Meeting Details

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 29 January 2025 be confirmed as a correct record.

Sir Bob Russell attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1). It was noted that not all members of the Cabinet were in attendance and that only one Cabinet meeting in the municipal year had full attendance. In terms of the proposals for local government reorganisation, it was noted that there was a Council meeting scheduled for 17 March. However, clarification was sought as to what deliberations had taken place within the Council on the issue. He had experience of the last round of local government reorganisation in Essex and his offer to talk to the Council had not been taken up. The public had not been involved in decision making on the issue in any way. Should a North Essex unitary authority be created from Colchester, Braintree and Tendring this would not be local, with only 20 councillors representing Colchester.  It would be the first time since 1189 that Colchester would not have had some form of self-governance. Devolution would only result in more powers being concentrated in a middle tier authority. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, indicated that Cabinet members worked hard in non-public forums and their duties went far beyond attending Cabinet meetings.  Councillor Jay was ill, and it was right that a member should not attend in those circumstances.  The Council had not sought local government reorganisation. The broad view across Council seemed to be of reluctant realism and the need to make the most of the opportunity for Colchester, and to secure a sense of place and civic traditions.  There were potential benefits to be gained from devolution. 

Councillor Smith, Portfolio Holder for Housing, also responded to explain that he had missed the last Cabinet meeting due to his honeymoon.  However, he had attended several remote meetings and taken decisions whilst he was away.

Jean Quinn attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1). She appreciated that Councillors worked hard and received a lot of criticism and it was not her intention to be critical.  At its meeting on 5 December 2024 Council had approved a motion on 20mph speed limits and she had a number of questions arising from that, which had been circulated to Cabinet.  In particular 

• Had the Council approached Essex County Council with a view to implementing 20 mph;
• Did the Council have an understanding of the budget and timescale;
• What were the Council’s plans to find out what people wanted;
• How would the results be assessed i.e. would it be a straightforward majority;
• What would happen if neighbouring streets took different views.
• Could a guarantee be given that local government reorganisation would not derail this.

Councillor Luxford Vaughan, Portfolio Holder for Planning, Environment and Sustainability, responded and explained that the Council had written to Essex County Council.  A written response to the detailed questions would be sent within two weeks. 

Sarah Buszard attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to request that the Council ensured that no council managed funds, including in the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS), were used to procure or invest in fossil fuel, quarrying, nuclear energy or arms companies.   Pension fund investments in fossil fuel assets were at risk and extreme weather events  were also high risk.  Businesses and investors were moving away from fossil fuels  because they recognised the risks to their profits and investments and were also seeing the opportunities in decarbonising. The opportunities from decarbonising and net zero needed to be taken. This could only be done if the right policies were in place.  The Council needed to take this into account when taking decisions. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, responded and explained that he sat on the Essex Pension Fund. There was a general transition towards a more sustainable investment strategy. Attitudes had changed and the interchange with the professionals who provided advice and made investments on behalf of the Fund had also changed. There was a commitment to achieving net zero by 2050. However it needed to be borne in mind that the fund was administered on behalf of the members and there was a responsibility to ensure it generated sufficient returns to ensure pensions could be paid. The Fund was a signatory of the Financial Reporting Council UK Stewardship Code which included a focus on sustainable investment. It was moving its investments away from industries with high carbon output and towards low carbon, sustainable and environmentally responsible investments.
 
Roy Gilheaney attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) about Refugee and Migrant Association (RAMA).  RAMA was grateful for the support it received from the Council. RAMA had concerns about changes in entitlement to remain in the United Kingdom for Ukrainian refugees. RAMA was working with those Ukrainians who arrived three years ago on applications for further extensions of leave to remain in the UK.  The extension would provide a further 18 months leave to remain.  However, the time spent on the Ukraine scheme did not count towards the five year residency period.  For some people there was still time to find alternative routes to leave to remain through sponsored work.  For others, there was a real prospect of being sent back. For those with children with illness or mental health difficulties that might not be met on their return, or at a critical point in their education, this was a great concern. The Council should pay attention to the changes in entitlement to remain and recognise the impact on this group,  who had made a substantial contribution to the local community.

