Meeting Details

RESOLVED that: the minutes of the meetings held on 25 February 2025, 13 May 2025 and 21 May 2025, including those contained in Part B of the agenda, were a correct record.

The Committee considered a report which demonstrated (in the City Council’s capacity as landlord of social housing), compliance and delivery of the Regulator of Social Housing’s Consumer and Rent Standards.

Philip Sullivan, Chief Executive of Colchester Borough Homes (CBH), attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquiries. The report which was before the Committee presented details of the Quarter 4 (Q4) landlord performance, together with updates of relevance to the social housing environment in which the Council operated. A summary of the 2024/2025 year end performance was contained in the report and its appendices, and confirmed that CBH had performed well and had adhered to regulatory expectations. The current position with the 2 compliance metrics which were not currently at 100% was set out in detail in the report, and more detailed reporting on remedial actions against the ‘big 6’ health and safety areas was reviewed by CBH’s Finance and Audit Committee, and further information in relation to this was also provided.

Repair response times and satisfaction levels had improved in 2024/2025 compared to the previous year and these areas were key for customers. The Committee heard that 99.5% of the Council’s homes had met the government’s Decent Homes Standard at year end, which represented the highest level for many years, and a slight improvement from the previous year.

Angelique Ryan, Director of Resources, CBH, attended the meeting to provide an update on an aspect of performance which had been raised at the previous meeting of the Committee in respect of sickness absence. The Committee heard that on average year-end sickness was 11.4 days per full time equivalent. This figure comprised 8 days from long term absence and 3.4 days for short-term sickness, with the main reasons for absence being muscular-skeletal and combined mental health absences. Repairs and Maintenance had been the service area with the highest absence levels, mostly due to muscular-skeletal issues. Sickness management had been discussed at the Governance and Remuneration Committee of the CBH Board, and a ‘deep dive’ into the issue had been scheduled for the Corporate Management Team meeting scheduled in June 2025.

The Chief Executive of CBH, advised the Committee that the volume of damp and mould cases in the previous year had been high, although a high number of these cases had been pro-actively identified during ongoing Housing Health and Safety Rating System inspections. Proactive work had been undertaken with the National Health Service (NHS) to reduce the impact of damp and mould in Council properties, and to improve resident satisfaction with the Council as landlord.

The Committee heard that 100% of stage 1 and 2 complaints had been responded to on time in Q4. It was important that CBH learnt from complaints and took account of the various publications of the Ombudsman and Regulator, and examples of how CBH was achieving this were contained in the Officer’s report.

The Director of Resources, CBH, advised the Committee that 2 internal audits which were of relevance to Consumer Standards had been completed during Q4, which related to void management and risk management and the highest level of assurance had been received in respect of both audits. An advisory audit to ensure integrity of compliance data had also been carried out and this had demonstrated that compliance data at CBH was robust. Additionally, CBH was in the privileged position of having over 300 engaged residents who assisted with providing feedback and tenant scrutiny of CBH’s services.

The Chief Executive of CBH, confirmed that CBH’s Finance and Audit Committee had met on 30 April 2025 to provide assurance to the Board, including health and safety and work which had arisen from fire risk assessments. Additionally, the Operations and Performance Committee of CBH had considered a ‘deep dive’ on safety and quality at its most recent meeting. The Committee heard that CBH carried out benchmarking against other social housing landlords across all Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), and further detail in relation to this was contained in the report. A Committee member enquired whether there was a correlation between types of buildings and damp and mould cases, and whether there was any mitigation which could be put in place in relation to this. Additionally, the reduction in void re-let times from 56 to 46 days was applauded, what had been done to achieve this improvement, and were further reductions possible?

