Meeting Details

Amended minutes were presented for the meetings held on 9 July 2024 and 8 October 2024, in addition to the minutes of the meeting held on 12 November 2024.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meetings held on 9 July 2024, 8 October 2024, and 12 November 2024 be approved as a correct record.

Ms Caroline White addressed the Panel, pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rule 5(1), to raise questions regarding the ongoing Local Plan review, and whether the Scrutiny Panel would be involved in this. Ms White claimed that the initial Local Plan process had not received proper ecological evidence regarding Middlewick, and alleged that the National Planning Policy Framework requirements had not been met. Ms White pressed for a full evidence base to be supplied to councillors, covering the biodiversity of the site, claiming that the Council continued to rely on previous report produced by Stantec. The Scrutiny Panel was asked to investigate how the Local Plan could be seen as being sound, should Middlewick remain in the Local Plan following its review, and the process of undertaking the Local Plan review.

The Chairman explained that Scrutiny Panel could not interfere in the Local Plan review process, which was being conducted by the Local Plan Committee, and which would then go to Full Council for decision, giving members of the public an opportunity to have input into the process. It was noted that surveys deemed necessary would be commissioned at the appropriate times, and all evidence found would be shared with the public, and organisations such as Natural England.

Councillor David King, Leader of the Council, gave a presentation on work within his remit, and on areas of focus. Councillor King praised the importance of scrutiny, and reminded the Panel of the priorities set for the Council, as shown in the Strategic Plan priorities. The delivery of homes and housing was named as being one of the top priorities for the Administration, due to its impact on so many people, and with so many people being affected by its lack. The Council was making progress against the majority of priorities and performance indicators, mostly exceeding or close to achieving expected outcomes.

The Leader of the Council outlined the ‘Fit for the Future’ programme, and the wider changing environment within which local government functioned. The Council remained healthy, but had experienced its own challenges. The Council had an obligation to focus on its priorities, efficiency and effectiveness.

The Panel was given information on the Council’s organisational health, including its wholly owned companies. The organisation was described as being in good shape, but being very stretched. Strain and concern were being seen on the relatively small leadership team of the Council. Different pressures were experienced, in trying to meet the needs of elected members and the workforce. The Leader suggested that there might be ways that could be found to streamline decision making, and lessen the load of committee work and report provision, which would positively affect the workloads of councillors and staff.

The Council was described as having made good progress on balancing its books. All areas of the Council were being examined as to where savings could be made. The effects of high inflation and other shocks were underlined. The effects of funding for the Town Deal, and from the Levelling Up Fund, were covered, making Colchester more attractive to business investors, and helping the Council to address issues with disparities in quality of life and opportunities for people in areas such as Greenstead. The coming years would see the effects of these investments. The Council’s partnership working with others was given as a strength, including with the County Council, where the relationship was much closer than it had been previously.

The Heart of Greenstead project and its expected outcomes were outlined, covering new housing, improved quality of life, better life chances for residents and support for the local economy. Current inequalities were responsible for a 15-year difference in average life expectancy, compared to other parts of the city, and was a generational challenge to deal with. These would involve some structural changes, including the move from the ‘One Colchester Partnership’, to be replaced by a Health and Wellbeing Board, in line with such boards in other districts.

The Leader provided a self-assessment, arguing that he was able to have an effect on the Council’s partnerships, representation and leadership, amongst other areas. The Leader raised his concerns about the Council’s organisational health and ability to deliver and improve.

The current state of local government reorganisation was described, as being led in Essex by the County Council. The process was described as awkward, with a white paper expected at some point by January. Devolution was also described, involving the introduction of more elected mayors. The dissolution of district councils, and replacement by unitary councils, was an expected element of this, with Essex being served by four or more unitary councils.

The Panel discussed the effects of local government reorganisation on the Council, with concern raised about the stress that this would already be having on staff. It was also noted that neighbouring local authorities provided services in different ways, and the Leader was asked if he was making any specific views as to which neighbours the Council should or would be partnered with, should reorganisation go ahead. The Leader informed the Panel that there had been mention of the possibility of joining with Tendring and Braintree District Councils, and agreed that there were some differences in how each operated.