Councillor Sommers, Portfolio Holder for Communities, Heritage and Public Protection, responded and explained that she understood the issue. The Government’s position was that the Ukraine scheme only provided temporary right to remain and this was supported by the Ukrainian government, who wished their citizens to return in the long run. Colchester was a City of Sanctuary and had always welcomed refugees. The Council remained committed to supporting RAMA and Ukrainian refugees and had a dedicated team to help and support them. These issues would be raised with the local MP to see if a more flexible approach could be adopted.

Lisa Cross attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to request that the ban on glyphosates not be revoked and work undertaken towards a sustainable alternative.  The previous decision to move away from their use recognised the harmful impacts they had on all living things. There were biodiversity benefits of allowing wild plants to grow, as was shown by the impact of no spray zones by residents. This led to an increase in pollinators.  A study by Professor Benton, a renowned local naturalist, had also shown the benefits in Priory Street, with increases in flowering and rare plants. 

Councillor Luxford Vaughan, Portfolio Holder for Planning, Environment  and Sustainability, thanked the speaker for her comments and explained that this issue would be dealt with in detail later in the agenda.

Martin Pugh attended remotely and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1).  Friends of Middlewick supported the campaign to keep glyphosates out of Colchester streets, parks and playgrounds.  The Council report ignored evidence in favour of short-term convenience.  Concern was expressed about the Ministry of Defence’s proposals for the management of Middlewick, including the creation of a 20 metre wide fire break.  This would have a significant impact on biodiversity and was ecological vandalism.  The Ministry of Defence had ignored considerable evidence when drawing up its plans. Despite Middlewick meeting multiple Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) thresholds, Natural England had still not designated it as an SSSI.  If it had, the MOD would be legally obliged to consult it on any management changes.  The Council should work with Natural England to help secure the SSSI designation and use its influence with the Ministry of Defence to help protect the site.  

Councillor Luxford Vaughan, Portfolio Holder for Planning, Environment and Sustainability, responded and explained that the Council had no control over how private landlords managed their land. The designation of the SSSI was a matter for Natural England.  She would talk to officers to see what pressure or influence the Council could bring to bear to encourage this designation.

Ismail Çufoglu attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to ask that in accordance with the findings or rulings of a number of international human rights organisations, no council managed funds, including LGPS funds, were used to invest in companies that facilitated or enabled Israel’s breaches of international law.  Several other Council’s had already taken similar steps and passed motions to comply with the United Kingdom’s obligations and had committed to cut their financial ties with companies involved in Israel’s breaches of international law.  Colchester should join them.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, explained that he would not comment on the issues raised about international events or international law.  In accordance with the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy, it did not invest in any companies in a direct way in any other than those it owned. Employee pension funds were not invested by the Council but by the Essex Pension Fund. Given the complexity and breadth of their investments it was possible that there were investments in companies with links to Israel. Their decisions were independently made, within an ethical framework that encouraged responsible investments.  If further concerns remained these should be taken up with the Essex Pension Fund directly.

Councillor Julie Young attended and addressed Cabinet pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1) to stress the need to seek clarification on what concrete actions would arise from the decision making on the Place Partnership Approach and the creation of the Health and Wellbeing Board.  In terms of housing, concern was expressed about issues of damp and mould in housing and the need to find a solution, given the impact this had on residents. The proposals on the Greening and Street Care service needed to align with neighbouring authorities, given the direction of travel on local government reorganisation. Concern was expressed about the possible use of glyphosates, given that it was a known carcinogen.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, thanked Councillor Young for her comments, which would be taken into account as the items they related to were considered. 

The Head of Partnerships and Wellbeing submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member together with draft minute 509 of the Scrutiny Panel meeting of 27 February 2025.
 
Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy introduced the report and explained that endorsing the Place Partnership approach would enable the next phase of development work within the North East Essex and Wellbeing Alliance. The adoption of a Memorandum of Understanding would formalise the relationship and deepen the relationship between partners.  The data included in the report to Cabinet demonstrated the difference in quality of life and health across North East Essex and that there was a need to change approach.  An example of how a partnership approach could improve health outcomes was through the use of data from the Council on properties most at risk of damp and mould, mapped together with information on those with health issues, which would enable better targeting of home improvements to those most in need.

