Meeting Details

A Call-in was received from Councillor Pauline Hazell regarding the Gosbecks Archaeological Work Plan 2016-2019. After consultation with the Deputy Chairman of the Panel, the Portfolio Holder and the Lead Call-in Councillor it was agreed that the Call-in could be brought as an urgent item to the Panel.

The item was heard under Item 9. Referred items under the Call in Procedure. 

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held 23 February 2016, 10 March 2016, 22 March 2016 and 25 May 2016 be approved as a correct record.

Have Your Say!

Mike Hardy

Mike Hardy addressed the Scrutiny Panel and highlighted the differences between the estimated closing balance in the 2013-2016 work plan and the opening balance in the 2016-2019 work plan. Mike Hardy stated that the difference between the two balances was more than £45,000 and represented 63% of the budget over the three year period.

Mike Hardy stated that the new Work Plan does not address this level of overspend and casts doubt on the credibility of the plan. Mike Hardy suggested that the work plans for the Gosbecks Archaeological site and in particular the discrepancies between the accounts should be added to the Scrutiny Panel Work Programme.

Councillor Pauline Hazell, Lead Call-in Councillor

Councillor Hazell addressed the Scrutiny Panel and stated that the Call-in arose out of genuine concern on the future of the Gosbecks Archaeological Park.

Councillor Hazell outlined that the site was the largest of the five known Roman theatres in Britain and also a major Neolithic site. In the site being gifted to the Borough Council, along with the dowry, it gave the Council an opportunity to develop the archaeological park. Councillor Hazell stated that the Work Plan 2016-2019 does not include a vision or intention to develop the site in accordance with the way in which the site was gifted to the Council.

Councillor Hazell called the decision in, as a result of the report not having included consideration for all options available or clarity of aims or desired options for the park or due weight to all considerations.

Councillor Hazell highlighted the discrepancy between the closing balance of the previous work plan and the opening balance of the proposed work plan has not been explained. At the current rate of expenditure it is likely that the funding will have been used by 2024-25, and there are no aims for securing further funding in the future.

Councillor Hazell also questioned whether the maintenance on the site is carried out as part of the Grounds Maintenance contract, and if so suggested that the expenditure should be itemised and fully costed.

Councillor Hazell highlighted that in previous work plans there had been mention of investigations from the Colchester Archaeological Trust as well as provision of theatre acts at the site. Whilst there had been work undertaken to produce display boards for the site, the information boards for the temple and theatre site have been placed the wrong way round and some have been damaged. In addition the car park is not up to the standard of an important historical site.

Councillor Hazell questioned whether the interpretation planning group, which had the aim of developing the site existed, and why there was no information on the site regarding its importance as a pre-roman settlement.

The restoration of the earlier aims as included in the Work Plans and the creation of the Interpretation Planning Group would ensure that the Gosbecks Archaeological site is a valued heritage site within the Borough.  

Councillor Annie Feltham, Portfolio Holder for Business, Leisure and Opportunities.

Councillor Feltham addressed the points made by Councillor Hazell and highlighted that the administration greatly value the Gosbecks Archaeological Site and are committed to promoting the heritage of the Borough.

Councillor Feltham stated that the Portfolio Holder decision for the Work Plan from 2016-2019 was very similar to those signed by previous Portfolio Holders and is requesting a renewal of the management plan. The plan was originally supported by half a million pounds, and the work plans have aimed to maintain the site in the most cost effective manner.

With regard to development of the site, Councillor Feltham highlighted that the site had been developed in that it was now available to the general public and the interpretation boards had been installed. Whilst there had been earlier more extensive development plans this has not been possible due to the significant external investment needed to develop the site. Councillor Feltham stated that given the limited funds available the focus is to ensure that the site is protected and kept available; this follows the advice from Heritage England.

Councillor Feltham confirmed that the maintenance and work at the site is carried out through the Grounds Maintenance contract.

Raising finance for further development would not be feasible, Colchester Borough Council have therefore focussed on ensuring that the site is protected so that residents and visitors to Colchester can continue to enjoy it.

Questions from the Panel

• Councillor Arnold – Requested that the Portfolio Holder share the vision for the site with the Panel.
• Councillor Willetts – Questioned the discrepancy between the opening and closing balances on each of the work plans. Also questioned the distinction between the management and development of the site. In addition questioned the original agreement with Colchester Borough Council taking over the site.

Councillor Feltham and Councillor Hazell responded to the question from the Panel.

• Councillor Feltham – In response to Councillor Arnold, the vision for the site is to continue to provide care and maintenance mindful of the resources available. Colchester Borough Council values the archaeological park and visitor feedback suggests that the site is popular. With regard to volunteer groups using the site, this would be something that the Council would need to look into as it may or may not be possible. The focus is to continue to provide the care and maintenance using the funding, with a longer term plan to ensure that the site is maintained.  
• Councillor Feltham – In response to Councillor Willetts the budget included within the work plans are based on forecasts. Further information will need to be sought on this particular issue and provided back to the Scrutiny Panel.
• Councillor Hazell – In response to Councillor Willetts, the management and maintenance is keeping the site available and clean for visitors. With regard to development, this is a long term plan for the site; this could include a visitor centre. Councillor Hazell highlighted that other heritage areas in Colchester have received funding for development, but Gosbecks Archaeological site has not even though reference to development is included within the work programme.
• Councillor Feltham - In response to Councillor Willetts, Councillor Feltham stated that there has been development on the site since 1995, as the site is accessible with indications of where the theatre and temple were position. The site has also received funding from the stewardship scheme of the higher level payments agency of approximately £10,000 a year. Previous applications for funding for bigger schemes had previously been rejected, which makes the approach based on the longer term view. Following advice from the Heritage manager, the heritage lottery fund would not support development on a Greenfield site and nor would Heritage England want development of the site because it would require scheduled monument consent.

