Meeting Details

The Chairman explained that items 10 and 11 on the agenda [Draft Digital Strategy and Draft Customer Strategy] would be considered at the same time by the Panel, due to their intertwined and related nature.

Mandy Jones, Strategic Director, gave a presentation on the strategies, showing the alignment and joint focus. The shared priorities were given, providing clear direction and leadership across the Council and its wholly owned companies, Colchester Borough Homes and Colchester Commercial Holdings Limited. This would aid in preparing for Local Government Reorganisation [LGR]. Tailored services would help to meet rising levels of demand for services, whilst using technology and data responsibly. Data and insights would be used to deliver efficient and effective services, with continuous improvements.

The Customer Strategy was designed to improve interactions across all customer channels, from face-to-face to online interactions. The Digital Strategy defined the platforms and technology used by the Council, including those working behind the scenes to underpin Council services. This would also cover ethical use of artificial intelligence [AI] and cyber security. Both Strategies would support initiatives such as the Essex Digital Partnership and would assist collaboration with other councils and partners.

There was public demand for easy-to-use online services. Financial pressures and rising demand meant that technology had to be used to optimise delivery of services and contacts. The new website would use government design principles to make ease of use a priority. Existing and new partnerships would be built upon to improve customer services, including in health and social care. An example was the development of neighbourhood hubs to deliver integrated services. Education and children’s services involved work with Essex County Council [ECC].

The design process for the Customer Strategy included work with residents, staff and partners, collecting a large range of views and feedback. Customer priorities voiced were personal contacts, better website and removing frustration from difficulties in finding information or using online channels. Staff and leadership points included being more focused on service users, joining up technology and systems, and ensuring ease of use in the channels available to users.

The Strategic themes were outlined and examples given as to how these were delivered in practice. Themes were for a customer-led Council with a customer-focused workforce, a ‘Digital First’ approach to customer services, an evidence-led approach to customers’ experiences, and the creation of a culture of continuous improvement. Actions included improved technology and training, better platforms and effective use of data to improve.

Darren Kidson, Interim Head of Digital, introduced the draft Digital Strategy, which had been developed in line with Government guidance, and guidance from the NCSC [National Cyber Security Centre]. Vaughan Johnson, Technology Solutions Manager, summarised the reasons for the new strategy and what it covered. Themes covered what needed to be delivered, and emphasised who the Strategy would deliver for. An outline of the ways in which the two strategies would support each other was given. Highlights of the use of AI, data and digital inclusion were noted, using the Council’s digital tools and platforms to build future enhancements and engage with customers. The maximising of investments and contract value were key considerations.

New technologies were being assessed, and governance and standards were key in directing how technology and data would be used. Security and assurance of responsible data usage were noted. An assortment of examples were given of apps and functionality which were being explored for use in improving Council operations. In some cases, this involved using the learning of other organisations and councils to quickly make improvements and minimise time and money costs. Often these involved very small financial costs in order to improve working. Next steps included expanding trials of ethical AI use, covering planning services, customer services and others. Cloud-first IT systems would be prioritised and digital training delivered. Engaging with communities and building inclusive services would include design workshops and digital engagement sessions. New communication channels would be assessed and their impacts evaluated. Finally, preparations would be carried out to make the Council ready for automations and AI-based improvements. These would be implemented under the oversight of an AI Ethics Board to ensure transparency and compliance.

Praise was given by a Panel member for the ‘digital by default’ approach, providing access digitally for those who preferred it, and making more space in non-digital channels for those who needed them. Digital exclusion was raised, with an example given that around 25% of CBH tenants did not have an email account and 12% did not have a smartphone.

Officers were asked about work with parish, town and community councils, with a Panel member urging for more to be done to see how this could best be done. A request was also made for training to be provided for members to inform them about AI and how it could be used. The Strategic Director discussed how the Strategies would interact with the Council’s ‘Community Can’ strategy, designed to enable people in the Council’s communities. Work being done with the local health and wellbeing alliance was expected to put the Council in a good place to address issues in communities, including digital exclusion. Future options for in-person support were being considered, including in areas with a neighbourhood health hub and more support in housing and homelessness services. Digital inclusion work needed to be embedded across all customer services, allowing access via mobile-enabled platforms. Places such as libraries could be used to provide free access to computers and provide digital access courses. The Council needed to signpost these more effectively. External funding opportunities for community skills programmes were expected to be available.

The Interim Head of Digital gave assurances that training would be provided on the new technologies and ways of working, including to councillors. Regarding digital exclusion/poverty, the Panel was informed that the next local digital funding round would soon begin, inviting applications for funding. The Council would be applying for funding to provide free SIM cards and opportunities to recycle phones, to get people online.