Rory Doyle, Associate Director, Integrated Strategic Partnerships, North East Essex Health and Wellbeing Alliance, was invited to respond to questions from Cabinet and stressed that a collaborative partnership approach would enable deep seated inequalities in health to be addressed. High level priorities had been set and the next stage would be to set indicators and measures of success. The Health and Wellbeing Board would have oversight of the work of the partnership. 

In discussion Cabinet members endorsed the partnership approach and welcomed the Memorandum of Understanding. This approach could drive improvements in Council services, such as the redevelopment of Leisure World.  However, the need for practical outcomes was stressed. The emphasis on prevention and early intervention would lead to more effective and less costly outcomes. The supportive recommendation from the Scrutiny Panel was also noted.

Pam Donnelly, Chief Executive, was invited to address Cabinet and emphasised the creative and courageous leadership that had brought these proposals forward. The value of this innovative work was being recognised at a national level. The Place Partnership approach and the Memorandum of Understanding demonstrated a level of maturity and confidence in relations between partners that would be difficult to unpick and would stand the test of local government reorganisation. 

RESOLVED that:-

(a) The Memorandum of Understanding between Colchester City Council and the Alliance be approved.    
 
(b) The Place Partnership Approach that would see a detailed Place Partnership Plan for Health and Wellbeing in Colchester developed with Alliance partners be endorsed.

(c) The supportive recommendation made by the Scrutiny Panel at its meeting on 27 February 2025 be noted.

REASONS

To formalise the relationship between Colchester City Council and its partners in the North East Essex Health and Wellbeing Alliance with whom the Council already worked closely.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

To carry on without a shared approach or framework for joint action and without a formal partnership agreement.

The Head of Health and Wellbeing submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member together with draft minute 510 of the Scrutiny Panel meeting of 27 February 2025.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, introduced the report and noted the links to the previous item.  Colchester was the only second tier authority in Essex without a local Health and Wellbeing Board. The Board would be a strategic partnership group that would oversee and monitor performance of activity to reduce inequalities and deliver better health and wellbeing outcomes.

Councillor Sommers, Portfolio Holder for Communities, Heritage and Public Protection, welcomed the creation of the Health and Wellbeing Board. Colchester was an outlier in not having such a Board. It would help improve health outcomes by driving the prevention agenda.

Cabinet welcomed the practical recommendations made by the Scrutiny Panel. The resourcing implications were addressed in the report before Cabinet and further resourcing would be considered further as the Board developed. The proposal that the Portfolio Holder reported on the work of the Health and Wellbeing Board to Scrutiny Panel on a regular basis was accepted.

RESOLVED that:-

(a) The creation of a local Health and Wellbeing Board for Colchester be approved.

(b) The resourcing implications of the Health and Wellbeing Board had been considered and were understood.

(c) The Portfolio Holder report to the Scrutiny Panel on the work of the Health and Wellbeing Board on a regular basis.

REASONS

Colchester was the only second-tier authority in Essex not to have a local Health and Wellbeing Board. 

Whilst work was happening at a North East Essex level, there was currently no strategic group meeting and overseeing, monitoring, or developing joint action to improve health and wellbeing outcomes for local people, groups and communities in Colchester. 

Establishing a local Health and Wellbeing Board for Colchester supported the Place Partnership Approach for health and wellbeing developed by the North East Essex Health and Wellbeing Alliance providing a link and alignment to wider system governance within the Integrated Care System and the Essex Health and Wellbeing Board

There was compelling evidence that focused joint action by partners across Colchester is required to address inequalities in health life expectancy that exist locally.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Not to establish a local Health and Wellbeing Board for Colchester, continue with current projects and activity but without the strategic coordination and oversight of a partnership group.   

The Head of Sustainability and Head of Neighbourhoods submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member together with draft minute 505 of the Scrutiny Panel meeting of 11 February 2025.

Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhoods and Leisure, introduced the report and explained that the proposals had been considered by the Scrutiny Panel, who had expressed their support. It was proposed to proceed with a Discovery Phase to assess the requirements for an in-house Grounds Maintenance Service, when the current contract ended in 2026.  This would bring the service in line with the way the service was delivered in Tendring and Braintree councils. It was anticipated that an in-house workforce would have more pride in the service and deliver a more effective service to the community. 