The Panel discussed the work plan and the issue of development on the Gosbecks site and noted that a work programme for the site is available on the website. Some Panel members highlighted the suggestions for visions should be brought to Cabinet or Council rather than suggested at the Scrutiny Panel due to the restrictions of the Call-in.

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder Decision for the Gosbecks Archaeological Work Plan 2016-2019 be confirmed and the decision implemented immediately. 

RESOLVED that the Work Programme 2016/17 be noted.

Darren Brown, Finance Manager, introduced the Financial Monitoring Report for the end of year 2015/16, the report requests that the Panel notes the financial performance of the General Fund Services and the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) for the year 2015/16.

Darren Brown stated that the General Fund outturn for the year showed a net surplus after carry forwards of £0.8m. This is mainly as a result of additional income from parking, planning and bereavement services. Darren Brown also highlighted that Cabinet in November 2015 agreed £0.5m of projects being funded from the in-year underspend, such as the Big Choice grant scheme.

Darren Brown also highlighted the carry forwards into 2016/17 and the major outturn variances included within the report. As the 2016/17 budget was based on the plan that the 15/16 outturn would be delivered on budget, the final outturn position therefore reflects an improvement on the overall budget.

Councillor Cory stated that the administration had achieved its savings target, with the increased income increasing the outturn position. The budget had expected a greater impact of the Park and Ride on the car parks, but this has been lower than anticipated. The additional surpluses as a result of the increased level of income will be used in projects for the betterment of Colchester.

The following issues were raised by Councillors;

• Councillor Hogg – Asked for further information on the overspend in the Governance department being offset by the underspend on legal services employee costs and whether this was a planned vacancy. Councillor Hogg also questioned whether there would be additional funding for maintenance on trees following the expenditure on storm damage last year.
• Councillor Coleman – Has there been a risk assessment on the impact on the budget if the UK votes to leave the EU?
• Councillor Willetts – Questioned the reasoning behind the use of carry forwards rather than spending within the financial year. Also questioned the term Pensions strain.
• Councillor Arnold – Asked for further information regarding the prudent level of reserves, and questioned the use of carry forwards.
• Councillor Willetts – Questioned the level of reserves held by the Council.

  Darren Brown and Councillor Cory provided the following responses to Councillors;

• In response to Councillor Hogg, Darren Brown stated that the offset refers to vacant posts throughout the year from the legal team. The budget will be set to account for a full complement of staff, but due to the vacancy the underspend could then be used to offset the additional costs relating to health and safety. Councillor Cory stated In response to the query regarding tree maintenance some of the funding that had originally been allocated to street lighting was reallocated for tree maintenance and planting of trees in the Borough.
• Councillor Cory stated that whilst this isn’t included within the report this has been discussed at Cabinet level. Councillor Cory is looking at the impact on the level of internal borrowing if the UK votes to leave the EU as interests rates could increase and therefore increase the cost of borrowing.
• In response to Councillor Willetts, Councillor Cory stated that the administration has made efficiency savings in the year and had a higher than expected increase in income. The £3.2m of carry forwards is being spent on services and capital investments that last longer than a financial year. Darren Brown stated In response to the query regarding the pensions strain this relates to Colchester Borough Council paying into the Essex County Council scheme to make up for the missed payments of those who are made redundant. It is not possible to anticipate the total sum of the pension strain because it depends on the individuals circumstances.
• Councillor Cory stated that the prudent level of reserves has been increased due to the increase in population of the Borough. With regard to the carry forwards, Councillor Cory stated that there will be a number of projects that are allocated within a year but last a number of years, for example the Roman Walls project.
• In response to Councillor Willetts, Councillor Cory stated that the increase in reserves relates to committed reserves that are allocated to specific projects. This includes the affordable housing project which will be spent over a number of years. The budget does include one off items, such as the New Homes Bonus.

RESOLVED that the financial performance of the General Fund Services and the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) 2015/16 be noted.         

Steve Heath, Finance Manager, introduced the Capital Expenditure Monitor 2015/16 report which requests the Scrutiny Panel review the level of capital spending during 2015/16 and forecasts for future years.

Steve Heath stated that the accrued capital spending for the year totalled £19.2m which is 85% of the projected spend for 2015/16. The variations for the year are as a result of alterations in payment dates which are not deemed to be significant matters. The size of the capital programme has increased by £11.3m since the last quarter, the majority of which is from the introduction of the approved Housing Investment Programme budgets for 2016/17.

Steve Heath highlighted that the report contained updates from budget managers on significant areas of capital spend, and additional information on the five schemes categorised as amber.

Councillor Willetts questioned whether there had been any impact on the capital programme following the inclusion of the Housing Investment Programme.

Steve Heath confirmed that the fixed rate of borrowing does not affect the capital programme as the fixed level borrowing rate was lower than anticipated over the thirty year period; the more significant issue is the government reduction in rents for Council tenants. Councillor Mark Cory stated that this issue does not affect the current capital programme, but does affect the Housing Revenue Account and the possibility of developing more housing stock.

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Panel commented and reviewed the capital spending during 2015/16 and forecasts for future years.