The Chief Executive of CBH believed that an element of damp and mould was related to certain property archetypes such as non-traditional or solid wall construction. CBH had carried out risk assessments of all the Council’s housing stock by property archetype in relation to damp and mould, and had also considered individual households and the potential vulnerability. CBH had also visited and telephoned residents of households which were considered to be of the highest risk, and had found that a key factor in damp and mould had been fuel poverty. Some properties and households were more susceptible to damp and mould, but a significant proportion of cases related to households with a low income who were unable to adequately heat the property. CBH was actively targeting its resources based on risk, and Colchester is 1 of only 2 areas in country which had signed a data sharing agreement with NHS England to share data on the of households who could be most affected. CBH had taken a large number of steps to reduce voids, recognising the importance of this reduction to the Council as well as tenants and those in need of housing. The void re-let times which were reported on now included not just general needs housing, but specialist and temporary accommodation as well. Resources were being allocated to carrying out pre-inspections to identify potential issues with properties sooner, and every stage of the process was being considered to try to increase efficiency wherever possible. CBH carried out minor repair work itself, however, where major repairs were needed this work was outsourced.

A member of the Committee asked whether a statistical analysis was available of the characteristics of those households where fuel poverty was considered to relate to cases of damp and mould? The Chief Executive of CBH confirmed that when all of the Council owned properties had been subject to risk assessment as part of the proof of concept stage for the housing and health project, the overriding factor in cases of damp and mould across all property types and households, irrespective of age or diversity, had been fuel poverty. Further details in relation to this work would be shared with the Committee after the meeting.

In response to questioning from the Committee, the Chief Executive of CBH confirmed that in severe cases of damp and mould, it was not unusual for remedial works to be carried out only for the damp and mould to return within a few months, and although CBH was able to intervene with the property itself, the cause of the damp and mould may be circumstances in the household. The Committee suggested that a study on why damp and mould reoccurs may be a useful exercise.

The Committee noted that at a previous meeting, it had raised the subject of stretch targets in areas where CBH had been meeting its targets, and the Chief Executive of CBH advised that information in relation to this was contained in Appendix 2 of the report which was before the Committee. Some of the targets were to run over the forthcoming 2 years, and targets had been made more challenging where this had been considered possible. By way of example, the Committee heard that the target for repairs being completed on time would increase to 92% from 90% over the forthcoming 2 years. It was important to strive to improve by setting targets which would stretch the organisation while still remaining realistic, while at the same time recognising the financial constraints which were in place.

A Committee member wondered whether a breakdown of the types of heating which was used across the Council’s properties, and the cost difference between using heating of different types was available, considering that some tenants may have higher heating bills because of the type of heating installed. It was additionally noted that there had been 16 breaches of data protection in CBH, and additional clarification was sought in relation to these. Was it still the case that tenants were being approached by third party solicitors to encourage them to find matters to raise complaints about in a bit to secure compensation, or had there been a reduction in this practice?

The Chief Executive of CBH confirmed that a breakdown of the types of heating installed in Council properties was available, together with comparisons of costs, and this could be shared with the Committee after the meeting. With regard to the data breaches, all were serious because they were data protection breach, but many were associated with mistakes such as misdirected emails. These breaches were not acceptable, but all details were recorded and it was important to note that breaches had been minor including in terms of the numbers of households affected. The number of complaints which had been associated with companies which encouraged the submission of complaints in a manner known as ‘claim harvesting’, had remained largely unchanged, however, CBH had worked closely with the Council to deal with cases as quickly as possible, and to provide a robust response where necessary to discourage such practices.

The Committee was pleased to note that 99.5% of property met the Decent Homes Standard, however, when considering the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) rating of properties, it was noted that 88.54% currently had a rating of C or above, was it achievable for all properties to be brought up to this EPC level by 2030? The Chief Executive of CBH confirmed that CBH was very confident that this target could be achieved, and he assured the Committee that his team was familiar with the energy rating for every property. Social Housing Decarbonisation Grant fund money had been received which had allowed CBH to target the worst performing properties, and the majority of properties which did not have a C rating had a D rating, and the more challenging properties were being prioritised.

