ESCC scrutiny committee puts Sea Change on its agenda

Sea Change Sussex and its stalled Queensway Gateway Road project find themselves in the spotlight in another forum after East Sussex County Council’s scrutiny committee decided to put them on their work programme. Nick Terdre reports.

East Sussex County Council’s Place Scrutiny Committee resolved at its meeting on 24 November to add regeneration company Sea Change Sussex to its upcoming work programme after officers had omitted it.

A “general scoping review on the conduct of Sea Change” is now part of the work programme for consideration at the committee’s March meeting, along with a report specifically on the Queensway Gateway Road project.

The committee also expressed, albeit mildly, dissatisfaction at the failure of the minutes of its September meeting to record its concerns about this project and decided to make good this lack.

The economic development company and the unfinished project have long been a regular feature at meetings of the South East Local Enterprise Partnership’s accountability board, including its November get-together held on Friday 25^th.

Officers’ reports criticised

Officers’ reports are intended to prime committees with all the relevant information about topics to be discussed, but their report to the September meeting of the ESCC Place Scrutiny committee for an item on Project Development to Support Economic Growth and Regeneration Activity in East Sussex completely failed to mention Sea Change, despite the company being the council’s closest and most active regeneration partner.

The startling omission was pointed out in a note sent to all committee members by Bernard Brown, a local Conservative Party member who has been active in questioning Sea Change’s activities in both the ESCC and Selep forums.

“It is remarkable that the report does not mention the role of its regeneration partners, particularly its principal regeneration partner Sea Change Sussex and the £63m awarded to this partner nor evidence the outcomes of the projects undertaken by this partner. There is no reference to comparisons of outcomes compared to business case projections and therefore no recognition of the failure of so many projects to come anywhere near to achieving the projected outcomes,” Brown wrote.

An obvious candidate for scrutiny was the Queensway Gateway Road project, six years late and on which £10m of public money had been spent, but which, Brown said, “has not been subject to Scrutiny by this or any other County Committee…

“Perhaps Committee Members might like to ask why the concerns raised by the SELEP Accountability Board over compliance of the SLA [service level agreement between ESCC and Selep] are not mentioned, why no mention is made of the failure to achieve business case outcomes, why East Sussex County Council has been formally told by SELEP they must cease making claims the Queensway Gateway Road is not their responsibility.”

Deep-dive probe “not routine”

He also questioned why the deep-dive investigation which central government’s Levelling Up ministry is carrying out into Sea Change was not mentioned, nor the fact that no audit of the company’s projects has taken place since 2018 as required by the Local Enterprise Partnership Guidelines and asked if these were not matters of relevance to the committee.

Brown also called attention to one of the officers’ recommendations, that “information should be given to the committee only subsequent to the ‘benefits realisation stage,’ ie after initial physical construction work has been completed,” which would deprive the committee of any role in scrutinising delays, budget security or project completion until it was done.

“So just what role does the report’s author really envisage for the Scrutiny Committee?  Scrutiny during development is clearly not contained in this proposal,” he said.

Brown’s  intervention was not mentioned at the meeting, but several committee members expressed concern at some of the points he raised, and the limited role offered by the recommendation.

An amendment that the committee should be informed “at strategic points during the progression of projects”, instead of merely subsequent to the benefits realisation stage, was passed by five votes to four.

Clubb called out

Following the meeting Brown sent members a further note challenging some of the claims made at it by Rupert Clubb, the director of Communities, Economy and Transport. On Clubb’s claim that “development problems and benefit realisations are regularly reported to Lead Members and then on to Full Council”, he suggested that, “Perhaps Mr Clubb should be asked to guide you to any benefits realisation reports, containing comparative data, made anywhere at anytime” on a range of Sea Change projects, including the North Bexhill Access Road, the Sovereign Harbour Infrastructure Investment and Enviro 21.

He also questioned why Clubb dismissed as “a near normal routine matter” the deep-dive investigation into Sea Change being carried out by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. “Deep-dives” ONLY occur when there are matters of considerable concern,” Brown wrote. “They are NOT part of some routine audit process. ESCC, Sea Change Sussex and SELEP are currently under the microscope. That is NOT routine.”

Brown revealed in his note that he had played a part in prompting the deep-dive investigation, and that the senior civil servant detailed to lead the review had to be taken off the case after they were found to have leaked details of the report to Selep.

The role of the scrutiny committee is to look after the interests of East Sussex residents. According to a government guide entitled A councillor’s workbook on scrutiny, “scrutiny is an essential part of ensuring that local government remains transparent, accountable and open, resulting in improved public policies and services.”

In this case members should be aware how much is at stake for East Sussex taxpayers given that ESCC may be liable to pay back the £10m government grant for the Queensway Gateway Road if the project is not delivered.

If Selep required the grant to be repaid, ESCC would in the first case seek to reclaim the monies passed on to Sea Change. However, Sea Change itself claims that it has fulfilled the terms of its agreement with ESCC (and, contrary to  what was previously understood, is not liable to provide the £2m needed to complete construction of the road).

The company recently told HOT: “Our grant agreement requires us to complete the funded works – which we’ve already done. There’s no obligation on our company to deliver further elements of the project unless we enter into an additional agreement to do so, with funding to cover that. “

Some observers have also claimed that Sea Change does not have the funds to put in the remaining £2m anyway, let along repay £10m. If for whatever reason it would not or could not repay, the liability lies with ESCC — in other words, with the East Sussex taxpayers.

 

Also in: Home Ground

« Foreshore Trust stays mute and self-discrediting
St Anne’s to be demolished despite committee’s decision »