The Interim Head of Digital took questions around use of generative AI chatbots such as ChatGPT. ChatGPT could be used on Council devices, as an inbuilt function of Copilot, which included a range of AI agents and tools, avoiding the risks of using the general version of that chatbot. Use of AI would be closely controlled, and the Council was following the Government rules recently released on this usage, to be overseen by an AI Ethics Board that would report to Governance and Audit Committee. There was no intention to build a new AI tool and the Council’s use of Copilot did not entail any sharing of private data outside of the Council’s 365 environment or with people outside of the organisation. AI use to assist customers was covered, including the ability for AI to signpost customers to other organisations delivering services that the Council did not provide. All customer data would be held securely on UK servers.

Panel asked questions as to what was being done to bring together publicly available data to establish a base line, against which any progress in health and wellbeing could be measured. Rory Doyle, Strategic Director, explained work with the Health and Wellbeing Alliance, with a Place Partnership approach in place. Data sharing with partners and understanding health data to predict trends and model service provision would be key. Examples of this were given.

The Technology Solutions Manager laid out savings being made, looking at the cost of existing systems and efforts to make full use of contracts and obtaining maximum value. The ability to quickly access necessary data from across the Council in order to ease customer journeys was set out. Phil Charles, Contact and Support Manager, told the Panel of changes at the contact centre, where a form was now being used for customers to more-easily request and find the information they needed, in an easier way than the traditional form of email conversation.

A Panel member voiced concerns as to how the Council and its systems were preparing for LGR, asking why there was budget provided for developing the Council’s systems, instead of concentrating on the basic functions that people indicate they want, and on fixing small issues and existing systems.

The Technology Solutions Manager emphasised that the work done on the contact centre had been vital, as the centre had been failing and experiencing significant levels of issues that had hampered the service being provided. Negotiations with the provider were successful, resulting in the issues being sorted for no additional cost, working in-house. The Council’s website was also failing and a barrier to digital inclusion. At no additional cost, this was also being addressed. The Strategy aimed to be simple and lay out what was needed, and how it would be done.

Questions were posed about the cost of producing the two Strategies and their branding and materials. The Interim Head of Digital gave assurances that the production cost was zero, as the writing of the Strategies and graphic design work had all been done in-house. There was no capital available to spend on ‘software as a service’ [SaaS], and the Council’s cloud-based operations could not be capitalised. There were some systems reaching end of life which would need to be replaced, especially where a statutory service was being delivered. This would be done via the Essex Digital Partnership, ensuring replacements would last appropriately to take the Council through to LGR whilst improving services and seeking opportunities to work with potential partners in LGR.

The Strategic Director gave an overview of the Fit for the Future project [FfF] and its governance. The project had overseen work to introduce a new contact centre and towards creating a new website, redesigning customer journeys. The Technology Solutions Manager pointed out the benefits of the use of LocalGov Drupal for the new website, which was designed for public sector/local government needs, to Gov.UK standards and which allowed for innovation by users to be shared across the sector freely, due to its open-source nature. The officers gave assurances regarding the security of data being processed, and its accessibility being WCAG [Web Content Accessibility Guidelines] compliant.

A Panel member asked for more information as to plans for convergence with partners in LGR and for views on data ownership and situations where the NHS was trying to bring their data together and away from legacy systems. The Interim Head of Digital gave assurances about the approach to technology procurement, with a Board to conduct additional scrutiny of any digital technology software procurement, ensuring data protection, information governance, cyber security and that the product being procured is appropriate in the context of LGR and the Council’s environmental commitments, among other considerations. A range of measures would be used to ensure successful procurement of secure options, including use of DPIAs [data protection impact assessments] and data sharing agreements in place where needed.

The Panel discussed seeing the tangible results from the updated strategies and ways to show what actions came from them in practice. The Technology Solutions Manager explained how RoI [return on investment] was being built in to the process, with the digital pipeline process meaning that all key considerations were covered in the procurement process.

RECOMMENDED that the draft Digital Strategy and draft Digital Strategy: -

a) Be noted by the SCRUTINY PANEL and;

b) Proceed to CABINET for approval

Councillor Julie Young attended and, with permission of the Chairman, addressed the Panel to voice her enthusiasm for the project to progress and hope that the Panel would agree. Councillor Young addressed the neighbourhood model for health, with Heart of Greenstead identified as a pilot for making services more accessible within communities, then to be rolled out to other communities. The project was in partnership with Abbeyfields, which also covered Elmstead Market. Other services included library facilities. Past efforts to provide extra services for Greenstead had engaged largescale consultations, building up hopes but then did not proceed. This was a vital project for Greenstead Ward and the wider community.