In response to questioning from the Committee around void re-let times, The Chief Executive of CBH confirmed that under normal circumstances general needs voids were re-let within 5 weeks. The voids which took longer to re-let were often those which required a 3rd party assessment, for example by adult social services. Further information providing greater analysis of the types of voids and the re-let times could be provided to the Committee after the meeting.

In discussion, a Committee member was pleased to note the robust stance which was being taken with ‘claims harvesters’, however, considered that the high level of sickness absence represented a significant area of organisational weakness. Were actions being taken to ensure that sickness absence was genuine, and were leadership controls strong enough to keep the numbers down. This area of operation appeared to be out of line with other excellent areas.

The Director of Resources, CBH, confirmed that the majority of sickness absence was long-term, and so was supported by certification from a doctor as well as a referral to an occupational health advisor. Absence related to muscular skeletal issues was prevalent in the Repairs Team, and sometimes the length of sickness had related to waiting times on the NHS to receive treatment, and because of this CBH had paid for physiotherapy sessions to support staff members returning to work. The Committee was assured that the Board of CBH took this issue very seriously and discussions had taken place at CBH Directors meetings and at meetings of CBH’s Governance and Remuneration Committee. All sickness absence would continue to be the subject of scrutiny, with additional focus on the Repairs and Maintenance Team and the Housing Management Team which were the 2 teams with the highest levels of sickness absence. Joint working was planned with the Council to address similar areas of sickness absence which were being experienced.

RESOLVED that:

- The performance update which had been contained in the Officer’s report, together with Appendices 1 and 2 be noted, and;

- The Quarter 4 complaints update, service improvement examples and Ombudsman cases detailed at Appendix 3 be noted, and;

- The additional regulatory assurance being provided by Colchester Borough Homes Board and Committees for Quarter 4 be noted, and;

- The remaining updates provided in the report be noted. 

The Committee considered a report which requested that it recommend to Full Council that the necessitated changes to polling stations and polling districts were approved.

James Bennett, Electoral Services Team Leader, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquires. The Committee heard that amendments to the proposed decision had been received from a Councillors before the meeting, and it was therefore intended that these amendments would form part of the Committee’s final resolution.

There were 2 parts to the proposals which were contained in the Officer’s report, and the first of these concerned 3 polling station changes which had been necessitated, and which were:

- The facility which had been used at Cococare as a polling station was no longer available, however, an alternate polling station had been identified at Kingsland Church, on the corner of Straight Road and London Road which was considered to be a more suitable venue as it already served as a community hub, there was ample and easily accessible parking, and the venue itself was spacious.

- The facility at The Pegasus Club on Abbey Field had been used as a polling station for the May 2024 local elections and the July 2024 Parliamentary elections, however, following feedback from voters and staff using the venue, it was not considered that this venue was suitable for future use. It was therefore intended to locate a polling station at the Roman Circus Visitor Centre, which was believed to be a positive change. Staff at the Visitor Centre had agreed to park elsewhere on polling day, mitigating some of the potential issues which had been foreseen with this venue.

- Paxman Academy had been used as a polling station, however, the site was no longer available and it was proposed to use St Cedds Church. This was a positive change as the Council tried not to use schools wherever possible, and the proposed venue met with suitability requirements.

The second element of the report which was before the Committee was concerned with the amendment and realigning of polling districts in line with County Council division changes. Comments had been received from a Councillor in respect of Rainsborowe Road polling district, and whether there was a possibility that voters there could vote at the C3 Centre, instead of at the Plum Hall polling station which had been used, as it was felt that this polling station was too small. It was proposed that the Rainsborowe Road polling district was split in two along Layer Road, with those voters to the West of Layer Road area continuing to vote at the Shrub End Community & Sports Centre, and those voters to the East of Layer Road voting at the C3 Centre. This was considered to be the most pragmatic approach, as for half of the electors in the district the existing polling station at the Shrub End Community & Sports Centre was perfectly adequate.

