520
Councillor Chris Pearson, Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Transformation, introduced the report, highlighting that most performance indicators were green, with a few amber and only one rated red. Issues relating to temporary accommodation had been raised with officers, and the Portfolio Holder had also spoken to officers about the Council’s sickness rates and an increase in recorded instances of fly tipping.
The Portfolio Holder was asked why he thought there had been an increase in fly tipping, and whether there were problems with the tip booking system or the need for more freighter collections. The Portfolio Holder described the rise in cases as nearly 50% across the area and had asked whether the tip booking system was an issue, then being assured that this was not the case. Many instances recorded were from poor use or overuse of litter bins. Compacter bins were not experiencing such issues although they were not aesthetically pleasing, so a new model was on order to better suit the street scene. The three wards with highest levels of fly tipping were Greenstead, Castle and Berechurch. The Portfolio Holder had been told that there were no particular issues in rural areas and no concerns formally raised by parish councils. Regarding commercial waste being fly tipped, there have been some cases, but these were rare; one was currently being pursued for enforcement action. A Panel member noted the Council communications and signage reporting enforcements carried out against fly tippers and praised this proactive approach.
A Panel member gave the view that fixed penalty notices [FPNs] were not a very effective deterrent and that it was hard to see how to prevent or control fly tipping. A rural issue was raised, where the parish council employed a litter picker who collected small fly tips and had been leaving these next to Council bins for collection. The Council had now started to count this action as fly tipping and had told the parish council that it could pay the Council to remove and avoid this situation and the resulting extra costs on local residents. The Panel member suggested that it would be better if the Council developed a standard method of recording and dealing with fly tipping across all areas, rather than increasing the statistics and seeking extra payments from parish councils. It was noted that parish councils often paid to have litter picked up, which subsidised the Council’s work. The Portfolio Holder asked that the details of this specific case be sent to him and agreed to take this up with Cabinet to find a way to sort the problem, possibly via the good working relationship with the Council’s Zone Wardens.
The Panel discussed the rates by area, with one remark that the areas seeing highest levels of fly tipping seemed to be the areas with generally high rates of residential renting and lower rates of car ownership. The Portfolio Holder was asked if the Council could provide a service targeted at households without cars, who would find it difficult to take bulky waste to the tip. A Panel member related their experience of difficulties in booking a collection via the Council’s website, with a wait for collection of at least a week, and hypothesised that people might be fly tipping if they could not find a way to get waste to the tip. The Chairman asked for the details of the booking difficulties to be sent to the Portfolio Holder for consideration.
Another Panel member stated that they saw fly tipping problems where management companies or housing associations managed properties, asked if this affected the Council’s figures and asked if there was any way to pressure these companies and associations.
The Portfolio Holder gave assurances that he would raise the issues covered with the Portfolio Holder for Waste, Neighbourhoods and Leisure. Further to that, he gave his assurance that he would work with members to find a way to seek greater ease of collection booking via the Council’s website. One example of fly tipping was that students at the end of their letting agreements would frequently fly tip furniture that was no longer needed. Councillors were sent a form for reporting fly tipping instances, and this made it easier for the Council to deal with them efficiently. A similar form was being worked upon, for use by parish councils and members of the public.
On being asked how Key Performance Indicator [KPI] data was gathered and how accurate it was, Lucie Breadman, Executive Director, explained that a multitude of mechanisms were used. Most were system driven, with instances being recorded and then compiled automatically. Not much data was manually inputted into spreadsheets.
The Panel noted the increase in households housed in temporary accommodation, from 314 to 443 within 12 months. A Panel member if modular housing could be revisited as a potential solution. The Portfolio Holder was asked for a breakdown as to the origin of the additional households in temporary accommodation, and how many were evictees or fleeing from domestic abuse or asylum seekers. The process for applicants to show their links and connections to Colchester was requested.
The Portfolio Holder offered to seek the requested information and raise this with the Portfolio Holder for Housing. There were issues regarding how much housing allowance could be claimed by people in need. The average rental cost for a one-bedroom house was £750 per month, but only £623 housing allowance could be claimed per month. Average rental cost for a three-bedroom house was £1,250, but only £792.82 housing allowance could be claimed per month. Households therefore had to make up the significant differences between rental costs and housing allowance paid. 1,573 households had presented as homeless in 2024-25, reflecting a reduction in affordable housing in the private sector. The need for student accommodation affected demand for private sector rentals. It was hoped that the Mill Road development would soon increase affordable housing supply.
A Panel member who had served as shadow Portfolio Holder for Housing laid out their experiences, which included seeing the large amount of work done to investigate the possible use of modular accommodation and its cost relative to that of traditional housing. They explained that the Council did not house asylum seekers, and that a three-year local connection must be shown for people to apply for temporary accommodation locally. The benefits of the ‘Beyond the Box’ housing scheme were detailed, with users able to claim more housing benefit compared to those in Bed and Breakfast accommodation, which reduced the costs to the Council which was required to make up any difference.
It was necessary for the Council to understand the challenges faced by Colchester Borough Homes [CBH] in accessing private sector options. It was often found that applicants did not have good credit ratings, which created problems when trying to source accommodation for them in the private sector. It was suggested that the Council needed to find more ways to make potential tenants attractive to the private sector, and to address the underlying problems experienced by those in need, seeking temporary accommodation. The Panel member stated that residents from other countries accessed social housing much less than British citizens, but often faced problems renting privately, due to often having lower UK credit ratings. The Chairman highlighted the Council’s welcoming of refugees from Afghanistan and Ukraine but stated that the Council needed to be aware if Colchester’s ‘City of Sanctuary’ status caused impacts on the waiting list for temporary accommodation.
The Portfolio Holder pointed to his experience in having overview of CBH during his time as Chairman of the Governance and Audit Committee he advised that it would be best for the Panel to scrutinise housing matters via CBH when representatives of the Company appeared before the Panel.
A concern came from a member of the Panel that it was not explained how the KPI on temporary accommodation had been set. The Portfolio Holder was asked to explain how concrete the previous and current figures were in regard to this KPI. It was argued that there were different opinions on this KPI and how to tackle the issues, with a suggestion made that if it was too difficult to lay out a view on the level of temporary accommodation demand, then it was impossible for the Council to have an effective KPI set for it. The Portfolio Holder was asked to provide a view on the expected levels of future need for temporary accommodation through the coming five years. A suggestion was also made that a planning guide could be produced for the setting of future KPIs. The Portfolio Holder agreed that the Council needed to forward plan as much as possible.
The Panel discussed ways in which the Council could help or support residents who found themselves in rental arrears, and the concern that some residents only came to CBH for help once it was too late. A suggestion was made that more communications could be put out to encourage people to approach the Council for help, in an effort to reduce eviction rates caused by minor or short-term problems such as job loss.
Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources, clarified that there was no point in the temporary accommodation KPI on its own, but that it linked to demand and supply issues. The consideration was as to how this KPI could be made meaningful by using it to direct work to reduce numbers in temporary accommodation and set achievable aims.
The Panel considered a suggestion that it could recommend Cabinet commission a full breakdown and review of increasing demand for temporary accommodation, including the primary causes of homelessness, the details of local connections and a breakdown of financial responsibility between the Council and central government, as well as the gap between Council spending and funding received, in addition to a forecast for expected demand. The Executive Director suggested that officers instead be asked to produce the information requested.
A Panel member recommended that Panel members arrange to visit the ‘Beyond the Box’ scheme prior to the next time that the Portfolio Holder for Housing briefed the Panel.
The Panel considered the sickness rates reported, with issues seen in Corporate Services, in addition to the continuing high rate of sickness in Waste Services. The Portfolio Holder picked out musculoskeletal issues as being especially problematic for waste collection operatives, and also for Civil Enforcement Officers [CEOs]. The Council carried out regular ‘return to work’ interviews, funded physiotherapy and provided services via the Human Resources [HR] Team. An aging workforce was an issue, with increases in musculoskeletal conditions and stress-based illness. Free gym and swimming memberships were offered, and the Council had wellbeing programmes and champions in place.
The Panel discussed the need to advertise avenues of support and mental health first aiders that were on offer, and were told that this was being done, including promotional material displayed in internal staff areas of the Council’s offices. The Executive Director gave assurances that processes were tight and that managers were briefed on support options. The biggest problem was long term sickness, which often presented complex challenges. Several colleagues were fighting cancer, some were dealing with ‘Long Covid’, and some were affected by long term problems caused by multiple conditions. Pressure on staff included long periods of stress, including stress caused by cuts having to be made. For infectious illness, the Council preferred sufferers to stay at home if contagious and preferred to have people absent rather than increasing the spread of illness through the organisation. The Portfolio Holder confirmed that he had asked for a breakdown of short- and long-term sickness, receiving details on different types of sick leave. This could be circulated confidentially to Panel members if they wished to see it. The Portfolio Holder expressed confidence that the Council was doing all it should be doing to support officers.
Questions were asked about the instances of musculoskeletal conditions in Corporate Services. The Executive Director explained that Corporate Services covered services such as parking enforcement, sport and leisure, and museums, rather than just being back-office staff. It was noted that desk jobs could cause such problems, especially for those who were sat in bad positions.
The Panel talked about what was being done to identify stress and what methods were in use to identify triggers and early signs of stress. The Executive Director described the work of the Council’s wellbeing champions and use of surveys. Back to work interviews could also help pick up on any stress issues, with most managers now being trained as coaches. Flexible working had meant a drop in seeing colleagues, and the organisation was trying to ensure that all employees got appropriate work situations when working from home, supplying extra equipment when necessary. The Portfolio Holder advertised the Employee Assistance programme, paying for up to six sessions to deal with problems such as stress. Local Government Reorganisation [LGR] was spotlit as a potential driver of stress and was being handled by Heads of Service and Directors. The Senior Leadership Team maintained communications with staff, seeking to reassure colleagues via webinars and direct communication. The potential for career development and growth for most staff was emphasised and HR specialists were working with managers to help people cope with change.
Scrutiny Panel noted the ‘red’ rating for percentage of Council tax collected. It was suggested that the Council might want to look at improving its advertising of ways it could help people in housing difficulties.
A Panel member pointed out that there was no KPI relating to climate change. There were KPIs on waste and recycling, but none of the work on impacting climate change had any KPIs associated with it. Only qualitative content was given, without quantitative data alongside. If a KPI could be given, with the effects of specific measures, the Council could show if it was making a real difference and would show if measures were working. The Executive Director described the Strategic Plan Action Plan [SPAP], underlining that it was an action plan, with detailed work carried out below the broad content in the SPAP. Action plans had been provided in the past year, and the Panel could receive more detail if it wished to see it. The Portfolio Holder reminded the Panel that a lot of detailed information on this subject went to the Environment and Sustainability Panel, and members were welcome to read their agendas and attend their meetings. The Portfolio Holder committed to seeing if that Panel was looking into possible ways to measure performance. Councillor McCarthy, who was Chair of the Environment and Sustainability Panel, confirmed that that Panel wished to be hands-on, and was seeking new work programme items.
The Panel considered the performance levels around the time taken to process housing benefit claims, asking if there was a cost to having such good performance, which was rated the best out of local authorities in the East of England and was exceeding targets. The Executive Director offered to seek a briefing note on this area of operations but gave assurances that the Council’s leadership did not believe that the processing team was overstaffed. There were often critical issues where any delays in processing would increase the number of people in arrears. The Portfolio Holder praised the work done by Sam Preston, Head of Operational Finance, and her team. Quick processing reduced costs as fewer people then had to seek support from other services and there was a reduction in chasing progress on claims.
The Portfolio Holder was asked if tender information was sent by the Council to social enterprise companies, to seek bids on contracts. The Portfolio Holder gave his understanding that this was the case but was not convinced that the Council did enough to engage social enterprises or cooperatives.
The Panel discussed whether it might be possible to produce a KPI on numbers booking places at events run by the Council’s Amphora Events company. The Portfolio Holder expressed uncertainty that economic development KPIs would be useful but agreed that it was important that the work done by the companies of Colchester Commercial Holdings Limited [CCHL] was scrutinised. CCHL regularly reported back to Governance and Audit Committee. When questions were asked about how event information could be used to promote Colchester, the Chairman suggested that this be covered when the Panel received its next briefing from the Portfolio Holder responsible for culture.
RECOMMENDED to CABINET that: -
a) The Council increases its communications to advertise the assistance and advice that the Council can potentially give to tenants of private rental residential properties who experience financial difficulties, and to urge tenants in that position to approach the Council to seek assistance
b) Cabinet direct officers to produce a forward forecast of expected demand for temporary accommodation, so as to inform future setting of key performance indicators regarding numbers of households in temporary accommodation
RESOLVED that the SCRUTINY PANEL has: -
a) Reviewed performance against Key Performance Indicators and, where Key Performance Indicators have not been met, ensured that appropriate corrective action has been taken.
b) Reviewed performance against the Strategic Plan Delivery Plan and, where goals or associated actions have not been completed or show a RAG status of Red or Amber, ensured that appropriate corrective action has been taken.
c) Made recommendations to Cabinet so these can be considered when Cabinet considers the same report on 4 June 2025.