The Leader was asked what vehicles and partnerships were already in place, with regard to making efforts to alleviate poverty. The Leader highlighted the connection between housing and access to health and employment. Efforts for inclusion and engagement had been made over time. The University was doing work on training, inclusion and aspirations. The Integrated Care Board and Health Alliance were mentioned as partners.

A concern was raised as to whether the Council could cope with infrastructure projects, such as Moot Hall repairs, Middle Mill Weir and Fieldgate Quay, with questions as to why the Council did not have the capacity to do such work much more quickly. The Leader agreed that there were often delays, where attempts had to be made to get different partners to work together, such as on the Hythe Taskforce. Capacity in the Council was an issue, as well as complexity of the challenges in the examples given. The Council now operated a corporate landlord model, giving better prospects, and making it easier to operate. Structure had been improved, but capacity was still an issue, with a large workload on staff, and specialist expertise often needed. 

The Leader was asked what was preventing him from setting housing provision as the Council’s highest priority, and what more he would like to see done in that area. The Leader praised the Portfolio Holder for Housing, and the officer team that worked on housing, including the provision of temporary housing options. Challenges included action or diktat by central government on matters such as rent restrictions. Efforts were being made to tackle the crisis, including the ‘Beyond the Box’ project to repurpose former accommodation for students, into additional temporary accommodation.

The Leader was asked if the Council’s accounts were ready to be signed off by its auditors. The Leader explained that the Council’s officers had prepared its accounts, but there was a national shortage of local government audit experience, and this had meant that the outgoing external audit partner had not completed audits for the Council. The approach of central government to address the issues caused by lack of audit capacity meant that, like many other councils, the Council would not have accounts fully signed off by auditors for several years. Disclaimed accounts would therefore be shown, with the Leader stressing confidence in the Council’s Finance Team, and its own audit processes.

The Leader was asked about previous conversations at Scrutiny Panel about local skills, involving a member of University of Essex’s academic staff, about the potential ways in which the University could assist with the work to improve the Colchester Economy, and was asked why the University couldn’t be worked with more closely on delivery of economic growth, and if any further developments had been made. The Leader was asked if he would approach the University to seek greater partnership. Councillor Jay, Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and, Transformation, confirmed that she had approached the University after the meeting to which the Panel referred, explaining that there had been some issues raised with data sharing. The Portfolio Holder committed to following up on this with Karen Turnbull, Economic Strategy Specialist, to ascertain how things had progressed.

The Leader gave an overview of the work on economic development, including the economic assessment compiled for the area, which was drawn from many sources and opinions, and was currently being refreshed. The Leader gave assurance that the Council would continue to work to its priorities, even whilst local government reorganisation was worked upon. There would be a transition period in any restructuring.

A Panel member asked about the Health and Wellbeing Board, and how it might assist the Council in working more effectively and to benchmark progress against targets, and in comparison to other districts, and to broaden the range of partners with which the Council worked. The Leader gave his expectation that the Council would follow the best patterns found from other authorities, including the County Council in shaping them, and finding the right partners. The Heart of Greenstead project was an example of work to address the wider health and wellbeing determinants and influences, and to take steps that could be taken. These included a wide range of issues, such as crime and fear of crime.

Following up, the Leader was asked if there was scope to increase joint funding bids with partners who could assist and broaden the project work possibilities. The Leader stated that the Government had cautioned that there would be fewer funding pots in the future, but was seeming to be advocating partnership bidding, in comparison to the past system based on bidding in competition with others. Outcomes were more likely to be well focused, and delivery prospects improved.

Questions were asked about the Heart of Greenstead Project, with concern raised by a Panel member that the project seemed to be all about inputs which had been scoped by the management board. A view was given that more information was needed as to where the work was expected to take the project, and the metrics to be used to judge success and progress. Mapping of outputs had previously been stated as being premature, when the Panel had conducted questioning on the project previously, but the Panel member argued that this would not be premature, and asked if a summary could be produced to detail when it was expected that the indices of multiple deprivation in Greenstead could be expected to start reducing, and predictions as to how they would be reduced over the coming decade. The Leader was asked if there were any ways in which members could see how the metrics were expected to change, or if that would be too difficult at this time.

