Meeting Details

Councillor Martin Goss, Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhood Services and Leisure, explained the background work which had led to the consideration of the future grounds maintenance service. The current contract with idverde would end in October 2026 and, having been extended previously, could not be extended again. Following an external review by the Association for Public Service Excellence [APSE], the report proposed an eight-month discovery phase which would consider a detailed business case linked to bringing the service in-house. Consideration of the impacts of Local Government Reorganization [LGR] would be included in this work, but the Council had to act before October 2026. If a retendering were to be carried out, the price would increase by more than 20% given the cost of inflation and price increases since the contract started.  There were options to join Braintree and Tendring in having an in-house service.  A £1m saving was necessary.

Rosa Tanfield, Head of Neighbourhood Services, presented a slideshow to the Panel, showing the £1m savings target over the programme term, required by the Fit for the Future project [FFF]. Smarter collaboration with others was being explored. The background work to investigate options was explained, from the 2021 review of options, in which the Policy Panel had participated.

Mel Rundle, Head of Sustainability, laid out the main five options considered. The Association for Public Service Excellence [APSE] proposed an in-house grounds maintenance and street scene model. A phased approach meant that the Council could be adaptable. The stages of the discovery phase were laid out, including partners in LGR to examine service harmonisation options. 

The Portfolio Holder was asked why the hospital was outsourcing its grounds maintenance when the Council was looking to bring its service back in-house. The Portfolio Holder stated that the idverde contract was set at £1.9m. The hospital had only outsourced its cleaning, not grounds maintenance (which had been brought in-house). The bringing in-house of its grounds maintenance had seen savings made, an improvement in service, litter picking and grounds care.

The idverde contract had set terms and standards regarding what the company would do. An in-house service would pivot more quickly to address emergencies or changes in priorities. Complaints had been raised about the company, and the Portfolio Holder had needed to raise issues with the company management. Better standards could be set for an in-house service. Contractors might bid cheap, but habitually levied high charges in the event of any contract variations which often became necessary.

A Panel member queried what was being asked of the Panel, positing that the decision appeared to be being taken for political reasons and that the Panel would need to look more widely at the matter. Although it was acknowledged that the necessary information had been provided in the report, the Panel member stated that this had not been tied together to show how assumptions had led to the decision proposed. This included how costs of options compared to each other, and the report showing that outsourcing was the cheapest option. The view was given that the prioritisation of a flexible service, and the reduction in cost and scope of service, were political decisions. Officers were asked about the option for a Local Authority Trading Company (LATCo) and what the Council’s Amphora companies would do, if asked to run the service under a service level agreement [SLA]. The content on this was described as ‘vague’ by one Panel member. Darrin Mellor, of APSE, explained that the costings had been based on operating costs. Outsourcing costs included increases in management and indirect costs, such as the cost of monitoring performance, and extra work charges on top of tendered costs. The LATCo content and projections were based on data from other local authorities, not from Amphora.

A Panel member noted the projection that there would be a 30% additional cost for having Council staff conduct work, rather than outsourced staffing, and suggested that the Council’s Amphora companies were not constrained by a requirement to employ Council staff. It was requested that Amphora produce a rough estimate as to whether it could manage this service at the same current cost levels as idverde, whilst giving flexibilities to meet emergencies and new requirements. It was asked whether Cabinet should be given the costed option for this before it made its decision.

The Portfolio Holder noted that the Panel’s work included the ability to suggest alternative options to Cabinet, but stated that he could not imagine the Council’s wholly-owned companies running this service, as they had no experience in grounds maintenance. APSE were extolled as experts in this kind of matter, with experience of other local authorities and services. The recommendation going to Cabinet was in line with the direction of strategic travel. A reduction in grass cuts of 60% had already been made. In-house service would bring flexibility, and a longer grass-growing season, due to climate change, had led to the need to ask idverde to adapt its work schedule to address this. Future flexibility was needed, to address fluctuating weather patterns. The Head of Sustainability explained that it would be possible for Amphora to put together a quote as to how much it would cost for the company to run the services involved in the matters under discussion, but this would be a significant piece of work. The recommendation was for the Council to move to the discovery phase, which would include setting out what in-house and LATCo options would look like. Phase Two would be to set out a combined service of grounds maintenance, street care and safety, and street scene.