A Committee member was pleased to note that wherever possible schools were no longer used as polling stations, however, he considered that his experience during the previous year’s General Election had been poor. This had not been entirely due to the polling station which he had attended, but the apparent lack of equipment which had been provided to polling station staff. A single tablet computer had been available to staff at the polling station which had caused a large backlog of voters who were waiting to be provided with a ballot paper. Were Officers aware of this issue, and would it be corrected in the future?

The Electoral Services Team Leader had been aware of the issues with the polling station which the Committee member had used, and confirmed that it served a large electorate. In the future additional staff and computer equipment could be provide to this polling station to alleviate this problem in the future.

The Committee sought assurance on how changes which were made would be communicated to the electorate, as Committee members had already received questions from their constituents in respect of forthcoming election arrangements. The Electoral Services Team Leader confirmed that the Council’s own ward boundaries would not change, it was the County Council’s divisions which were changing. Officers would work to communicate these changes to residents via means such as letters, emails or providing information via the Council’s website as part of the Council’s standard communications.

RECOMMENDED to Full Council that:

- It approve the proposals to relocate three polling stations and realign a small number of polling districts as detailed in Appendix A to the Officer’s report.

- It continue delegating authority to the Returning Officer to approve an alternative polling station if, in the run up to an election, a polling place becomes unavailable or unsuitable.

- Rainsborowe Road polling district be divided in two along Layer Road, with the electorate who live to the West side of the Layer Road area continuing to vote at the Shrub End Community & Sports Centre, and that the electorate who live to the East side of Layer Road area now voting at the C3 Centre. 

The Committee considered a report which requested that it review and comment on Internal audit activity for the period 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025.

Hayley McGrath, Corporate Governance Manager attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquires. The report which was before the Committee was the year-end report for 2024-2025, including a report which had been put together by TIAA which contained details of all the audits which had been carried out. The report demonstrated that an effective internal audit service had been provided during the 2024-2025 financial year. During this period, 21 audits had been carried out, with 8 receiving a ‘substantial’ rating, the highest available. Additionally, 2 ‘limited assurance’ ratings had been received with an urgent recommendation being made in each of these 2 audits, which were an audit of a contractor and an audit in relation to thew Council’s anti-fraud and corruption processes.

Following a request which had previously been made by the Committee the report now contained greater details of the audits which had been carried out, at appendix 2 of the report.

The Committee heard that 35.5 audit days had been carried forward into the current financial year which related to 3 audits which had been programmed in, but not carried out.

A Committee member noted that the discussions which had taken place between the Committee and TIAA prior to the meeting had been extremely productive, and it had been suggested that in the future consideration be given to auditing some of the Council’s larger suppliers to ensure that value for money was being obtained and the Council was being invoiced correctly.

In discussion, the Committee sought to understand the delay in the proposed audit on mobile devices, had a new date been agreed for this work to be undertaken? The Corporate Governance Manager confirmed that at the current time no date had been set for this audit, however, she would discuss the issue with the Council’s new head of IT when they arrived to ensure that relevant issues were the subject to audit. The Committee heard that the Council was currently in the process of distributing new mobile devices to staff, and this may have been a practical reason to delay the audit.

In response to questioning from the Committee, the Corporate Governance Manager confirmed that an audit relating specifically to cyber-security had been carried out which had resulted in 7 recommendations being made. This was a key area and would be re-audited as part of the Council’s audit programme in the near future.

RESOLVED that:

- Internal audit activity for the period 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025 be noted. 

The Committee received a verbal update on the progress of the Council’s external audit.

Paul Atkinson, Interim Deputy S151 Officer, attended the meeting remotely to present the update and assist the Committee with its enquiries. The Committee was advised that the Council had been working closely with its external auditors, KPMG, and work was currently ongoing to populate the Value For Money (VFM) Questionnaire which documented the process undertaken by the Council. Good progress was being made in this area, and meetings with key Officers and budget holders had been scheduled as part of the usual planning and documenting. It was hoped that a draft set of accounts would be finalised by the end of the current month, and although this deadline was challenging, good progress had been made.