The Leader highlighted the aims to which Heart of Greenstead was working, and informed the Panel that a number of reports covering aspects of the Project were due to come to Scrutiny Panel and Cabinet for consideration in the future. The Leader accepted the challenge set, and gave assurance that he would take it away for consideration, agreeing that it was important to set tests and measures to gauge progress. Questions arose as to who led on this and how to do it.

The Panel noted what had been said by the Leader, and the Chairman welcomed the Leader’s continuing work in an ambassadorial role for the Council within wider local government.

Councillor Jay, Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Transformation, provided a briefing on work within her portfolio. This included an overview of overall organisation transformation, but mindful that the individual budgets and programs were overseen by the portfolio holders for the relevant services. 

The Fit for the Future programme was covered, having been in operation since April of that year, and being a three-year programme working towards efficiency and savings, with progress varying between the different service areas. A project management plan oversaw savings accrued to date, and detailing RAG [Red/Amber/Green] statuses for risks and actions. Risk of interdependencies were also monitored. There would be a update for the Budget Group on 17 December 2024, and the programme would return to Scrutiny Panel for future consideration.

Major work strands included assets, the HRA [Housing Revenue Account] review, shared services partnerships, running services within budget, adapting services to meet changing community needs, seeking income and investing to ensure efficiency.

The Transformation Board had been met regularly since March 2024, overseeing project delivery in line with targets and managing risks and issues. Cabinet had oversight of this, and there was separate oversight for certain projects by partners such as the North Essex Councils. A delivery team had been set up by the Council to support activities, drawing on officers where possible, and seeking external skills where necessary.

Cabinet approved the Future Workforce Plan in February 2023, to ensure resources and skills needed. The strands of this included ‘skills for the future’, digital skills, an apprenticeship programme. Examples were given. A change leadership programme sought to develop managers to lead change and develop long term service plans. A review of wellbeing champions was being carried out, and a refocus of strategy to improve staff resilience. Shared Services with Braintree and Epping Forest District Councils delivered on the vision for shared back-office functions. HR shared service was aimed to be achieved in April 2025, whilst finance and benefits strands were well underway and the discovery phase complete.

The Council’s key performance indicators [KPIs] had recently been updated by the Senior Leadership Team, and were coordinated by the Project Management Team. More external benchmarking options were being considered. Trend analysis was being sought. Improved reporting on targets for performance had been agreed and would be in place for 2025-26. 

The Portfolio Holder now received a quarterly briefing, which included project risks, and annual information would come to Scrutiny Panel in January [2025]. Sessions were being set with an external organisation, to lay out the risk appetite of the Council. A workshop would be held on 27 January for Cabinet members, Group Leaders, and the Chair of Governance and Audit Committee, which would look at risk concerns and take a survey of views. All elected members would then be given a briefing to set out information on risk areas, and the Council’s risk appetite.

In the area of communicating with Council customers, the recent briefing from the Marketing and Research Team had covered much of this, so the Portfolio Holder gave a brief update on the Resident Panel, having attended recently. The Leader of the Council and Pam Donnelly, Chief Executive, had taken part in the Panel, to show the commitment to transparency and listening to residents. An officer had been dedicated to the Panel for the past 12 months, with 360 residents signed up as members, and 111 having attended meetings or workshops in the past 12 months. The promotion of the Panel was described, with a video made to help councillors promote it also. The make-up of the Panel was described, with some bias towards older residents from the City.

A digital-first approach was in use by the Council, but alternatives were provided for residents who were not digitally able. The Communications Team worked with Heads of Service and project leads to ensure the communication of feedback.

The Residents’ Youth Panel first met in November 2024, for people in Years 10 and 11 and further education, aged 16-19. The Residents’ Reading Panel was also launched, to gain views on the Council’s written communications and digital materials. 30 residents were signed up to this Panel.