Councillor Tim Young attended and, with permission of the Chairman, addressed the Panel and first declaring that he had an ‘other registerable interest’ in the item [Board membership of the Heart of Greenstead Board and Chair of Greenstead Community Association], and would need to leave following his statement. Councillor Tim Young echoed Councillor Julie Young’s statement that the area had seen a number of regeneration projects proposed in the past which had then not been carried out. There had been some improvements, but piecemeal. The community felt let down and there had been doubts and cynicism about ‘Heart of Greenstead’. Efforts had been made to engage and make the scheme community-led, building communities and community facilities. Figures for indices of deprivation had just been released, seeing parts being within the 10% most deprived areas in the country. Life expectancy was highlighted, with the expectancy for Greenstead Ward around 10 years less than in some other wards. Health inequalities remained an issue, including rates of COPD [Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease], heart disease, cancer and diabetes being too high. Partnership health working was hoped to be a way to help address this. Councillor Young stressed that Greenstead residents needed hope, that this project gave hope, and asked the Scrutiny Panel to support its progression and make positive recommendations to Cabinet.

With permission of the Chairman, a statement from Councillor Alake Akinyemi was read out. Councillor Alake Akinyemi wrote saying that she had joined the project board as a resident, prior to being elected as a councillor. The project had gained the trust of the community due to its inclusiveness. Previous top-down approaches on other projects had not been warmly welcomed. Residents had welcomed this project as it involved strengthening the community and joint working between partner organisations. Successes already achieved included the Greenstead Fun Day and expansion of the local GP surgery. Support for the project was strong.

Dr Rob Singh, Director of Research and Enterprise [University of Essex], endorsed the proposals being put forward and explained how the project Board had worked. Greenstead was near the University campus and housed many students. Being part of the Board helped the University to benefit the surrounding areas and communities. The governance structure enabled collaboration betwixt stakeholders and connected the community to the proposed developments. This was vital, as previous projects had not sought views, and promises had been made but not then delivered. These needed addressing before work could progress. Infrastructure developments coming forward were key, including in addressing indices of deprivation and health challenges.

Councillor King, Leader of the Council, emphasised the need for the Heart of Greenstead project, including its place as a national pilot, and the partnership working. The project was overseen by the ‘We are Colchester’ Board, and by central government, and was a priority of the Council and of ECC. The Chairman gave a brief explanation of the ‘We are Colchester’ Board, being an oversight board made up of partner representatives and civic-minded individuals, which had been a mandatory condition for receiving central government funding for Town Deal funding. The Council remained the accountable body for projects such as Heart of Greenstead, and the central government funding provided was only for specific projects, such as this, and could not be used for any other purpose.

A statement from Pam Cox MP had been submitted and was read out by the Chairman. The MP gave her support for the project and its potential for regeneration and unlocking economic benefits for residents. Community capacity building, digital skills and active travel were listed as benefits. Greenstead had been allocated an ongoing £2m every year to assist in this. The MP urged Scrutiny Panel to support this project.

Rory Doyle, Strategic Director, explained that planning permission had been obtained, and now the procurement process for a contractor was needed. A funding package was in place, subject to some further governance processes at the Council and ECC. Lee Rainforth, Major Projects Director, described the momentum behind the scheme, and the competitive tendering process to appoint a design-and-build contractor. The process stages were described, acting as an assurance for the Council. The report before the Panel was to show a preferred bidder and to show that the proper processes had been followed.

A Panel member asked if it would be a fixed price contract and was told that an element of it would be fixed price. Over 50% of the tender was fixed, with the rest being subject to provisional costs [PCs]. Gleeds had analysed the PCs and believed that they are in line with the original cost plan presented. Gleeds had undertaken a complete cost management exercise at the outset for the entire project. Tenders returned were close to the estimate produced by this exercise. The timeframe requires a contract to be agreed by March, otherwise funding may be reclaimed by central government. The Major Projects Director detailed a range of the potential risks relating to the project, which would only become apparent following the design stage. Full geotechnical investigations had now been carried out to the site and surrounding areas.

Officers were asked to show how due diligence had been carried out in selecting the preferred contractor. Tenders were assessed on the value of their projects and their experience in such work, prior to being allowed to tender bids. Expressions of interests were sought, with each contractor then rated against this project to ensure they had relevant experience in such works, and with the local government sector, and that they were financially robust enough to manage projects of this size.

A Panel member asked if central government had provided written confirmation that the Pride in Place funding would be released mindful of the Town Deal funding deadline. It was suggested that the Neighbourhood Board model was not yet operational, and officers were asked what governance structure was in place to approve the Pride in Place funding. Details were requested about any possible contingency funding avenues, if that funding were not to be released on time. The Panel member asked if the financial contributions from the Council and ECC had been formally identified and budgeted for. The Strategic Director confirmed that much of the detail about funding would need to be laid out in the confidential part of discussions on this item. There were still some governance processes to be completed before all of the details could be confirmed.

