We Asked, You Said, We Did

Below are some of the issues we have recently consulted on and their outcomes.

We Asked

For views on the proposed admission arrangements to Community and Controlled Schools for the 2020/21 school year. The main change was to amend the the definition of 'previously looked after children' so that it may include children from outside of the UK.

Views were also sought the co-ordinated admission schemes and on the Proposed Admission Numbers at all schools but in particular to increases at Buxted CE Primary School, Danehill CE Primary and Willingdon Community School.

You Said

There were a total of 7 responses. Not all respondents answered every question.  

80% of respondents were in favour of amending the definition of previously looked after children. This was agreed by Lead Member.

A full breakdown of responses can be found in the Lead Member report

We Did

The Co-ordinated schemes were agreed and so were the changes to the admission numbers at Buxted and Danehill. At Willingdon Community School, the request to increase the PAN was deferred until 2021/22 as the number of children transferring to secondary school in Eastbourne in September 2020 is less than previously forecast.

The changes that were agreed will come into force for September 2020 onwards.

We Asked

For views on the proposed reduction in the admission number from 20 to 15.

You Said

375 responses were received. 365 opposed the reduction in the published admissions number.

The Council listened carefully to concerns raised during the consultation period and has reconsidered the decision previously taken to stop the project to replace some of the classrooms.  The Council has concluded that as the project was originally agreed under an earlier capital programme that had wider ambitions and supported projects beyond the Council’s statutory duties, the project should be completed.

We Did

The Lead Member agreed that 20 should be the Published Admission Number for Ninfield CE Primary School.

We Asked

Schools, parents/carers and other interested parties to give their views on the proposed school holiday and term dates for 2019/2020.  Thank you to all those who responded.

You Said

During the period of the consultation 505 responses were received.  368 (73%) were in favour of the proposals whilst 137 (27%) disagreed.

We Did

The Local Authority is currently responsible for setting school term and holiday dates for all Community and Voluntary Controlled Schools.  In the case of Foundation, Voluntary Aided Schools and Academies, Governing Bodies are responsible for setting their own term dates.  Where possible we have taken into account feedback received during the consultation period including aligning dates with neighbouring authorities.  Following consultation the school holiday and term dates for 2019/2020 have been determined and are availabe on the East Sussex County Council website here

We Asked

For views on the proposed admission arrangements to Community and Controlled Schools for the 2019/20 school year. The main changes were

  • To make a change to the community area for Hankham and Stone Cross primary schools so that the current discrete areas are merged to form one shared community area;
  • To include the community area formerly served by Rodmell CE Primary School in the community area for Iford & Kingston CE Primary School following the agreed closure of Rodmell CE Primary School;
  • To include the villages of Ditchling and Streat in Chailey Secondary School’s community area to create a shared area with Priory School.

Views were also sought the co-ordinated admission schemes and on the Proposed Admission Numbers at all schools but in particular to increases at Ditchling St Margaret’s CE Primary School, Polegate School and  Robertsbridge Community College and decreases at Forest Row CE Primary and Uplands Community College.

You Said

41 people completed the online survey. A further 30 responded to the issue of raising the admission number at Robertsbridge Community College which was an addendum to the original survey.

92.7% of respondents were in favour of the change to the Hankham and Stone Cross community areas (primary)

85.4% of respondents were in favour of the change to the Rodmell and Iford and Kingston Community areas (primary)

87.8% of respondents were in favour of the change to the Community area for Chailey School (secondary)

The changes to the admission numbers were agreed. A full breakdown of responses can be found in the Lead Member report. (item 37)

We Did

The changes that were agreed will come into force for September 2019 onwards.

We Asked

For views on the proposed admission arrangements to Community and Controlled Schools for the 2018/19 school year. The main changes were

  • To extend the definition of ‘looked after children’ in priority 1 of the admissions criteria;
  • To change the Eastbourne primary community area due to the  of the home to school distance tie-break from shortest walking route to straight line;

Views were also soughton the Proposed AdmissionNumbers and co-ordinated admission schemes.

You Said

8 people completed the survey.

87.5% of respondents were in favour of the change to the definition of ‘looked after children’ in the admissions criteria.

75% of respondents were in favour of the change to the Eastbourne primary community area.

A full breakdown of responses can be found in the Lead Member report. (item 29 - appendix 6)

We Did

The changes were agreed and will come into force for September 2018 onwards.

We Asked

We asked what you thought about our plan to change the way we provide residential and day services in the Crowborough area.

You Said

Most people are very positive about our plans. Some people are worried about things changing. People had lots of ideas for how we could help them to prepare (see results section above).