A first audit visit had been provisionally scheduled for early in August 2025 for up to 3 weeks, depending on resource availability within KPMG. Despite the good progress which was being made, the Committee was advised that a disclaimed audit opinion would be issued again, but this was out of the Council’s control and related primarily to historic reserve movements, which was a common situation across most Councils. KMPG were awaiting a guidance note from the National Audit Office relating to this, and it was therefore difficult to know what steps the Council could take at this time to provide the necessary assurance. Although the opinion would be disclaimed again, it was hoped that the auditors would be able to provide more detailed commentary on the areas around which they had been able to take significant comfort in the accounts to demonstrate that progress was being made towards obtaining an unqualified opinion.

The Chair of the Committee confirmed that she had met with KPMG, who had confirmed that there had been a significant improvement in the progress made this year, and although the audit opinion would be disclaimed, more comprehensive detail in a number of areas would be provided this year. Guidance had now been received from the National Audit Office containing some principles to follow.

A Committee member welcomed the positive tone which now surrounded the audit, but considered that the accounts for 2024/2025 would be significantly complicated by the requirement to put the Turnstone development on the balance sheet, how would this be accomplished in principle? It was suggested that development would have significant impacts in a number of areas, including how the Council’s Prudential Indicators were calculated, and was likely to add approximately 50% to the Council’s debt. How did the S151 Officer think that this would impact the accounts, and would reserves be impacted significantly?

The S151 Officer did not yet have the answers to the questions which had been asked, however, these would be worked through as part of the accounts. There would be an asset on the balance sheet and a liability. The Committee was assured that it would have the opportunity to ask any questions it wished before the accounts were finalised, including at an accounts workshop which had been scheduled for before the next meeting of the Committee.

RESOLVED that: the contents of the verbal update be noted. 

The Committee considered a report which met the requirements of both the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) Code of Practice on Treasury Management, (the Code), and the CIPFA Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities, (the Prudential Code), and which requested that it note the contents of the report.

Paul Atkinson, Interim Deputy S151 Officer, attended the meeting remotely to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquiries.

The Committee heard that at year end the Council’s Capital Finance Requirement (CFR) had stood at c£243m, with the vast majority (approximately c£197m) of this figure related to Housing Revenue Account (HRA) expense, and c£46m related to the General Fund (GF). The Committee was advised that the CFR captured all forms of borrowing, including internal and external borrowing, and the Council’s CFR relied on approximately c£190m of borrowing, some internal funding and balance sheet resources.

During the year, external borrowing had increased by c£39m to c£190m, with c£175m of this figure made up of borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB), c£5m had been a short-term loan, and c£10m comprised historic loans with banks. Of the c£175m owed to the PWLB, c£160m was on the HRA, and c£15m was on the GF.

That increase in borrowing had been highlighted in the Quarter 3 report which had been presented to the Committee, when it had been estimated that borrowing in-year would increase by c£37.8m. The principal reason for this increase had been a PWLB loan which had been taken out in February for HRA expenditure. The loan had been taken on a 1 year term to take advantage of volatility in interest rates, and would be re-financed later in the year.

At year end the Council’s investments stood at approximately £33m, with c£10m of this figure being represented by short-term investment with other Councils, and c£23m being cash or cash equivalent.

In terms of Prudential Indicators, the report highlighted the Operational Boundary for external debt, which was the upper limit for borrowing and which had been £390m at year end. At year end, the Council had been well within its operational and authorised limit, and all Prudential Indicators would be reviewed as part of the budgeting process. The Maturity Structure of Borrowing which was contained in the report demonstrated that the Council’s borrowing was evenly spread. The Treasury Management Strategy did need a full review and refresh, and this would take place as part of the budget setting process, and would provide a better indication of the borrowing which would need to be taken in the forthcoming years.

