Proposals to bring highway maintenance in East Sussex back under county council control have been debated by councillors. During a debate on Tuesday 24 March they called for a “detailed” scrutiny review of the service it currently contracts out to Balfour Beatty Living Places.
The motion tabled by Green Party councillor, Georgia Taylor, had called on East Sussex County Council’s cabinet to “bring the highways service back into council ownership by 2030.”
Councillor Taylor said, “We’ve been motivated to bring this motion because of the dire state of the roads. There is a pothole pandemic and drainage is in a state of disaster and the service we’re provided does not inspire confidence. Public funds should not be going into the hands of private contractors, especially if the results are poor such as the roads of East Sussex. It doesn’t have to be this way.”
The motion faced a number of amendments, with councillors saying they needed more information before making any decision on the multi-million pound contract.
“Residents across East Sussex are highly frustrated about the state of our roads,” said Conservative Gerald Fox. “They see potholes, temporary fixes and delays and they expect us to get on with fixing it. But if we are serious about doing that, in spite of unprecedented winter weather, we need to be honest about what is actually driving the problem. It is not ideology. It is not about who holds the spade or owns the digger or who operates it; it is about long-term national underfunding of our highways maintenance system.”
“There surely can be no one who is satisfied with the state of the roads in East Sussex,” Liberal Democrat Sarah Osborne told the meeting. “Bringing the highway service in-house may be an appropriate solution, however this is too complicated an issue for us to decide at this council meeting without the detailed analysis and the motion presents no evidence for the proposal. I also wonder whether it is wise to impose such a big decision ahead of Local Government Reorganisation.”
“The assumption that removing contractor profit will release additional funding for frontline services is completely flawed,” said Claire Dowling, the Conservative cabinet member for transport. “This motion is presented as anti-business, rather than evidence-led and it risks undermining service delivery rather than improving it. Profit is what allows investment; investment in skills, in apprenticeships, in equipment, in innovation and in social value. Removing it does not meant the same service can be delivered more cheaply.”
Image Credits: Hannah Sindall & Clare Pasieka-Bloomfield .