The Chairman asked, should the Panel recommend the Council move to the discovery phase, what risk there would be that this would be carried out but then a need arise for a new or renewed tender. The Portfolio Holder underlined that the current contract with idverde would end in 2026 and that no further renewal or extension was possible. The discovery phase would inform the Council’s next steps, including if the situation changes due to LGR. The Head of Sustainability confirmed that there was a risk, which was why the action was proposed now, to give 12 months to set up the service and order new equipment or seek new tenders if necessary. A Panel member ventured that this was a political decision, albeit the only one tenable in regard to upcoming LGR.

Officers were asked to outline what the discovery phase and its output look like. The Head of Sustainability explained that the Council would work with other local authorities to see what they did, and to look at what other organisations could do, such as parish councils taking on play parks and open spaces. The Council would seek to minimise duplication of work between different areas, such as grounds maintenance and street safety. Work was planned to assess what work could stop, what could be done by others, and what could be done differently.

Officers were asked to provide details on how potential service measures would be achieved without compromising service levels, showing proposed changes to the services currently being carried out. Details were also requested as to contingency plans for avoiding disruption, as well as cost projections on setting up an in-house service. A Panel member urged that these be included in the discovery phase documents. Officers were also asked what plans there were to invest in green technology and for details as to what had already been learned from other local authorities which had already brought these services in house.

The Head of Sustainability gave assurance that a full business case would be laid out as part of the discovery phase. Rescue and recovery plans were already being looked at. There was information in the APSE report regarding capital costs of plant and machines and revenue costs. Tech options were being considered, as well as environmental plans and possible ways to improve biodiversity. The Council was already discussing these things with Tendring and Braintree District Councils, as well as with others.

A Panel member asked what capacity there would be, in an in-house service, for increasing productivity, staff retention, upskilling options and community involvement possibilities. The Head of Sustainability stated that an existing contractor staff member had suggested the idea of asking existing contractor staff, to get their views and suggestions. There was some indication from officers that there were positive views of improving skills and responsibility for identified areas. Training and upskilling opportunities were given as a way to improve staff motivation.

A question was asked as to whether the full FFF savings had been identified, or whether more savings would need to be made on top of those identified. The Head of Sustainability stated that £250k savings had been achieved across 2023-24 and 2024-25, but there was an expectation currently for this to increase to £1m. The Strategic Director described the overall budget involved in this area as significant at £5m £1m savings would be tough to achieve, especially with inflationary pressures. There was no guarantee that further savings would not be needed. LGR would offer some longer-term opportunities for efficiencies with Councils working across larger geographical areas. A Panel member stated that the effects of any savings should be examined as to how they would affect residents.
Another Panel member noted the risks around buying and storing equipment for an in-house service, maintenance costs and other associated costs. The Head of Sustainability explained that satellite depots would be needed initially. The Council leased sites to idverde, which could be upgraded and used. The options of purchasing or leasing equipment were being examined, including maintenance costs.

RECOMMENDED to CABINET that Cabinet agree to proceed with a Discovery Phase to assess the requirements for an in-house Grounds Maintenance Service when the current contract ends in 2026, with the Discovery Phase to include business cases which address the information requested and points raised in the Scrutiny Panel’s discussions.

Councillor David King, Leader of the Council, introduced the update on works carried out on Town Deal and Levelling Up Fund [LUF] projects during 2024-25. Some had already been delivered whilst others were maturing. Some, such as the Heart of Greenstead [HoG] project were aimed at improvements in some of the most deprived parts of Colchester. The projects were planned to enrich the City’s legacy.

Whilst Scrutiny Panel conducted examination of the project work, oversight was also provided by the Town Deal Board, as mandated by Government. Town Deal and LUF projects both received cross-party scrutiny on matters such as delivery on investment, performance against scheduling and other related issues. A presentation was given, showing the main aspects of each project, work carried out and planned, and main risks associated with the programme.

Lindsay Barker, Deputy Chief Executive, explained that projected costs had first been estimated prior to the Pandemic, and so had seen increases due to cost escalations. The Council worked with a wide range of partners, including significant community involvement in HoG. The Town Deal Board provided close oversight of governance and delivery. The HoG project was described as a hub for community services and a provider of affordable housing with an increase in capacity of the local GP surgery. The project sought to increase modal shift in transport methods, towards walking and cycling. Designs had been revisited, leading to a campus approach for bringing together different services and organisations in one place.