A Committee member was struggling to understand the report and the CFR, and considered that the borrowing limits which were placed on the Council were so far above its actual level of borrowing that, in fact, they were no sort of restriction at all. An audited balance sheet had not been available for 4 years, which contributed to the lack of clarity in this area.

The Committee sought to understand the rationale behind the £43m short-term loan which had been taken out from PWLB, and questioned who had made the decision to take this loan out on a short-term basis.

The Interim Deputy S151 Officer confirmed to the Committee that the Council carried out long-term cashflow forecasting, considering what resources were available to fund capital expenditure, and this forecasting had indicated that the loan of £43m was required. Although the Interim Deputy S151 Officer had not been in post when the decision to take the loan had been made, and did not therefore have the rationale for the decision, advice on the timing of the loan would have been taken from the Council’s treasury management advisors at the time, LINK. In response to further questioning from the Committee, the Interim Deputy S151 Officer confirmed that consideration would be given to including the long-term cashflow forecast in future Treasury Management reporting. The Committee was further assured that all of the Prudential Indicators, including the Operation Boundary, would be the subject of review as part of the upcoming Treasury Management Strategy refresh.

Returning to the £43m PWLB loan, a member of the Committee would not recall the Council taking out such a loan to cover cashflow in the past, had this happened? The Interim Deputy S151 Officer explained that the loan had not been to assist with day-to-day cashflow, but had, in essence, been an HRA loan to repay the internal borrowing that had accumulated as a result of funding HRA expenditure out of cashflow. The loan was not, therefore, an indication that the Council had been running out of cash for day-to day activities. The repayment or refinancing options for the loan would be considered in detail later in the year, when borrowing conditions would be known. In general terms PWLB borrowing was considered to be relatively low risk and the Council had a manageable debt balance.

RESOLVED that: The annual Treasury Management report for 2024/25 be noted. 

The Committee considered the Outturn (year-end) report for the General Fund and the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) for the financial year 2024/25.

Anna D’Alessandro, Interim S151 Officer, presented the report and assisted the Committee with its enquiries. She wished to place on record her profound thanks to the Council’s Finance Team, and the effort which had been expended to be able to bring this report to the Committee at this meeting just 6 weeks after the end of the financial year, which was a huge achievement. More regular reporting to the Committee was planned, and the next report which it would receive would be the Quarter 1 report.

The attention of the Committee was drawn to several key areas with regard to the General Fund (GF), and it heard that the outturn position was the final position for the financial year which set out expenditure against the budget. The Council had overspent by c£1.7m, and 2 key areas were broadly responsible for the overspend. Corporate Services overspent by c£5.5m before c £3.2m planned use of reserves which had left a net overspend for Corporate Services of £2.3m. The £2.3m was largely driven by 2 key areas, including finance, due to staffing, consultancy finance system costs, and other areas was relating to corporate landlord and asset management and projects.

In terms of the Turnstone development, the report contained figures which had previously not been included in monthly reporting costs (c£0.6m) associated with the development, together with an income shortfall of approximately £1m, which had led to a drawdown on the reserve of approximately £1.6m, leaving £2.4m in this reserve which had been carried forward into 2025/26, The other area of overspend was in relation to housing and wellbeing, and the Committee was familiar with the driving factors behind this expenditure, which included homelessness and temporary accommodation.

The Council had been fortunate in 2024/25 to have received an additional c£3.8m of Business Rates income which had enabled the creation of some Corporate Reserves such as a Local Plan Reserve, a Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) and Capacity Reserve, and a General Risk and Contingency Reserve. The Committee heard that the Council’s Administration had key targets for expenditure to support the Council’s strategic priorities. In summary, £6.1m had been funded from reserves for 2025/26 to de-risk the bottom line, in terms of capital expenditure there had been significant slippage in the Capital Programme (c50). Work would begin to consider a capital reset once the accounts had been finalised. In terms of the HRA, there was a net surplus of c£1.7m. The Council had an outturn of £6m on a gross basis, and this had been used in 2 ways; to pay down the Capital Programme and to boost the minimum level of reserves in the HRA. There had also been slippage of approximately 50% on the HRA Capital Programme.