Some of the past year’s consultations were outlined for the Panel. The Council’s Research Team’s work was described, to focus on data-driven decision making and communications. Member consultation work was described, alongside the Member Development Programme, with 24 briefing and training sessions held for councillors. Four councillors had taken up options to gain external training and courses such as the one on mental health resilience and on financial reporting requirements had been taken up.

The work of the Economic Development Team, and the Economic Development Strategy were outlined, with a new strategy being drafted to start in 2025. There were many changes afoot, such as changes by Central Government to Business Rates, National Insurance, industrial strategy and prosperity funding. The strengths and opportunities of the Colchester economy were touched upon, including creative and defence industries. The Portfolio Holder described the work she had done to participate in regional events and sessions on industrial and economic development. There was consensus that digital and transport infrastructure was needed to support strategies for skills development. The North Essex Economic Board was operating a direct business support programme and a programme to support young entrepreneurs. 75 businesses had been supported in Colchester, and seven new jobs created.

Funding and investment towards rural businesses were outlined. The Council had received over £500k in funding allocation up to March 2025, and had spent £486,834 of this. The remaining money was being offered to Parish Councils for project works.

The Council continued to operate as the accountable body for Colchester’s Town Deal and Levelling Up Fund [LUF] programmes, delivering around £40m of government investment and regeneration schemes. A new masterplan had been adopted for the city centre, alongside Essex County Council [ECC]. The Leader and Council officers met regularly with the leader of ECC. The Council’s partnerships on economic growth and development were listed.

Skills and employment projects had been funded by the Council, to improve learning and skills. A list of skill areas was given, including skills relating to construction, rural and environmental matters. New skills and training centres had been set up, including at the Wilson Marriage Centre and Colchester Institute.

Community wealth building was touched upon, with the Financial Equality Service Team offering support to maximise residents’ income and employment prospects, and a local council tax support scheme continuing to operate. Support has included the help to qualify for pension credits, and therefore for Winter Fuel payments, for 80 pensioners.

Promotion of tourism had included a new version of the destination website. Users now spend longer on the site and interact more with it. Traffic being then directed to business and event pages had increased by 74%. Visit Colchester had been redesigned and modernised. Printed materials had been updated, and the incentive scheme for coach tourism had been continued.

The Council’s cultural and events fund was supporting over 20 events, including Colchester Fringe, Roman River Festival, Colchester Pride and the Essex Book Festival. The Events Company promoted a wide range of events and programmes.

The digital agenda of the Council sought a comprehensive approach to digital customers, working with Epping Forest District Council. Regular portfolio holder updates were provided on the ongoing work. The team carrying out this work was being assessed in order to maintain their accreditation for excellence in customer service, and their KPI performance figures were all well above target. Work had begun to identify future customers’ needs and how to address them. The discovery phase of a review into this had been completed. The next steps in this review were then outlined.

Work to improve online services and communications by the Council was well underway. The current platform for the Council’s website was being changed, moving to an open source and easy-to-implement platform, used by local government organisations. Good signposting and easy access for elected members was set as a priority, to help elected members manage their work. Security was also being prioritised. ICT inductions for elected members would be improved, to be trialled from early 2025, and refresher training held throughout the year.

The Portfolio Holder was asked what she was most proud of having done within her portfolio. She highlighted the improvements made in data presentation, and the digital transformation for customers and councillors.

The Portfolio Holder was asked if she would be open to the recommendation to involve the University of Essex with the Heart of Greenstead project. The Portfolio Holder related that there were poverty indicators there, and officers had discussed these, including expected lifespans, access to education and other matters. The University was already involved with the Heart of Greenstead project, but the Portfolio Holder was happy to seek to have them more involved in the KPIs. The Panel considered wording for a potential recommendation on this, with one Panel member arguing that any recommendation should be wider than just to involve University involvement with the Heart of Greenstead project, as they were already involved with that scheme. Another view given was that it would make sense to involve the University on economic development work in a more general sense, to augment the Council’s limited capacity, and to increase learning opportunities for those engaged in related further education studies.