Matt Sterling, Head of Economic Growth, outlined the city centre projects. There were three public realm projects and two heritage projects within the area. The public realm projects were St Nicholas Square, Holy Trinity Church/Trinity Square, and Lexden Gardens [formerly the County Hospital].

Holy Trinity Church had received Town Deal funding for repair works. Lottery funding was then bid for, which would be used to fit out the building to make it suitable for contemporary use. Phase two of the Jumbo/Balkerne Gate project was described, again with Town Deal funding used for repairs, and Heritage Lottery funding to pay for feasibility work to turn Jumbo into a visitor and community facility. £8m Lottery funding has been secured by North Essex Heritage for Jumbo.

Projects for youth facility improvements were centred around the Stanway and Highwoods Centres, and the Town House in the Dutch Quarter. The former two projects had now been completed, whilst the Town House project had been delayed by a necessary retendering of the contract. An appropriate contractor had now been appointed with works to start in the summer.

Physical connectivity work was focussed on improving and increasing walking and cycling links to the city centre. Around three kilometres of new or enhanced routes were planned, including on the route from East Hill to the University.

Digital connectivity projects encompassed a new Digital Forum at 43 Queen Street, a digital skills hub at the Wilson Marriage Centre, and two 5G pilots for the city centre. Building was underway for the Digital Forum, and Colbea were set to run this once operational. June completion was expected. The digital skills hub was complete, having opened in September 2023. The 5G pilots involved infrastructure to test schemes aimed at increasing private investment and to improve the experience of visitors to heritage and museum assets such as the Castle.

Key risks were outlined, with two ‘projects rated as ‘red’ due to matters relating to scheduling and money. All projects were however on track for completion on time and to budget. Constant work was however necessary to keep them on track, with all projects being managed using an Agile project management methodology. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government [MHCLG] had expressed confidence in project deliverability, which was not always the case in other areas which had won funding. Safer Streets funding was also being pursued, to further augment the work possible on the cycling scheme.

The Panel asked how confident officers were of meeting deadlines. The Deputy Chief Executive acknowledged the consistent challenges to deadlines, giving assurance that there was significant confidence that the contractual requirements would be met by March 2026.

Officers were asked why funding was being given to the Lexden Gardens site [formerly the County Hospital], given that it was not owned by the Council, and why Holy Trinity Church was being set for a charity to run its operation. More information on cost inflation issues regarding street and connectivity work was also requested. The Head of Economic Growth explained that the funding for Lexden Gardens was to enable public use of the residential scheme creating green space on that access to the city centre. The Head of Economic Growth explained that it had always been planned for a third party to run Holy Trinity Church, and that St Helena Hospice were committed to the heritage of the building and to maximise its use. The Deputy Chief Executive underlined that Heritage Lottery funding had included a requirement that the Council worked with a third party to run the Church site. 

The Leader of the Council pointed out the exceptional circumstances that had affected the St Nicholas Square project. The Council had learned from these experiences. The Council and its partners continued to experience pressure, but the Leader expressed confidence that officers were on top of the situation.

The Panel asked queries regarding the contingency funding for each project, and whether the project work was operating within these. The Deputy Chief Executive confirmed that this was the case at present time. Some projects had been decommissioned, and the funds assigned to other schemes. MHCLG had accepted the need for this action to be taken. Some risk remained around the Heart of Greenstead project and would do so until the contract was completed.

A Panel member noted the mitigations put in place for infrastructure and building works, which included measures to avoid reducing access for existing business. Officers were asked if there were any issues causing delays, such as the change in partners for the Holy Trinity project. The Deputy Chief Executive explained that there was an interactive map on the Council’s website to show the latest information on each project. Coordinating between partners had always been recognised as a challenge, and mitigations were needed to minimise effects on residents and businesses whilst work was carried out. Funding had been put together to recruit a coordinator to manage scheduling of projects. This officer had access to Council work plans and worked with partners such as the Business Improvement District, to keep businesses informed. 