RESOLVED that:-

(a) To proceed with a Discovery Phase to assess the requirements for an in-house Grounds Maintenance Service when the current contract ends in 2026 

(b) The recommendation of APSE (Association of Public Excellence) and direction of travel to move towards a new Street Scene Service which would look to merge existing services of Greening, Street Care and Safety Services alongside an already established in-house Grounds Maintenance function in the future, be agreed in principle. 

(c) Further to the longer-term aspiration of (b) above and noting that given the changes Local Government Reorganisation was likely to bring, in the short-term focus should be on activities bringing the Grounds Maintenance Services In-House and alignment opportunities with near neighbouring authorities along with reducing duplication and maximising resources across existing Service areas. 

(d) The recommendation from the Scrutiny Panel meeting of 11 February 2025 be welcomed.

REASONS

A decision was required to ensure a transition and continuation of service delivery at the cessation of the current Grounds Maintenance contract in October 2026.

A decision was required to transform the services to meet the ambitions of the Council’s FFF programme as set out in the report by the Head of Sustainability and Head of Neighbourhoods. 

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Continue with the existing services and look to re-tender the Grounds Maintenance Contract externally in October 2026. APSE have concluded that this would lead to increased costs over and above the existing contract budget of circa 20%.  This would also lessen the Council’s flexibility for future service delivery models, efficiencies and change as part of LGR.

Alternative options had been explored and were set out in Appendix A to the Head of Sustainability and Head of Neighbourhood’s report: APSE Solutions Fit for the Future – Review of Colchester’s Environmental and Frontline Services.

The Head of Sustainability submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member together with draft minute 136 from the minutes of the meeting of the Environment and Sustainability Panel of 12 December 2024.

Councillor Harris attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet. He endorsed the proposal to explore bringing the grounds maintenance service in house.  A number of Berechurch residents had approached him about the proposal to reintroduce the use of glyphosates. There were particular concerns about its use in areas where children walked and played.  However, the impact on bees and other widely also needed to be considered. It was a carcinogen and was also linked to asthma and respiratory difficulties. It should not be used at all and the health of residents and animals should be prioritised. 

Councillor Goacher attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet. He also welcomed the proposals to bring grounds maintenance service inhouse and it was hoped that a combined waste and greening service would provide more resource to greening services.  Concern was expressed about a recent press statement which implied that the decision to return to use of glyphosates had already been taken. The previous decision to stop the use of glyphosates on health and environmental grounds had been a progressive decision that had been welcomed and noted nationally.  To reintroduce glyphosates, even in a limited way, was a retrograde step and would have an impact on perceptions of the Council. It posed a risk to users, as well as to residents and wildlife.  Once a decision was taken to reintroduce it, it would be difficult to limit its use in the way that was envisaged. There were other methods of dealing with weeds. 

Councillor Çufoglu attended and with the consent of the Chair addressed Cabinet and expressed his thanks to the Leader of the Council and the Portfolio for Planning, Environment and Sustainability for meeting him. The report to the Environment and Sustainability Panel concentrated on financial issues and did not consider the positive impacts of the ban on glyphosates on health and wildlife. The current version of the report had not been reviewed by the Environment and Sustainability Panel and although the Panel had suggested further engagement with the community, his attempts to do so had been ignored. The financial implications also needed to consider the cost of training guide dogs, who may be impacted by glyphosates. The cost of a glyphosate free Colchester was 23 pence per resident, which was 0.3 % of Council Tax income.  The ban on the use of glyphosates had been a ground breaking decision and was part of the proud legacy of that administration. Many residents and residents’ groups were concerned by the proposal to reintroduce their use. The report before Cabinet did not consider community collaboration, nor did it include views from ecologists or the Climate Officer. It should be referred back to officers. There appeared to be some confusion as to whether Litter Warriors duties included clearing weeds. It was disappointing that his suggestions had not been engaged with. 

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, thanked speakers for their comments. The report acknowledged the suggestions that had been put forward by Councillor Çufoglu. The proposals in the report were not a return to the previous practice but a very limited and targeted reintroduction.