The Panel asked for an explanation of a recent situation where an events company had entered into an agreement to run an Irish-themed pop-up bar on Council land, but had been denied a license to do this by a sub committee of the Council’s Licensing Committee. The Portfolio Holder explained that matters relating to events and the Council events company were usually handled by Councillor Goss, as Portfolio Holder covering leisure matters. The Leader of the Council ventured that this matter might have been mishandled in terms of the event proposal and location. The Council was learning from this, and one learning point was for the Council’s leadership to keep a forward watch on the events company’s programme, to ensure that quality and standard were kept at a high level.

The Panel considered the work of the Residents’ Panel, with one member noting that just around a third of the 360 membership had actually attended a Panel meeting or session in person. The Portfolio Holder was asked if there were options for meetings to be held online or in hybrid format, to help people attend, and whether in-person meetings might be held in locations across the Council’s area, rather than just the City centre. The Portfolio Holder confirmed that meetings were in hybrid format and could be attended remotely, and were held at different times in order to make it possible for different people to attend. Options for different venues had been examined, but these all had significant cost implications. The Council was however continuing to look at how it catered to customers who were not in the City centre.

A Panel member asked what costs were associated with running a Residents’ Panel and Youth Panel. The Portfolio Holder explained that the costs involved mainly related to officer time spent on this engagement work, and negligible costs to provide tea and biscuits. Meetings were held at the Town Hall, to minimise costs. The Portfolio Holder pledged to seek information on costs, and clarified that these bodies did not make decisions, but consultative in nature, seeking engagement and youth views.

In answer to questions, it was explained that the Residents’ Reading Panel was a body that examined the Council’s written materials and offered views and advise in order to improve the readability of content produced to communicate with the public. The Council had used this advice to redesign various communications.

The Panel discussed the options for residents to use in responding to consultations, with the Portfolio Holder confirming that residents could call the Council’s contact centre to give responses, if they were not digitally excluded. The Portfolio Holder was asked how digitally excluded residents would have heard about the consultations, and pledged to get more information on this, saying that she knew that newspapers, word of mouth, and in-person advertising, such as leafleting at Colchester market and the library (when this was open) were ways used. Details were also provided to elected members, for them to circulate to ward residents.

Praise came from the Panel as to improvements made in showing and circulating performance information, including on marketing, engagement and communications. The Portfolio Holder was asked what the challenges were as to how the ongoing projects and developments in Colchester were communicated to residents, especially those who are worried about changes. The Portfolio Holder paid tribute to the members’ briefing updates which were produced, and to the work of the Council’s social media team, who communicated and dealt with many things, including controversial issues. Physical communications were prohibitively expensive for the Council, but the communications materials could be used to provide information to residents in person via conversations, including by elected members.

In response to accusations from a Panel member that the social media team had been overly political by defending the Council’s decision to display the Palestinian Flag on the Town Hall, the Leader acknowledged the concern raised, whilst not necessarily agreeing with it. The Leader gave assurance that the Social Media Team had been using the statement which had been produced by the Council, which had been worded to be as measured as possible. Members were encouraged to inform the Leader if they had concerns about any messaging.

Questions came from the Panel regarding the Strategic Plan priority to seek economic development which benefited all residents, querying how this might be possible and asking if it was a reasonable strategic objective. The Portfolio Holder committed to this priority, drawing on partnership working with regional partners, and work seeking to also support people moving to Colchester in order to work, and those living here but working in London. The priority covered transport and digital infrastructure and other matters which affected everyone. The Portfolio Holder was asked if she thought there should be better targeting of efforts as to where the economic growth would occur in the City, to help those who most needed it. The Portfolio Holder agreed to consider this, but noted the work conducted in linkage with government industrial strategy, aimed at certain sectors, and how sector specific work would benefit all residents over time.

The Portfolio Holder was asked how the success of development project was measured, and how the return on investment could be calculated. The Portfolio Holder explained that there was data on trackable investments, citing data from 2022-25 which showed that there had been £403m in trackable investments brought in, via a wide variety of sources and to a wide variety of recipients. There was no way to link impacts to investments at this time. A Panel member noted that the examples given were not projects for which the Council was responsible, and pushed for information on Council projects. The Leader pointed out that many investments into Colchester required engagement with the City Council, and that some decisions were made following that engagement. Private sector investment had sometimes followed contact with the City Council, with investors seeking information about the area in which their investment might be made. The Council had an influence, and should track investment effects where possible, however returns were sometimes social or environmental, or in other areas where return on investment was hard to accurately show.