It was confirmed that there had been a delay caused by the ending of the partnership with C360 over Holy Trinity, and the tendering for a new partner. Work could now proceed with the new partner. Working with the Police, the Council sought to introduce features to schemes like Holy Trinity that would minimise crime and antisocial behaviour.

Planning for the introduction of kerb-less streets in some areas were raised, with concerns that the quality of some existing pavements was poor and needed improving. The Leader noted that some parts of the City centre had seen mending of its poor paving. The Council and County Council were investing in mending more, including in parts such as North Station Road and the bridge at Middleborough. The Head of Economic Growth explained that kerb-less street work had not proceeded as lessons had been learned from the situation at St Nicholas Square. Officers were mindful of optimism bias, and costs had escalated due to unforeseeable factors. such as the war in Ukraine. Some of the complexities of the St Nicholas Square project included archaeology, highways issues and utilities work. Lessons learned would be circulated to all councillors.

A Panel member asked what the original target dates had been for projects, and by how much any of these had slipped. Officers were also asked for examples of lessons learned that would improve future bids. The Deputy Chief Executive underlined that the Town Deal timeline had always run to 2026, adding that two years had been given on the Levelling Up Fund project work. Original dates had varied from project to project. Some were on time whilst others, such as St Nicholas Square, had slipped. The Heart of Greenstead project had always been planned for completion near the end of the programme. Delivery and timings would be examined, to provide lessons. The Head of Economic Growth noted that lessons had already been learned, and that project timescales were, by necessity, estimates. The Council aimed to be pragmatic, but not all factors were within its control.

A Panel member urged consideration as to why work was being done, giving the £6m of work in Greenstead as being focused on the area due to the local multiple factors of deprivation. A request was made for estimated impacts that the Heart of Greenstead project was expected to have, and as to which indices of deprivation were expected to lessen over the next five years. Concern was raised that, if outcomes could not be estimated, there was a risk that the investment would be wasted. Officers were asked how the economic prosperity of Greenstead could be raised, and whether this would be part of the planning process. The Deputy Chief Executive gave assurance that the impacts would be significant. Benefits to be realised had been laid out in the Town Deal plans. Place planning in Greenstead included improvements in health for residents. Metrics and evaluations would be included, and Rory Doyle, Strategic Director, was working with the University on evaluation of the impact.

The Deputy Chief Executive was asked whether a Health and Wellbeing Board would have oversight of health work, if such a Board was formed. A Panel member asked if the Panel should book items into its 2025-26 work programme to obtain information on ongoing project work, and possibly include work by the University of Essex to evaluate likely outcomes and impacts. The Deputy Chief Executive informed the Panel that two bits of evaluation work were already being discussed with the University, which was interested in research projects in the area such as this. More details of oversight of aims would be known once the Health and Wellbeing Board was in place.

A concern was raised that there was no detail given as to management resource put into the project work by the Council, such as time given by officers and management, and by officers of partner organisations. A request was made for an estimate of the amount of work being put in by officers, and the time it took out of their working. The Deputy Chief Executive explained that some project capacity could be charged to the relevant projects. Regarding management time, the Deputy Chief Executive estimated that around a fifth of her working time was spent on matters regarding the Town Deal, Levelling Up Fund projects and the City centre. Much time was put in by officers, politicians and Town Deal Board members. The Head of Economic Growth added that the approach had been for a lean operation, and that overall, there had not been a huge management resource devoted to these projects. From the Town Deal fund a Programme Manager post had been created, along with a part-time Engagement Specialist.

RESOLVED that the SCRUTINY PANEL receives a briefing note to lay out the scale of management resource being assigned to Town Deal and Levelling Up Fund project work.

Councillor Alison Jay, Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Transformation, covered the updated table and additional information which had been provided to the Panel. The main additions involved information on fly tipping, temporary accommodation usage and affordable housing provision.

There was a small reduction in collection of Council Tax, in line with other local authorities and due to cost-of-living pressures. 

A new column had been added to the report table to show performance at the six-month stage, to show trends in performance.

Clarity was given regarding garden waste collection; around 40% of households had signed up for the service. A higher target for wheelie bin use had been put forward, as some households had ordered more than one. Fly tipping had increased, with expectation that this would see further increases. The target recommended took on board the increase in households and service actions carried out. The main issue was with household waste left in bags next to litter bins. A county-wide initiative ‘Scrap’ had been instigated to tackle fly tipping. Feedback had been received from parish councils, with only four interested in options to take on proactive enforcement powers. Resourcing was an issue raised, and this would be explored further.