The Committee was grateful for the comprehensive and transparent report which had been presented to it, and sought to understand how changes in receiving Business Rates might affect the Council in the future, as it seemed likely that future Business Rates windfalls would not materialise. The Interim S151 Officer confirmed that at the present time no specific information was available on any likely effect on the Council, however it was known that Business Rates would disproportionately affect the Council as part of Fair Funding Reform, which sought to move money to more deprived areas. Although further details were not yet known, it was considered that the Council could no longer rely on Business Rate windfalls as it had in the past. The final outcome would likely not be known for Colchester until the very end of the year. A Committee member had struggled to reconcile the figures contained in the report in relation to the use of reserve for the Turnstone development, with figures which he had seen elsewhere. He would email the Interim S151 Officer privately to discuss this issue, and hoped that figures which he had seen previously had not been accurate. In relation to the reserves, the creation of the LGR and Capacity Reserve was considered to be very sensible, as was the creation of the Local Plan Reserve. Turning to the Strategic Plan Delivery Reserve of £1.5m, was this the fund to award grants within Colchester, as the amount in this reserve was different to the amount of £3m-£4m which had previously been quoted?

The Interim S151 Officer assured the Committee that the Finance Team had carried out a comprehensive reconciliation of the budgeting process that had taken place, and she was confident that the figures which had been presented in the budget were the final figures which had been agreed by Full Council, Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, attended the meeting, and, with the permission of the Chair, addressed the Committee. A member of the Committee had asked whether a decision had been made with regard to bringing the Council’s grounds maintenance services back ‘in house’, and the Portfolio Holder for Resources confirmed that the business case in relation to this had been considered as part of the Council’s governance processes, but had not yet been presented to Cabinet; approach was similar to neighbouring Councils. The Committee sought assurance that all Councillors would be involved with budget process much earlier than had been the case in the past, and the Interim S151 Officer confirmed that this would be the case, and that briefings of the political groups within the Council had already started.

The Committee was pleased that there had been a detailed discussion around the Council’s reserves, and sought to gain greater understanding of the likely impact of the government’s Fair Funding reform. Was the Council able to influence this?

The Interim S151 Officer considered that the Fair Funding reform was likely to have a disproportionately large effect on the Council, and many organisations had been attempting to influence the process, including County Councils. It was hoped that more information on the likely outcomes would be known soon after the consultation closed in August. In response to a question from the Committee in relation to HRA depreciation, the Interim S151 Officer had spoken with internal audit colleagues and requested that a review into this area be carried out to provide assurance around HRA depreciation.

RESOLVED that:

- The Revenue and Capital outturn position for General Fund and the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) for the year 2024/25 be noted, and;

- The creation of £4.5m of Corporate Reserves from the Business Rates income of £3.8m plus a further use of £0.7m from the existing Business Rates Reserve be noted. The Corporate reserves created were:

-LGR & Capacity Reserve £1m

- General Risk Contingency £1m

- Fit-for the Future/Transformation Reserve top-up £1m

- Systems Upgrade Reserve £0.5m

- Local Plan Reserve £0.5m

- Planning Appeals Reserve £0.5m

The Committee considered a report which asked it to approve its work programme for the forthcoming municipal year.

In discussion, the Committee noted that it was awaiting a report which provided a review of the governance of the Turnstone project, together with a report which examined whether the decision to write-off a loan which had led to a taxi liability for Colchester Commercial (Holdings) Ltd had been taken correctly.

RESOLVED that: the contents of the report be noted.