Councillor Luxford Vaughan Portfolio for Planning, Environment and Sustainability, indicated that she had undertaken independent research and was concerned about staff safety and potential health risks to residents. Clarification was sought on when the current licence expired and whether there was any likelihood of a national ban on glyphosates. Consideration also needed to be given to the practice at Braintree and Tendring, in view of local government reorganisation. It was appreciated that the proposal was not for a complete reintroduction and that the service had moved forward with other solutions now in place. However, the circumstances in which it was proposed glyphosate would be used was not defined closely enough and the proposals needed further scrutiny.

Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhoods and Leisure, explained that glyphosates were still used across Colchester by Essex County Council on pavements and in gutters. They had no intention of changing their practice. The proposals in the report were for a very tightly controlled reintroduction in extremely limited circumstances.  There were places where it was too difficult to control weeds in any other way and there were examples of this leading to the closure of playgrounds. Glyphosate weedkillers were also commercially available and used by many residents. There was scientific research undertaken by the Cardiff City Council in conjunction with Cardiff University that demonstrated that glyphosates were the best solution for use on the highway. Notwithstanding that, he was happy for the issue to be looked at again by the Environment and Sustainability Panel but it was important that it did not get lost. Dealing with weeds was not the responsibility of the Litter Warriors, and this was not an issue that should be dealt with by a volunteer service. 

Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, Councillor Smith, Portfolio Holder for Housing and Councillor Sommers, Portfolio Holder for Communities, Heritage and Public Protection, all indicated that the proposals needed further work and clarification.   The report contained insufficient justification for the proposals and further consideration need to be given to a full set of alternatives. 

RESOLVED that the Greening Policy and the use of glyphosate-based products be referred back to the Environment and Sustainability Panel for further consideration, including detailed consideration of all alternative options and costs.

REASONS

Cabinet determined that the proposals in the report from the Head of Sustainability needed further consideration and justification and consideration needed to be given to all alternatives.  

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

To accept the recommendation in the report from the Head of Sustainability.

The Chief Executive, Colchester Borough Homes, submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

Councillor Smith, Portfolio Holder for Housing, introduced the report and explained the difficult position the Council was facing in respect of housing issues. This was driven by a number of national issues, such as the level of house prices, which increased the pressure on the rental market, However, the failure to end no fault evictions led to increased homelessness, which led in turn to the increased use of bed and breakfast accommodation. The only solution was to build more affordable housing for rent. However this was difficult as in the current market, it cost more to finance the building of new homes than could be recouped through rent. Whilst moves had been made to limit right to buy this had led to an increase in applications and the Council currently had 80 applications. Proposals would be submitted to Cabinet in due course seeking to ensure that receipts received from right to buy were used for the repurchase of properties sold under the scheme. The work of officers was commended, particularly in respect of the innovative Beyond the Box scheme, which used surplus university accommodation for temporary housing, and provided residents with better accommodation and better access to services. 

In discussion, Cabinet members sought clarification on what lobbying had been undertaken on the failure to increase the local housing allowance, the immediate ending of no-fault evictions and a moratorium on right to buy.  The vulnerable nature of many residents in temporary accommodation was also stressed and the impact on local communities of low-quality temporary accommodation was also highlighted. 

Philip Sullivan, Chief Executive, Colchester Borough Homes, was invited to respond to Cabinet and explained that there had been no uplift to the Local Housing Allowance since 2011. Along with several other authorities, Colchester had lobbied on this in December and as a consequence the Public Accounts Committee had highlighted the issue in its report in January and made recommendations to the Department of Work and Pensions that it justify the level of Local Housing Allowance. In terms of no-fault evictions, the Renters Reform Bill, which would abolish section 21 evictions, was at an advanced stage in the House of Lords. On Right to Buy, some reforms had been introduced to limit the scope and consultation on further proposals was awaited. 

Cabinet expressed its thanks for such a detailed and clear report. 

RESOLVED that the contents of the report be noted.

REASONS

The report provided a n update on topical housing issues and did not require a formal decision.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

No alternative options were presented to Cabinet. 

The Chief Operating Officer submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

Councillor Smith, Portfolio Holder for Housing, introduced the report. The proposal to delegate authority for the award of HRA contracts would ensure contracts were let in a timely way and would reduce the workload on Cabinet. It was also highlighted that the HRA review was looking at how maintenance costs could be reduced to make more funding available for the provision of more housing.