The Panel asked for information on interventions to tackle fly tipping. Rosa Tanfield, Head of Neighbourhood Services, laid out the monitoring conducted on a ward-by-ward basis, and with breakdowns of materials involved, which fed into the statutory reporting. Around 5,000 fly tipping incidents had been reported, and the rate fluctuated and varied with regard to types. Currently more fly tipping of household waste was being recorded next to litter bins. The Scrap initiative included messaging to influence behaviour. Details of the targeting could not be given in open session, but the aim was to increase understanding that dumping household waste was fly tipping and would incur fines where culprits were identified. Councillors would soon receive details on this.

A Panel member asked if any work was going on with Local Plan or Planning Committee as to how developments could be designed so as to minimise fly tipping. Another member pointed out that the Panel had previously asked for benchmarking to see if the Council’s rates of residual household waste were good or bad, stressing the benefit of seeing how Colchester compared to other parts of Essex. The Portfolio Holder was asked if it was time to consult on whether to increase the amount of household waste which could be left out for collection. If the three-bag limit on residual waste per household led to increased fly tipping, and increased Council spending on investigating and enforcing, it was suggested by one Panel member that it might be time to increase the limit. 

The Portfolio Holder explained that benchmarking information would come with the year end KPI report. The Head of Neighbourhood Services reminded the Panel that the Waste Strategy reports had included household waste data and offered to provide this as separate information if needed. The Council was performing well, with high rates of recycling and low rates of residual waste. Whilst there were more cases of fly tipped household waste at litter bins, there had been no significant change in household collection rates, so it seemed that there were other factors causing this. The Head of Neighbourhood Services cautioned that consulting on collection limits would stray into the Waste Strategy and could encourage people to increase the amount of residual waste bags they put out. Various interrelated aims and impacts needed to be considered.

Use of temporary accommodation had increased, with a 38% increase since March 2024. Other targets covered included the average time to relet vacant properties, with the 55-day target based on the upper quartile benchmarked performance level. The target for repairs satisfaction rising from 90% to 91% was challenging but judged to be realistic. Differences had been identified between satisfaction with in-house repairs (high volume, usually less complex) and contractor repairs. The contractor had underperformed, so jobs referred to them had reduced to almost zero.

Sickness levels had risen, but new occupational health was now in place.

Levels of social value were described as educated guesses, and a realistic stretching target had been set. A Panel member highlighted the Council building social value requirements into contracts, noting the possible benefits of this, but asking if it could be shown what contract costs would be without these requirements. The Portfolio Holder agreed to look at social value questions and see what information could be provided.

The Panel voiced sadness in seeing an increase in use of temporary accommodation, and one Panel member noted that housebuilding had exceeded expectations. The Portfolio Holder expressed hope that the extra units of housing being sourced, such as in the ‘Beyond the Box’ project, would help ease pressure on temporary accommodation.

A suggestion came from the Panel that the Council should benchmark its performance levels against the whole of the UK, including the best performers, using the information to push up performance locally. Councillor David King, Leader of the Council, emphasised the work done to see how the best performing local authorities worked, and to learn from this. The challenges of cost and performance levels continued to compete with each other, and there were conversations to be had on balancing these. The Leader shared concerns expressed about the housing situation. National trends included issues with the volume of affordable housing, and the Council sought to set realistic targets. Quality and location of temporary accommodation continued to be issues. The Portfolio Holder notified the Panel that the Council was looking at ways to provide rolling month-on-month data. There was an issue with temporary accommodation however, as the data on this was only updated on an annual basis.

A request was made for details of the drivers of increasing homelessness. The Leader of the Council explained that precise explanations were impossible, as there had been research done across the UK, but local circumstances affected each area. The Leader pledged to provide any information he could. The Strategic Director laid out the national housing crisis, from the shortage of housing (especially affordable housing), lack of social housing, private landlords leaving the market, and migration issues. 

RECOMMENDATION that the Corporate KPI Targets for 2025-26, as presented to Scrutiny Panel, go forward to Cabinet for approval.

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Panel approves its Work Programme for 2024-25.