Lucie Breadman, Strategic Director, highlighted the Council’s investment into the local arts organisations which it supported. Those organisations attended to give Scrutiny Panel a regular update on the effects of the funding given. It was confirmed that this was discretionary funding provided by the Council.

The Portfolio Holder was asked what progress had been made towards increasing the average wage of local residents, but responded to say that she was not able to give information on this, and had not seen data on this thus far, but would seek information on this part of the Strategic Plan delivery. On questions regarding the skills gap, and data showing that Colchester was behind the Essex and national averages for percentages of populations trained to NVQ level four or higher, the Portfolio Holder explained that officers had briefed her that there were no official mechanisms for them to obtain data on this, so she was unable to offer an answer. A commitment was made to follow up on this with officers.

RECOMMENDATION to CABINET that Cabinet: -

a) Requests the involvement of the University of Essex in assessing local economic data, and its relevance to the future growth of the City of Colchester, to augment the work done by the Council’s Economic Development Team

b) Identifies how the skill base in the local area has improved over the past year, and what progress is being made towards a high-wage economy, and to encourage large employers to locate to Colchester, to boost the local economy

Councillor Jay, Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Transformation, noted that, of the 20 Key Performance Indicators [KPIs] under the five themes, ten were ‘green’, four were ‘amber’, whilst four were ‘red’. Trend comparisons had been requested, and there was some confusion as to whether cumulative figures given were for ‘year to date’ or were rolling figures. The Portfolio Holder had requested rolling 12-month figures, to give a better idea of trends, including on matters such as fly tipping. 

Performance to the KPI target on fly tipping was highlighted as a dramatic figure, missing the target. The Portfolio Holder pointed out that the Council conducted around 330,000 collections, and that fly tipping only formed one percent of the amount collected. The fly tipping figures did not include litter from litter picks, but had increased. Green waste formed only 0.98% of the total fly tipping amount, so the increase in total fly tipping was not due to changes in green waste collection. 84% of fly tipping came from ten wards, with Greenstead and Castle accounting for 20% of the total, followed by Old Heath, Berechurch, New Town and Christ Church, and Highwoods all at around three percent to four percent. The increase of 300 fly tips over seventeen wards worked out at around 1.6 extra fly tipping incidents per week. Work is underway to explain the increase. Some of this could be down to tenancy turnovers, and possibly small businesses now dumping rubbish following the Council tip moving to an appointment system for disposals. It appeared that some people took multiple bookings, which led to booking far into the future. Hotspots had been given CCTV coverage, which appeared to reduce the number of incidents. Wardens examined fly tipped materials to attempt to identify malefactors. 

A Panel member urged consideration of fly tipping not just in raw numbers, but in the impact to residents and the costs caused to the City Council and private businesses and residents. A Panel member posited that there had been recent budgetary pressures on the Neighbourhood Services Team, and that this seemed to mean that the Council was under resourced for enforcement activity. It was suggested that it might be beneficial for the Panel to receive a more detailed report on what had happened, why it had happened, and what could be done to remedy the situation.

The Portfolio Holder underlined that she had put questions to Rosa Tanfield, Head of Neighbourhood Services, on fly tipping, and asked about rolling data compared to year end, looking at the last three to five years of data. The Portfolio Holder committed to providing to the Scrutiny Panel the further information she receives. A Panel member noted parish council action to identify fly tipping, but pointed out that parish councils had no enforcement powers. A recommendation was considered as to whether to recommend that Cabinet consider delegating powers to parish councils to allow them to conduct enforcement action on fly tipping.