We Did

We will work closely with people and their relatives and carers to get used to the changes. We will use your ideas to help people prepare. We will also involve everyone in the improvement work at Hookstead.

We Asked

We asked what you thought about our plan to make changes to the day services in the Hastings and Rother area.

You Said

There were mixed views on our plans – a third agreed; a third were unsure; and a third disagreed. People said if they did go ahead that they would need lots of support to get used to the changes. They also wanted to be involved in the refurbishment process. There were lots of suggestions for how we help people to prepare for the changes (see results section above).

We Did

We will work closely with people and their carers to get used to the changes. We will use your ideas to help people prepare. We will also involve everyone in the improvement work at Beeching Park and the Working Wonders building.

We Asked

We wanted to hear from people with long term conditions about their experience of managing their condition and using services.

You Said

  1. Around three quarters of you have more than one long-term condition. You told us there is too much focus on your condition in isolation and that disjointed services make you feel like you aren’t being treated as a whole person.
  2. Nearly three quarters of you sometimes or often experience anxiety or depression.
  3. Many of you talked about positive thinking and the value of having hobbies and volunteering. You also told us how much you value support groups and having contact with your peers.
  4. Over half of you said you don’t use tools and technology to manage your condition.
  5. The majority of you said you know how to stay healthy and reduce your risks of developing further health complications. You also spoke about wanting to manage your condition better and have more confidence and control.

We Did

  1. While we know that condition-specific support has a role to play in helping people to manage their conditions, it is also important to offer whole person support for people who have multiple conditions. We are working on developing services that offer this sort of support, such as creating joint social care and health teams.
  2. We are looking into how we can better support the mental health needs of people with long term conditions. We have joined a national network looking into best practice in this area and we have held a focus group for people with long term conditions and mental health needs. We are now exploring how we can offer people with long term conditions access to Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services.
  3. We are working with partners in Hastings and Rother on a project to develop and support self-help groups in the area. A report setting out learning from this work will be shared in March 2017. We are also exploring how we can increase the number of peer supporters in the county.
  4. We are working on a project to increase the use of Technology Enabled Services in the county. We want to make them available to more people and target them at those who would benefit most, such as people with long term conditions. We have already launched Health Help Now – a website and downloadable App listing common symptoms and suggestions for treatment in East Sussex, based on location and the time of day.
  5. We are pleased that so many respondents said that you know how to stay healthy. We do know, however, that not everyone feels that way. We want to ensure that our services support those people who don’t have the skills, confidence and knowledge to manage their health. We are working on a project that will help people to self-care in a way that works for them and ensuring we tailor services so that those who find it difficult to self-care get the support they need. We hope to start the project in April 2017 and are currently watching with interest in other areas of England which are already doing this.

We Asked

For views on the proposed admission arrangements to Community and Controlled Schools for the 2017/18 school year. The main changes were

  • To restrict the application of the sibling link so that children living within the community area for a given school are a higher priority than siblings living outside the community area;
  • To change the measurement of the home to school distance tie-break from shortest walking route to straight line;
  • To allow applications received after the closing date due to verified house move or other material change of circumstances to be treated as on time if received before a second deadline.

You Said

79 people completed the survey.

44% of respondents were in favour of the change to the sibling criteria.

Concerns were largely around the difficulties of transporting two children to different schools at the same time of day, and the need for siblings to support one another in the same school, whereas those in favour of the proposal felt that it was fair to prioritise local residents ahead of out of area siblings.

71% of respondents were in favour of the change to the tie-break measurement

The majority felt the new distance measurement would make it easier to estimate the chance is getting into a preferred school.  

Regarding how applications after the closing date are treated, we simply asked for comments on this.  There was a consensus that the proposal was child-centred and sensible.

We Did

The changes were agreed and will come into force for September 2017 onwards.

An amendment was made to the sibling criteria rule which made an allowance for parents previously unable to secure a preferred school. The new policy will include the following;

‘where a child has been unable to secure a place at a school in his/her community area and has been directed to attend a school outside the area as an alternative, any applications for younger siblings to attend the school will be treated as if the family were resident in the community area, as long as the sibling will still be attending the school when the younger child starts.’

We Asked

What you thought of our plan to ask people who can afford it to pay for the community support service.

You Said

You told us you need more time to prepare. You also wanted to know what would happen if a session was cancelled and whether people could pay less for group support in the community. 

We Did

We were planning to ask people to pay from April 2016. Now, if you have to pay, we will ask you to start paying in July 2016 instead of April 2016. We have sent everyone who uses the service a copy of the cancellation policy that will apply from July 2016. We agreed that people should pay less for group support in the community. We have set a lower cost for group support.

We Asked

We wanted your views on how we were proposing to make the savings in Adult Social Care. 

