Committee Members’ Questions

Responses by the Chief Executive (unless stated otherwise)

We need to know why, after all of the adjustments covered by unauthorised expenditure were dealt with, the fire doors were only then identified as an issue, and that required a separate decision (from the unauthorised expenditure) and was addressed so late in the process?

You are right to scrutinise because that is where some of the learning comes from. The fire doors is something where I approved with the reasoning being part of the spec was around the fire doors but then building control looked at the fire doors and said that the original fire doors were no longer compliant with the legislation arising from the Building Safety Act 2022 and the Officers employed by Tendring District Council in the building control team therefore said that the fire doors were no longer fit for purpose. If I had argued the point that they were fire doors and not changed them and a fire was to have happened, I would rather be sitting here justifying an unauthorised expenditure rather than an unfortunate death. Whatever the position, that was something I would have done regardless as it needed to be managed immediately.

The fire doors seemed to be an awful lot of money considering it was around 5 fire doors, can you explain?

Fire doors are expensive. There were 30 flat entrance doors and 19 cross-corridor doors, and a single and two pairs of double service cupboard doors. As I understand it, in terms of the frame for the fire doors, they also have to be compliant. So, there were a bit more than 5 fire doors.

Is one of the things the Council have learnt is that specifications should address current legislation and that by using specialists to write the specifications, that should be the case?

Yes, that is correct. When looking at the original piece of work which had been done and planned when Councillor Paul Honeywood was the Portfolio Holder, that was pre-legislation. The original specification would not have had those in anyway because at the time, the building had fire doors, it just so happened that those fire doors were no longer fit for purpose, but the point about making sure the specification is accurate reduces the amount of variations, reduces the amount of times to revisit what is in the specification which will reduce costs. Officers are using the Essex Procurement Partnership and TDC are procuring a lot better and a lot of the work across Essex is with credit to Lisa Hastings (Monitoring Officer) who has been leading on this for Councils across Essex and a number of authorities are wanting to join the Partnership because of the work that it is doing. 

Why were the Cabinet not made aware of the issues before the May 2024 report? In relation to the numerous times that concerns surrounding Spendells were raised. Why is none of that mentioned in this report?

The Corporate Director and the Portfolio Holder were advised of the expenditure issues at the end of February 2024. They immediately commenced a review of issues and took action including the omission of battery storage that had been contemplated, review of other expense areas and the detailed work around the fire doors all of which was formalised as far as then possible in the May 2024 report. This report in front of Members was not about laying blame as to when was somebody going to tell who or what, this report was about the learning and what did TDC get wrong as Officers, what did Officers do about it and what were Officers going to do in the future. The learning that TDC have got out of this has been really important and the conversation with Audit Committee has been really important. 

Are you aware of any feedback to the Cabinet once this was identified?

In February 2024, that was when the expenditure issues were raised and at that stage the conversations with the Portfolio Holder happened and was reported back to Cabinet in May 2024.

The Capital Budget spend was £2.387 million and Spendells was costing around £22,800 per month, are you aware of the cost of the delay of opening Spendells?

There is not a delay because of the spend that was unauthorised because the work carried on. The cost of this error did not create the spend issue, the cost of delay to getting Spendells open was in the report, there was various different things in terms of the issues. Had it not opened, it would have still been an empty building and still costing the Council money. There is not an equation to say what would have been the cost had the Officers stopped and got those permissions. Not using it as temporary accommodation would have cost the Council an extra £200,000/£250,000. The length of time is not in the report. 

What is the process around once extra work is found in terms of management?

The difference between the public and private sector is that the Council is using the taxpayer’s money, and I think most people in the community would be most upset if the Council did not have the correct processes and governance and procurement to ensure that their money is kept safe, therefore sometimes the systems are a bit slower. The Council has elected Members who are a part of that process and for them to be part of the process and make a decision, they need to have a report before them that includes their recommended decision, options and assurance that what they are doing is legal. The constitution lays out the rules both for Officers and for Members in terms of their approval process and who can approve what. In this case, I do not believe it is the timing of it because they did not go through that process. When doing projects, if you have the specification right and funding all agreed and correct, that is a bit quicker because the specification being right means that you have not got to go right back for further funding. When this project was started in 2017/18, no one could foresee COVID happening and the costs of everything increasing as much as they did.

(Lisa Hastings) – within the Council’s constitution it does have Special Urgency Provisions. The fire door decision was made on the day Officers were made aware of it. The Chief Executive and the Leader can make urgent decisions following consultation with the Section 151 Officer and the Monitoring Officer. In regard to the constitution, the Council also has to work with the legislation that sits around Local Government and the Council is required to publish notification of decisions with 28 days’ notice; however there are special urgency provisions that apply that with consultation with the Chairman of the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee Officers can request exemption from that 28 day period and from Call-in. As long as the Officer is satisfying those requirements within an email or letter that goes to the Chairman of the relevant Committee then those exemptions are given.

Are you saying that there is a robust process in place?

Yes, that is correct.

Does any of the process need to be reviewed like the training for Officers? Would the Council have spent that money for Spendells?

The payback period is there and there are two reasons which are the financial position and also for the individuals and the support networks. Temporary accommodation is going up around the country and for some authorities it is 40/50% of their budgets. The cost of accommodation in expensive areas is so high which means that those authorities move those individuals farther afield which can cause mental health issues or destroy children at school networks, and the cost goes back into the public sector system because it is creating other costs in part of the system because there is no good quality accommodation. The Council needs to stop reacting to temporary accommodation and start to proactively address temporary accommodation. There are implications if the Council does not fulfil the requirements of training.

(Lisa Hastings) – Officers must have training, and I want to reassure the Committee that the training is delivered,and the Council have a robust training process in place, and it is repeated.

How flexible is the document and what is the process if it needed to be changed and where does the Portfolio Holder involvement come into that process?

With the £60 million project, there are a whole series of other projects within that. Some of the projects will need a lot more focus and time. At no stage do I think that there was malicious action in there, there was fault and errors but not anything malicious.

(Lisa Hastings) – I asked for the Portfolio Holder to be involved in signing off those project initiation documents because as Officers, they are delivering the policy of the Council’s Cabinet to make sure that there is that sign off. It is quite an agile process with phone calls, emails and talking.

The 40 variations seem quite high, could you comment on that?

If you have a better specification, you should not have so many variations. There will be variations on big projects but 40 is a lot. It is all about good planning beforehand.