RESOLVED that authority for the award of the contracts for works within the Housing Investment Programme 2025/26 be delegated to the Portfolio Holder for Housing.

REASONS

Within the Housing Revenue Account (HRA), the Council owns 6,000 affordable homes, benefitting people in need of social housing. The housing stock is managed through an Arm’s Length Management Organisation (ALMO), Colchester Borough Homes (CBH) and each year a number of maintenance contracts are managed within an agreed Housing Investment Programme. This keeps these homes in a suitable condition, as part of an ongoing planned approach set from the HRA Asset Management Strategy and 30-year HRA Business Plan.

Contracts that are due to expire over the next year, require new contracts to be procured and awarded for the Housing Investment Programme in 2025/26. These are contracts that are likely to require Cabinet approval due to estimated costs (over £500k for the scope of the contracts, over multiple years) and borough-wide span.   
 
The decision to delegate powers to the Portfolio Holder for Housing to approve the award of these contracts, as they arise, will make those awards smoother and faster if they arise between Cabinet meetings scheduled for the next year, or during the pre-election period. This avoids delays in the delivery of improvements for tenants. A similar decision was taken in the last five years (2020 to 2024) and has demonstrated the success and benefit of this approach in past contract awards.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Not to delegate the powers requested; but this would then need contracts to be individually reported to Cabinet for each contract award increasing the time and resourcing required, for a procurement process that is already heavily scrutinised and regulated. This would delay the start of contracts, and therefore the improvements to homes for tenants, whilst waiting for a Cabinet meeting to arise. The time/benefit balance would therefore suggest that delegation to the Portfolio Holder would be more effective and efficient use of Council resources, without introducing risks; demonstrated by recent practices. The Portfolio Holder decisions would remain available for call-in should individual concerns arise. 

The Head of Governance submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

RESOLVED that following the completion of the procurement process, the contract for the provision of Internal Audit services be awarded to TIAA Ltd with effect from 01 April 2025, for a period of three years with an option to extend for a further two years.

REASONS

The Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015 require that ‘a relevant body shall maintain an adequate and effective system of internal audit of its accounting records and of its system of internal control in accordance with proper internal audit practices’.  
Following the procurement process, using the Crown Commercial Services Framework Agreement RM6188 - Audit & Assurance Services, TIAA Ltd is considered to be the most appropriate supplier.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Alternative options of in-house provision of the service and sharing the service with other authorities were considered prior to the commencement of the competition process. However, neither option was able to provide the same value as an external supplier.

The Chief Operating Officer submitted a report a copy of which had been circulated to each Member together with draft minute 506 of the Scrutiny Panel meeting of 11 February 2025.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, introduced the report. KPIs were an important tool for both Councillors and Senior Management for monitoring service delivery.  The proposed KPIs covered areas of real relevance and importance to residents, such as council tax collection rates and refuse and recycling collections.  Collectively the Council’s performance against KPIs showed that the Council was able to deliver quality services, despite the financial difficulties it faced. 

Cabinet welcomed the helpful recommendation and rigorous discussion at Scrutiny Panel on 11 February 2024. It was also cognisant of the helpful work of Governance and Audit Committee in monitoring performance. Cabinet requested that the Chairs of Scrutiny Panel and Governance and Audit Committee be thanked for their helpful and constructive work. 

RESOLVED that: 

(a) The Corporate Key Performance Indicator Targets for 2025-2026 be set as proposed in the Chief Operating Officer’s report.

(b) The Chairs of Scrutiny Panel and Governance and Audit Committee be thanked for their helpful and constructive work 

REASONS

To ensure there is a robust corporate performance monitoring framework.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

To consider and approve alternative KPI targets.

The Democratic Services Manager submitted a progress sheet a copy of which had been circulated to each Member.

RESOLVED that the contents of the Progress Sheet be noted.

REASONS

The progress sheet was a mechanism by which the Cabinet could ensure that public statements and questions were responded to appropriately and promptly. 
 
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

No alternative options were presented to the Cabinet. 

RESOLVED that the not for publication extract from the minutes of the meeting held on 29 January 2025 be confirmed as a correct record.