You Said

The vast majority of people who responded to the consultation were concerned about the long-term harm that would be caused to people and the services that support them.

 

We Did

Following the consultation, the proposed savings were amended to take account of the additional money that would be raised by the social care precept for Council Tax and what people told us through the consultation. For some services this meant not going ahead with the saving or revising the amount we were planning to save.

We Asked

We asked for your views on our proposals to change the existing East Sussex Deferred Payment Agreement (DPA) to reflect the requirements of the national Care Act 2014.

You Said

You said there should be a choice about how to pay the charges, but you weren’t sure how often the annual administration charge should be invoiced. You said the DPA should be available to people moving into extra care and supported accommodation.

We Did

We have given people a choice about whether to pay the charges or add them to the debt. We will invoice the annual administration charge on a six monthly basis. The DPA will be available as a ‘bridging loan’ to clients who are selling their home and moving into rented extra care housing or supported accommodation.

We Asked

We asked for people’s views about proposed changes to how meals in the community are provided in East Sussex.

You Said

117 people (68.4%) disagree with the proposals to end the subsidy, and of those 84 people (49.1%) strongly disagree. People are mainly concerned about the affordability of the meals and the associated risks with not having a regular hot meal and safety check.

We Did

We listened to the concerns raised during the consultation, particularly around the subsidy. As a result, the subsidy will be maintained while we change over to the new arrangements. We will then consider whether or not to continue with the subsidy as part of our financial planning for 2016/17. We will change from a single provider model and instead put together a list of providers to choose from. The consultation found that people were concerned about possibly losing the safe and well check, and about the nutritional quality of meals. As a result, all providers who want to join the Approved Provider Framework will be required to demonstrate how they meet the service needs, which will include the safe and well check. They will also have to pass an accreditation process managed through our Support with Confidence service. This will ensure we can monitor the quality of service provided to people.

We Asked

For your comments on 6 proposed cycle routes in Eastbourne

You Said

There was a high level of support for all 6 routes (over 73%) but some further work was required on some of them.

We Did

We have agreed the following: (1) To progress the following routes to detailed design and construction in 2014/15 - University to Town Centre/Seafront - Town Centre to Seafront - Horsey Way Section 1 (2) To progress the following routes to detailed design only in 2014/15 with construction after 2014/15 - Seafront route - Horsey Way Section 3 (3) For the Town Centre to Hospital route further feasibility work would be carried out in 2014/15..

We Asked

For your comments on proposals for pedestrian, cycling and bus improvements in Newhaven and Peacehaven.

You Said

There was a high level of support for all the proposals.

We Did

We have agreed to take forward all the proposals to detailed design.

We Asked

For your views on proposals along a central stretch of Marina between Sackville Road and Devonshire Road to improve the economic vitality of the town centre area by improving access for pedestrians and bus users as well as improvements to the traffic management arrangements.

You Said

The results show that Phase 1, the proposed improvements to Marina Court Avenue, received a mixed level of support. The majority of comments received were about the perceived reduction in pedestrian safety that respondents felt would occur if the centre island was removed and if the zebra crossing was relocated closer to the Devonshire Road junction. Comments were also received about the loss of green space adjacent to the De La Warr Pavilion that would result from closing the access to the car park to create a turning area and new parking. The results show that Phase 2, the Marina pedestrian and bus stop improvements, received support. The results show that Phase 3, the changes of layout to Sackville Road roundabout, received support.

We Did

At the April 2014 Lead Member for Transport and Environment meeting the Lead Member noted the results of the consultation and authorised the progression through detailed design and construction, to include modifications identified during the consultation exercise, as part of the 2014/15 Capital Programme for Local Transport Improvements the following measures: (a) the changes of layout to Sackville Road roundabout; (b) the widening of the footways and introduction of a 20 mph speed limit on Marina from Sackville Road roundabout to its junction with Devonshire Road; (c) the introduction of the bus stop build-out on Marina; and (d) the improvements to the existing zebra crossing on Marina in the vicinity of the Devonshire Road junction. In addition, the Lead Member authorised that the proposed changes to Marina Court Avenue should be reviewed in light of the feedback from the public consultation and a further set of revised proposals be developed for implementation as part of a future year’s capital programme.

We Asked

If you supported the measures being proposed in Wivelsfield and Wivelsfield Green to help support the introduction of a 30mph speed limit.

You Said

The measures were generally well supported by the majority of the residents that returned their questionnaires.

We Did

We will now meet with the Parish Council to discuss the consultation results in more detail and finalise the measures that will be introduced in Wivelsfield and Wivelsfield Green to help support the lower 30mph speed limit.