Local government · English county council. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.
Reports
3
Naming this recipient
Published responses
100%
Found for named reports
Concerns addressed
6
Across all linked responses
Stated actions
12
Described in responses
Reports over time
Reports over time
Reports naming this recipient by issue year.
Evidence profile
Report topics
Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.
100%published responses found
12stated actions described
Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.
Concerns and recipient responses
Statements from East Sussex County Council linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.
East Sussex
Concerns raised1
Failure to appropriately categorise pothole risks
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2
Action
Introduce an enhanced risk-based inspection process allowing defect categories and response times to reflect location, usage and assessed risk.
Stated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 16 September 2022.
Action
Continue reviewing the effectiveness of the enhanced risk-based approach, including how it would have affected the incident.
Stated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 16 September 2022.
Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.1
Position
The enhanced risk-based inspection process makes a specific review of pothole categories unnecessary.
Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
East Sussex
Concerns raised4
Sub-optimal training for patient risk management
Lack of timely access to patient data for independent clinicians conducting Mental Health Act assessments
Sub-optimal training for Mental Health Act assessments
Sub-optimal training for Mental Health Act assessors
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3
Action
Review AMHP training and documentation relating to Mental Health Act assessments.
Stated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 June 2021.
Action
Introduce dynamic risk assessment requirements, supervision safeguards, and access to current risk and clinical information through updated assessment forms and internal publication.
Stated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 June 2021.
Action
Arrange annual risk-management training for existing Approved Mental Health Practitioners with Brighton University.
Stated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 28 June 2021.
Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.1
Position
Recruitment and training of doctors and other medical staff is the responsibility of Sussex Partnership Foundation Trust, not the Council.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Brighton and Hove
Concerns raised1
Lack of a safe crossing point on the A2100 Battle Hill
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.4
Action
Complete a preliminary design for a light-controlled crossing and a direct, level pedestrian route across the filling-station forecourt.
Stated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 26 August 2021.
Action
Progress the crossing scheme through statutory and local-stakeholder consultation, then toward detailed design subject to the consultation outcome.
Stated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 26 August 2021.
Action
Complete a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit of the preliminary crossing and forecourt-route design.
Stated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 26 August 2021.
Action
Complete a feasibility study of pedestrian-crossing options and wider Battle Hill safety measures.
Stated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 26 August 2021.
Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.4
Position
Pedestrian safety within the filling-station forecourt requires cooperation and legal agreements with its private owner and operators.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Position
The location did not meet the established crash-frequency or severity criteria requiring an annual Road Safety Team review.
Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Position
The Council cannot confirm the crossing works or completion timeframe because funding is limited and capital expenditure follows an approved process.
Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Position
Crash analysis did not identify a clear causal factor or consistent manoeuvre that could be addressed solely through an engineered intervention.
Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Pin
Request correction
Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations