Audit & Governance Committee - Tuesday 24 February 2026, 7:00pm - Epping Forest District Council webcasts

Audit & Governance Committee
Tuesday, 24th February 2026 at 7:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Owen Sparks
  2. Cllr Steven Heather
  3. Owen Sparks
  4. Cllr Darshan Sunger
  5. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  6. Heather Kneale
  7. Owen Sparks
  8. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  9. Cllr Michael Owen
  10. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  11. Owen Sparks
  12. Cllr Darshan Sunger
  13. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  14. Cllr Darshan Sunger
  15. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  16. Cllr Darshan Sunger
  17. Owen Sparks
  18. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  19. Owen Sparks
  20. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  21. Sissel Heiberg
  22. Owen Sparks
  23. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  24. Sissel Heiberg
  25. Sarah Marsh
  26. Sissel Heiberg
  27. Owen Sparks
  28. Sissel Heiberg
  29. Sarah Marsh
  30. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  31. Cllr Michael Owen
  32. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  33. Cllr Michael Owen
  34. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  35. Cllr Michael Owen
  36. Owen Sparks
  37. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  38. Owen Sparks
  39. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  40. Owen Sparks
  41. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  42. Owen Sparks
  43. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  44. Cllr Darshan Sunger
  45. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  46. Owen Sparks
  47. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  48. Cllr Darshan Sunger
  49. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  50. Cllr Tim Matthews
  51. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  52. Cllr Michael Owen
  53. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  54. Cllr Tim Matthews
  55. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:00:00
Okay, good evening everyone. Thanks very much for coming along to tonight's meeting of the
Audit and Governance Committee. Nice to see a nearly full house of members and welcome
to the cabinet members and others who've come along as well, online or in person. I'm going

1 Webcasting Introduction

to start by reading the webcasting introduction. So this meeting will be webcast and I'd like
to remind everyone that it will be filmed live and recorded and uploaded to the internet
and therefore capable of repeated viewing.
So by participating, you're consenting to being filmed
and to the possible use of those images and recordings.
If anyone on the teams doesn't wish
to have their image captured,
you should ensure your video settings are turned off,
but it is helpful to see people's faces
when they're speaking.
And please can everyone turn their mics on
and when they speak and off when they finished. Do we have any apologies for absence?

2 Apologies for Absence

Councillor Hadley, Chairman. Okay and do we have any declarations of interest?

3 Declarations of Interest

4 Minutes

5 Matters Arising

No. We don't have any minutes so we can't have any matters arising so we can move straight on to

6 Any Other Business

any other business and there's only one which is taken for accounts but it is quite a big item
and I appreciate the reports came out because we're working towards a backstop date of the end of this week
and it's required working up to the wire. You've had not a lot of time to absorb all of them
and in particular the supplementary agenda which came out this afternoon.
So I want members to feel they've got the time to absorb what they're being told
and pick up issues and so forth if they've not had a chance to see all of the latest papers.
So I'll ask Mr Sparks to introduce it and then we'll hand over to Ms Hansen from Ernst & Young to talk us through her report.
Thanks very much.
Owen Sparks - 0:02:05
So I'll just do a brief introduction, save perhaps repeating what Debbie will say in a minute.
So this report presents Ernst & Young's audit results and annual audit reports, 24 -25, and
includes the draught audit opinion and commentary on the Council's value for money arrangements.
Again, it's set out in the supplementary agenda.
Sorry, can you just pause for a minute?
Councillor Heather, you're concerned.
Sorry, Chairman.
Cllr Steven Heather - 0:02:32
Is this licence restricted?
No.
It's not.
Thank you.
Sorry, carry on.
Owen Sparks - 0:02:37
So I set this up for inter -gender and again apologies that came out late.
What we wanted to do is make sure that members had the most up to date position that we could
share.
There's a number of final audit cheques that have just been undertaken by EY before the
final state of accounts can be issued and there remains one final amendment to the accounts
that we're doing at the moment and that relates to tax adjustment to the group accounts which
would improve the position slightly.
It's anticipated that the account position and the opinion will be finalised on Thursday
ahead of the statutory backstop that, as the Chair said, is on the 27th, on Friday.
And at that point, hopefully the Chair of the committee will be comfortable to sign
off the accounts in his role as Chair of the committee.
Again, I'll just cover this very quickly.
We're anticipating Ernst & Young will issue a Disclaimed Opinion statement of accounts.
And that isn't because they've identified material misstatements or financial mismanagement
or anything like that, but it obviously reflects the backstop date and the time required really
to meet that and the amount of work required to build up the assurance really reflecting
the audit position over the last few years.
We're also expecting EY to conclude an appropriate arrangement in place to secure economy, efficiency
and infected disc use resources, there's no significant weaknesses.
And then I'll probably just leave it there and then hand over to Debbie to run through the report in more detail.
Thanks very much. Ms Hanson, over to you.
Thank you, Owen. So, Sanchita's actually going to take you through the audit results report in a bit more detail,
and I'm going to take you through the auditor's annual report.
If I just explain what those two reports are and give you a little bit of context to start off with.
So the audit results report, which is the first item we'll take you through, is the report that we're required to issue under auditing standards, so ISO 260.
And that requires us to set out the key findings from our audit of the financial statements.
We do also include in that report if we have any significant issues to report by exception in relation to value for money.
So that report is very much focused on the financial statements.
The auditors annual report is a report that we're required to issue to you on completion of all of our audit work.
So it includes a high level summary of the accounts findings, but the main focus of that report is in relation to our value for money work.
So, as I said, Sanchita will take you through the audit results report in a moment and then I will pick up the value for money commentary in more detail in a minute.
I guess just by way of context, as Owen has already said, we will be issuing a disclaimed opinion again this year and we're anticipating issuing that on Thursday.
That is purely because of the fact that we were not able to complete any audit procedures
in 23 -24 because of the very short timeframe between the date the predecessor auditor issued
their opinion on the prior year statements and the backstop date last year.
This year we've been able to undertake some of our planned procedures but not all of them
and you'll see that as Sunshiti takes you through the reports she'll show you what we've
got is a schedule of assurances which shows you where we've got kind of different levels
levels of assurances over different balances in the accounts. I would say that this year was
always going to be challenging because of the fact we didn't undertake any audit procedures last year
and also obviously as EY we've probably got slightly different procedures and audit approach
to your predecessor auditor so I think we've been very much getting to know each other this year,
working very closely with the finance team and I think we've got a good bedrock for moving forward
next year to start to rebuild further assurance. It does mean however because we didn't
undertake any work in 23 -24 that we are probably behind.
The Larry guidance, which is included again in the report,
which sets up to potential timeframe for
getting to an unmodified opinion.
And because obviously we were kind of
probably one year behind where
that Larry timetable is at.
But we'll obviously work very closely with
the finance team over the coming year
to try to rebuild as much assurance as we can.
As I said, plans are to issue for
Thursday in terms of value for money.
we have not identified any significant weaknesses.
But again, I will take you through some of the risks that we did identify in
relation to that area which are very much all related to the QALIS
group and the impact on the council's financial statements and
financial sustainability in particular. So without any more comment from me on
that, I will hand you over to Sanchita to take you through the key risks in the
report and the key findings that we've got.
Sorry about that. Thank you, Debbie. Good evening, everyone. I'll take you through our areas of audit focus, audit differences, control recommendations and summary of assurances.
I'll start with areas of audit focus, which is listed on page 10 of the PDF and page 7 of our report, which explains where we concentrated our work and why.
As you'd expect, we carried out our standard fraud procedures, including specific work around badminton override of control.
Although we could not complete all required procedures in this area, however, based on the work we have completed,
we have not come across any evidence of badminton override, inappropriate judgement or significant unusual transactions.
We also focused on the risk of inappropriate capitalization of revenue expenditure, including ref cuts.
We did not identify any inappropriate capitalization, although we did note some timing and classification
issues which are reflected later in the audit differences sections.
PPE and IP valuation remain a significant audit risk, mainly due to the size of the
balance and the level of judgement involved in this area.
Our valuation team reviewed the work of the Council's valuer and did not identify issues
in the samples tested, including samples for the subsidiaries.
However, due to the timing of evidence and the backstop deadline, we were not able to
complete all planned procedures in this area.
Recoverability of quality of the quality of the loan is another significant risk area.
We were unable to conclude because the quality and completeness of the supporting documentation
provided was not sufficient.
Moving on, pension liabilities valuation.
We completed all planned procedures of this area and have not noted any material misstatement
in this area.
Valuation of council dwelling is another area of focus which we could complete all planned
procedures and have not noted any material misstatement.
Next group account.
We were unable to complete our planned procedures in this area mainly due to the independence
issues at component auditors and due to the limited auditing capacity to complete work
ourselves.
Lastly, IFRS 16, again we could not complete all planned procedures in this area due to
the timing constraint and the quality of evidence is provided.
Turning to page 26 of PDF and page 22 of our report, value formality, as Debbie says, we
assessed the council's arrangement against the three required criteria, financial sustainability,
governance and economic efficiency and effectiveness.
We did identify potential risk particularly in relation to policy.
We did identify risk particularly in relation to policy, given ongoing losses, loan exposures
and governance complexities.
However, having completed all our procedures, we did not identify any potential weakness,
significant weakness in the council's value for money arrangements.
This will be again discussed in detail by DEB while discussing our design report later.
Moving on, during the course of the audit, we identified a number of audit differences
listed on page 31 of our report and 35 of the period of both corrected and uncorrected,
including items above 140 KV.
These differences are mainly on account of expenditure, cut -off, PP additions, reference
timing differences, creditors and disclosures. Again, Magment has considered these items
and determined which should be corrected and which are just to be imitated in the context
of the financial statement as a whole. I would stress that while these differences
inform our conclusions, they are not the primary drivers of the disclaimed audit opinions.
Now I will touch upon our assessment of the control environment which is listed on page
34 of our report and page 40 of PDA.
We identified a number of control weaknesses,
primary rating to financial reporting processes,
quality of working papers, reconcilations,
cutoff procedures, contract management,
and evidences of approvals.
These findings are again graded in our report
alongside the management responses.
I want to again emphasise here that these findings
relate to process and control maturity
and do not indicate any inappropriate behaviour or fundamental weakness in governance.
Madment has accepted these findings and has set out action to strengthen process ahead of 2526 audit.
Chair and members, I will now briefly draw your attention to page 47 of our report, which is page 50 of PDF.
This section provides a summary of the audit completed and the level of assurance obtained
across main account areas for 24 -25 compared with 23 -24.
Its purpose is to give committee a clear, transparent view of where assurance has been
rebuilt, where it is partial, and where no assurance has yet been possible.
The table categorises assurance as substantial, partial, or none based on whether we were
able to complete our planned procedures for each balances.
Again, it is important to stress that no assurance does not mean we have identified any pervasive
misstatements or errors.
It is simply because we could not complete procedures due to number of either complexities
involved or timing constraint.
Starting with the areas of substantial assurance, we were able to complete all planned procedures
and gain assurance over number of core balances.
You can see on the slide, these include cash and bank,
borrowings, pensions, employee benefits,
ref cuts, and number of operating expenditure and income.
These balances form a significant portion of
statement of account and represent
meaningful progress compared to 23 -24,
where no assurance was obtained across the board.
We achieved partial assurance in number of
areas where some but not all plan procedures could be completed.
This includes investment property, short of creditors, specific grant income and certain disclosures.
In these cases, we were able to gain assurance over few aspects but not over full population or all assertions.
This reflects a combination of planning constraints or the need for further supporting evidences,
which has been discussed with the management to strengthen for 2526.
There remain a number of areas where we were unable to obtain assurance this year.
This includes long -term and short -term debtors, group account, IFRS 16 leases, reserves, etc.
Again, common theme here are the impact of opening balance, disclaimer of 2324, complexity
of the areas involved, and the limitation of the audit time window.
While we have not yet reached a position of full or modified assurance across all balances,
The work definitely provides us a clear baseline for future years.
And so to conclude everyone, the audit result report reflected this case.
So just pause for one moment.
I've got a member here who wants to raise his hand.
I'm actually lost where we are on the report.
It would be helpful if the officer would direct us to the page that she's referring to.
I don't know about other members.
Cllr Darshan Sunger - 0:14:46
We have been given the page numbers of the PDF and so on.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:14:50
But yeah, just slow down a little bit please.
And I think some of it's coming up fuzzy on the connexion.
Thanks very much.
Okay, do you want to repeat any section?
I don't think you need to repeat any sections,
but if you could just clarify which page number
you're now on and carry on from there, that'd be great.
It's just our last section now.
I've just completed summary of assurance,
which is page number one minute.
Starting on page 30 of the BDA.
Thank you.
I think it might be easy to adjust,
it's appendix B, so that might be easier.
Appendix B, yes.
I think there's two different versions of the papers.
I've got slightly different page numbers as well,
so I think the supplementary agenda
might have had slightly different page references,
which may be causing the confusion.
Okay, so appendix B and C,
pages 49 and 50 of the, if you go by the pages of the Ernst and Young report rather than the pages on the PDF.
Page 47 of our report.
There you are, page 47.
Yeah, sorry, please continue.
I was just concluding saying, although it reflects a disclaim for PDM driven by a national audit reset constraint, increasing level of assurance compared to last year,
there is no significant value for money weakness
at a clear pathway we have achieved for full assurance.
That's it, I conclude with this.
Happy to take any questions from the committee.
Okay, thanks so much.
We should let you go for one more minute
and then we could have, anyway.
I was gonna say, it might just be worth noting
in terms of the assurance matrix that's in Appendix B.
I think that's actually quite good progress
in terms of where we've got to.
There are a number of greens in there,
which means that we've got full assurance
over those balances.
The area that's going to be the most challenge going forward is the reserves balance.
As the committee will understand, the reserves balance is built up from all of the transactions
that go through in the year. Therefore, for 23 -24, we don't have any assurance over the
movements that resulted in the general fund reserve balance and the unusable reserves.
The NAR in the Larry Cup have issued further guidance on how auditors might rebuild that
It's very much a risk -based approach.
We have recently been shared our internal approach on that, which I need time to digest.
But the fact that we've really only got one year's gap in relation to that reserves
position means that hopefully we can develop a strategy to start to rebuild that particular
gap in assurance. And other areas we'll rebuild naturally as we do the audit process.
So I think we've got a good base for moving forward for next year.
Okay, thanks for that.
Is it easy to take questions now or is it easy to get all the presentations first?
Perhaps we ought to do whether members want to comment or just raise any questions on
what we've gone through, the various, yeah.
Heather Kneale - 0:18:02
Just to satisfy my curiosity more than anything, it's great to see so many substantial assurances,
But obviously we weren't able to get great input on some of the issues.
And considering the number of times there are queries or concerns kind of potentially
raised around the long -term data of QALYIS, I'm curious to know how do we determine which
are the query areas of priority that we're assessing during this process?
Is it down to, is there a list of priority areas that we focus on or is it primarily
down to time and resource and availability of data?
Owen Sparks - 0:18:44
From the page 47 of the evidence assurance, I think again it's probably for Debbie to
explain, they've obviously got an approach, some of it is due to time scale, some of it
is due to again making sure that the evidence is there that doers want to produce, but Debbie
about her comment on her approach to prioritising how she goes about building that up. So it's
probably Christopher Depe, probably.
Yeah, thank you. Thanks, Owen. Yeah, we tried to prioritise the balance sheet where we could
do because that's the area that will give us more assurance going forward. So for example,
property, plant and equipment value initiatives and investment property valuations. In addition,
we tried to complete and I think we did manage to complete our work around the fraud risk
area around inappropriate capital additions that should have been charged to revenue and
inappropriate rest costs. And the reason that's very important is because if something was
charged incorrectly to capital, it means that there wasn't a charge for general fund that
there should have been, which then impacts on your reserves balance. So the fact that
you've managed to get assurance over that area in terms of saying there was no inappropriate
capitalization is positive in terms of rebuilding that assurance over the reserves position.
We did find some errors in that area, but there are more around cut -off and other things like that.
They weren't actually inappropriate capitalisations.
So there are different ways in which we can focus the work next year,
and I think that's discussions we need to have with the finance team around what our approach to rebuild might be,
and again where we focus our effort to ensure that we're getting the maximum roll -forward assurance from the work.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:20:16
But the balance sheet, and as I said, those fraud risk areas,
hoop
the reserve position.
Thank you.
Councillor Morris, you had your hand up.
Yeah, thanks.
I was just looking at the table of assurances.
I mean, I think you explained that there wouldn't be any assurance ratings for 2023 -24.
Wasn't very clear what was going to happen there.
Is it possible to get a bit more of an explanation about how this is going to be dealt with?
I didn't quite catch that during your introduction.
I'm trying to just clarify the question, sorry.
Well, there's no assurance rating for 2023 -24.
Correct, yeah, that's because for 2023 -24,
your predecessor auditors issued their opinion, I think,
in late December, if I remember correctly,
and the backstop date we were working to was the end of February.
So that only gave us two months to plan and complete an audit so there was insufficient
time. So we did no audit work on the financial statements at all last year. We just undertook
our value for money work. There is no intention as part of the strategy to go back and kind
of re -audit accounts that have not been audited. What we will do is we will audit, as I said,
balances that are probably, some balances are unimpacted by the prior year because they
are a balance at a point in time and therefore we can audit those and not be impacted by
things that are impacted is where there's movements that are impacted by the open balances
and that's why it takes a number of years to move from a disclaimed opinion to an unmodified opinion
and I think Appendix A within the Audit Results Report that we shared with you does have the Larrick timetable
and so that's what I'm going to attempt to use the rap page number now. I'll just use Appendix A, it might be easier.
46 and that basically has the rebuild but that assumes that was a disclaimed
opinion in 22 23 only and that all planned procedures were undertaken in
23 24. In effect where we are repping is we are one year behind that because you
actually had all your audit procedures undertaken in 22 23 but we were unable to do any in
23 24 so you're kind of one year behind the scenario that's in the
So obviously the larrag issue is at 26, 27, like with the first year of an unqualified
opinion. That may still be possible. It depends on how we can rebuild, but it could also be
pushed back to 27, 28 if we are in line with the larrag timetable assumptions. I hope that
helps clarify.
Yeah, it does. So it means that it could be quite some time before you can give an unqualified
opinion on it.
Correct, yeah. I mean we have managed to issue qualified opinions for some audits this year
where we did a disclaimer in 22 -23 and no audit work, but that's only been possible
where we completed all of our planned procedures in 23 -24 and all of our planned procedures
in 24 -25. And as Sangeeta already noted, we haven't managed to do all of our planned procedures
in 23 -24, so we are a little bit, sorry 24 -25, I've got my U -rung there, so we are still
a little behind because even in this year we haven't managed to do everything we would have wanted to do.
Okay, okay, thank you very much. Thank you.
Yeah, I think it's worth saying that the whole not getting unqualified opinions thing,
it's a sort of consequence in main part by the sort of national decision to prioritise
if you might take the time scale over the completeness and the thoroughness.
Members will know from previous meetings that there's a massive great backlog in audit reports nationally,
of all sorts of reasons, and essentially the government said we're going to draw a line, have a fresh start,
just get the reports out, even if they're not complete, and then over this period of time,
we'll get back to a position where we can expect unqualified accounts.
So the fact it's not unqualified is not a surprise, because it's the same position for lots of councils.
I think there are...
I mean, there is obviously the issue about not being able to rely on some of the figures
you say that you wanted or, and I was slightly surprised when you say in the report that
it's only sort of part way through the audit that you thought the QALYST loan issue was
a sort of priority one because, if I remember rightly, right when we started the process
there was talk about whether we could rely on the subsidiary company auditors and clearly
the loans can come up very regularly in treasury management reports and so forth. So I wonder
why that sort of came to the fore late in the process.
So I guess there's a number of elements to that.
So in terms of relying on a component auditor,
that's because we're required to kind of apply
more stringent independence rules than you would normally
for example a corporate audit, so there's no issue
with the actual independence of the company auditor.
I think it's important to stress that in terms of the work
they're doing for QALYs.
But we had to apply the principles of AGN -01,
which is issued by the NAA, which has much narrower
requirements in terms of what non -audit services