A Panel member said that there should be a masterplan in place for the site, with an appraisal, arguing that this would mean that any shortfalls could be financed from within the site. The member stated that the biggest item in the Green Book Appraisal list was the land value uplift, assuming a £6m uplift. The member claimed that it would be normal for the housing element to subsidise the infrastructure and community assets, and gave a list of things they would have expected to see produced before tenders were sought.

Lindsay Barker, Deputy Chief Executive explained that the original premise had been for a masterplan to be produced for the whole area, with an estate regeneration programme, dealing with existing housing and not a blank canvas site. This would include some demolition and rebuilding, as well as some property purchasing from Notting Hill Genesis [Housing Association]. The Town Deal bids had been conceived in 2019 and unveiled in 2021. Two years were lost to the Pandemic, and a decision taken to split the project into two phases. There was then little time to set out what could be delivered, with costs increased to far over what had been budgeted originally. The Council had had to adapt, looking at the full site of community buildings, public realm and wider area. Things needed to proceed in order to ensure that the project could go ahead, and mindful of distrust of the Council within the community. The Strategic Director listed ways in which the Council had worked to improve its credibility. Bringing forward the community assets now would help with this and would mean that the future planning could start from a better place.

Officers were asked for assurance that the Council could not be left ‘on the hook’ financially for the project, and that it would not affect the Council’s budget. Councillor David King, Leader of the Council, stated that such assurance of there being no call on the Council budget was not possible, but stressed the responsibility for delivering the Town Deal project. Any funding issues would need to be dealt with in partnership with the other organisations, including ECC. The Leader was asked what tangible and quantifiable results were expected to come from the proposed investments. Councillor Julie Young clarified that there was currently a 15-year difference between the healthy life expectancy in Greenstead, compared to those wards that were most healthy. The Strategic Director emphasised the width of determinants of health. Data showed that around 5% of the population were generating about 50% of the costs incurred by principle statutory services, such as primary healthcare and social care. There would continue to be serious demand challenges on services without action being taken to prevent it. The Deputy Chief Executive gave assurances of the expectations, including from NHS partners, of measures being put in place to track health service use and outcomes. These would take time to start generating meaningful data. There would be indicators, monitored in partnership with the Council’s counterparts and national organisations. A request was made from the Panel for a baseline as to what current statistics were recorded, in order to see how these changed over time. Officers were asked if the proposals for Greenstead would also benefit those living in deprivation in neighbouring areas. The Strategic Director ventured that the Panel seemed to indicate that it wished to have continued dialogue over time and concerning the health improvement situation in Colchester and stated that he was happy to work with the Panel to provide the assurances requested, and information on how services would be developed.

A Panel member suggested that the Panel should put forward a recommendation that Cabinet should approve the appointment of contractor for phase one of the Heart of Greenstead project, and seek clarifications and assurances. These included identification of the Council’s financial exposure and dealing with any budget shortfalls, how much the shortfall on phase one would be, and from which budget it would be covered. The Panel member went on to suggest recommending that Cabinet receive a masterplan and financial appraisals covering the entire project, community facilities and later phases, decant strategy and sequencing, clarification of land value uplift, an explanation as to why proceeds from the housing development could not be used to meet any funding shortfall for phase one, and clarification as to which portfolio holder was responsible for the scheme and its outcomes.

The Chairman suggested that the meeting move into closed session in order to seek answers to some of these requests, before coming back into public session for any recommendations to be made.

The SCRUTINY PANEL resolved under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 and the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements)(Meetings and Access to Information)(England) Regulations 2012 to exclude the public from the meeting for the following item as it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

[The record of the subsequent confidential consideration of this item is recorded as confidential minute 555.]

The Scrutiny Panel returned to public session to discuss what recommendations it might wish to make to Cabinet.

The SCRUTINY PANEL having considered the report on the proposed contract award for the Heart of Greenstead Phase 1 construction works, RECOMMENDS that CABINET should approve the contract award and that the following clarifications and assurances should be provided:-

1. Funding of the Budget Shortfall

    

   Clear identification of the Council’s financial exposure, including:

    

   •       How much of the confirmed shortfall for phase 1 falls to Colchester City Council, and:

   •       From which approved budget the Council proposes to meet this contribution.

    

2. Whole-Scheme Planning and Inter-dependencies

    

   A timetable and budget for a masterplan and financial appraisal.

    

3. Governance

    

   Clarification of the Portfolio Holder responsible for the scheme and its financial outcome.

    

4. Preparation of an operating budget showing that sufficient funds will be available to maintain the buildings to a high standard without Council support.

    

5. Due diligence has been undertaken on the contractor.