The Portfolio Holder provided an update on corporate sickness, informing the Panel that the figure was not improving. This had been running at 8.72 against 7.34 at year end. The rate was now up to 8.88. Rates had jumped in the past months, and seemed to be driven by increased sickness in services undergoing organisational restructuring. There were now indicators that the sickness level was now levelling off, and the new occupational health provider is making an impact in supporting returns to work. Benchmarking with similar councils had been requested. The Chairman suggested that this situation might be evidence of the current strain on the organisation and officers.

A Panel member welcomed the separate reporting of sickness figures for waste services and corporate service, but voiced concern that both were not meeting target. The Portfolio Holder confirmed that the occupational health provider worked with both waste and corporate services. The Portfolio Holder explained that her seeking of benchmarking was partly driven to see if the targets set on this were reasonable.

The number of households in temporary accommodation. At year end this had been 3.85, and was now 4.73 [households in temporary accommodation per 1,000 households]. There had been 440 individuals presenting in homeless in the second quarter, with the figure currently at 420. Elfreda House was now open and being occupied, helping to release some three and four bedroom properties. 28 new properties were now available on Military Road and the ‘Beyond the Box’ project to use former student accommodation was providing further accommodation. The time to relet performance was in the lower quartile in benchmarking. The KPI target for repairs remained below target, and the Portfolio Holder for Housing was pressing on this for appropriate action. There was an improvement in customer satisfaction performance recorded.

A Panel member conceded that monitoring of temporary accommodation usage was necessary, but ventured that performance in this area was largely out of the Council’s control, citing causes such as the increase in homelessness caused by previous governments’ budget decisions, and landlords who had sold up their properties as a result, with some providers of social housing then wary of increasing their stock to accommodate more tenants. The Portfolio Holder stressed the importance of comparing the Council’s performance with others, and to ensure that all possible action was being taken. A Panel member voiced interest in knowing how many households that were placed in temporary accommodation were able to remain housed in Colchester, rather than outside the area, given the effects that relocation had on costs to residents, and difficulties in getting to work and schools.

The Portfolio Holder was asked how KPIs were decided. Whilst the targets should stretch officers to achieve improvements, a Panel member emphasised that they should not be so difficult to achieve that they harm officer morale. The Portfolio Holder explained that the KPIs and targets were set by the Senior Leadership Team, relating to strategic objectives. The Strategic Director explained that some were national targets to which the Council must adhere. Services often suggested to Senior Leadership Board what their KPIs should be. The Board agreed that targets should be stretching, but not unachievable. There was often a fine line between red, amber and green performance ratings. A KPI might be in the red, and not meeting target, whilst still achieving performance that compared well against other councils’ performance data. The commentary and explanations for performance were important. The Leader added that demanding targets could require more resources to be allocated. The performance against housing KPIs was covered, alongside the cost implications of investment, and the effect on customer satisfaction of choices regarding the allocation of resources to different services. The Council aimed for median or upper quartile performance on each KPI.

A Panel member stated that the Council had a target of 329 extra homes for vulnerable residents by 2026, saying that 79 had been built thus far, and asking how many were expected to be delivered in 2025. The Portfolio Holder clarified that 271 had been delivered by year end [of 2024], and promised to follow up on this to get more information.

RECOMMENDATION to CABINET that Cabinet considers whether to make available to Parish Councils the tools and enforcement powers needed in order for them to conduct enforcement actions relating to fly-tipping

Richard Clifford, Democratic Services Manage, informed the Panel that it was proposed to move the briefing by the Portfolio Holder for Communities, Heritage and Public Protection, to take place on 28 January 2025 rather than 11 February 2025.

The Chairman explained that, if the matter was at the right stage, a report should come to Scrutiny Panel on Middle Mill Weir, for consideration before Cabinet considered the matter. The Panel was asked if it wished to have a second meeting scheduled in February to allow for this, and some of the items currently scheduled for 11 February’s meeting. Scrutiny Panel agreed to this suggestion, to aid good decision making.

RESOLVED that the work programme be approved, subject to the moving of the briefing by the Portfolio Holder for Communities, Heritage and Public Protection to the meeting on 28 January 2025, and the seeking of an additional meeting in February 2025, in order to reduce the number of items for consideration at the meeting scheduled for 11 February 2025