the core issue as long-term national underfunding of highways maintenance and would call on the Government to provide fair, sustained funding. p10

The amendment also asks the Council to note practical and financial risks of bringing highways fully in-house, including substantial upfront capital costs, higher long-term pension liabilities, and no guarantee of lower overall costs. p11p12p13p16

It further requests that the motion be sent to the Place Scrutiny Committee for detailed analysis before a decision is made. p17

1 further sentence of this summary was held back by verification and is not shown. We only publish claims that survived checking against the cited passages.

Show the 7 passages this is based on

• p3(delete the following wording) Request the Cabinet to bring the highways service back into council ownership and control by 2030. This will likely involve:
• p10[replace with the following wording] Recognise the core issue is long-term national underfunding of highways maintenance, placing growing pressure on East Sussex residents and road users. Call on Government to provide fair, sustained funding to enable proper planned maintenance and reduce costly reactive repairs. Confirm that all delivery options — including in-house provision — are already fully and fairly assessed at each contract renewal and supports a fair and open approach to future service delivery decisions based on evidence, value for money, and the best interests of residents.
• p114. Note the significant practical and financial risks of bringing highways fully in-house, including:
• p12• Substantial upfront capital costs (vehicles, depots, equipment), likely requiring additional borrowing
• p13• Higher long-term pension liabilities falling on taxpayers
• p16• No guarantee of lower overall costs despite removal of contractor profit
• p17Recognise that current contracts already deliver strong social value, including local employment, apprenticeships, and community investment. Request Cabinet to continue securing best value for residents through robust procurement, strong contract management, clear performance standards, and taking firm action where contractors fail to deliver. Request this motion is sent to Place Scrutiny Committee for the in depth and detailed analysis this issue needs before a decision is made.