an audit firm can provide when it's also providing
an opinion on the financial statements.
We think we have actually got our way through that
for next year now, so that should enable us
to place reliance on the component auditor.
In terms of why the QALYST issue became more of an issue,
I think it's the financial performance of QALYST
is clearly been concerning.
It's probably not the only local authority housing company
that is experiencing similar issues
in terms of significant increases in costs
and sales therefore being generating less income
than was expected.
But obviously the values involved in that
are quite significant and have continued to increase.
And then we've also seen some transactions
during the year which I'll cover in the next report,
which again just raise the level of concern around that.
As Sanchita said, we are satisfied
that the council's arrangements in terms of managing those risks are appropriate
in relation to 24 -25 but they certainly are risks to the council and therefore it
is really important that the council continues to maintain oversight and
review the position of quality and take any necessary decisions in relation to
those arrangements. Okay thank you for that.
Cllr Michael Owen - 0:27:17
Councillor Owen. Are we getting into the nitty -gritty of the accounts yet or do you
want to cover that later when they've gone because there's a few items in the
accounts I'd like to talk about.
Yeah, well we're dealing with the accounts at the moment and they're going to move on to the value
for money so yeah I think now is the appropriate time to raise questions on the accounts.
I will then, people aren't going to like this but hey ho. The car park,
I'm a bit miffed about the car park as a Loughton resident who pays taxes in Loughton, the fact we
can spend 19 million on a car park that's within a year written down to 3 .4 million is quite
shocking. Can we explain how we've come to this figure of 3 .4 million and exactly
what's going on here because I'm quite unhappy about that and I have more
questions but maybe others want to ask. Okay who's best place to answer that one?
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:28:00
Oh there's evaluations particularly the part of the car park isn't there and
there's a sort of wide evaluation of the assets which you know comes through in
the value for money report. I think that that reflects the fact that obviously
Owen Sparks - 0:28:17
the car park's purchased at 19 .4 million pounds
and it was revalued.
What we do as part of the accounts and annual basis,
that valuation reflected sort of the income generation basis
to the car park and that's valuation at that point in time.
And that's why it's reflected in the accounts.
Obviously that difference then,
it's not a realisable loss,
but it's written down in the accounts.
Do you want to come back, Councillor Owen, and then Councillor Turner.
Councillor Turner.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Darshan Sunger - 0:28:50
I just want to pick up on the assurance ratings from 23 -24, and then you've got those were
in red, and then those in 24 -25 turned to green, to substantial.
Do we know what sort of timeline it took for that to go to green?
So do we have an idea of, is it a couple of months, six months?
I know he says they were at the 31st of March 2025,
but it would just be interesting to know how long it took
to go from red to green.
So are you asking about a specific one or?
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:29:18
Cllr Darshan Sunger - 0:29:20
No, generally you've got a number of where they've gone
from red to green, which is good to hear
that they've gone substantial.
I think just to clarify that everything was red last year
because we didn't undertake any audit procedures.
So in hindsight, we may have been better just not
to have actually included that column in the report
because everything was red last year because we didn't undertake any audit procedures.
Obviously this year it's been good, like I said, primarily balance sheet items where we've been able to
fully substantiate the year end balances and therefore provide full assurance on those individual items.
So next year what you'll see is basically 24, 25 compared to 25, 26.
That will probably be more realistic assessments of the journey towards full assurance.
Thank you. Councillor Simongan?
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:30:07
Cllr Darshan Sunger - 0:30:09
What I think would be helpful is if it was achieved in Q1 or Q2 or Q3 during the course of the year, when it's gone from red to green. Just to monitor it.
Owen Sparks - 0:30:20
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:30:27
I think the year end audit is purely a year end audit so I don't think you can track it in that way. Those assurances are what we've done when we've undertaken the audit at the 31st of March position.
Either income expenditure or balance sheet at the point we've undertaken the audit. So I'm not sure the council could track it in that way. I think I understand what you're getting at but I don't think it can be tracked in that way during the year in that sense.
Obviously we've got our internal audits and the internal controls which are meant to manage
the sort of in -ear work in that way, but Mr Sparks?
Owen Sparks - 0:30:52
I think just to reassure members, although there wasn't assurance given in 2023 -24 because
there wasn't the time to do that audit testing, it doesn't mean that procedures in that point
in time weren't robust and things weren't correct.
This means that there wasn't that audit assurance on it.
So, a lot of things were awful and then they're suddenly better.
It's just that assurance wasn't there from EY to give that comfort.
So, it's not a sign that things were bad in 2023, 2024, now they're even better.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:31:24
Yes, the absence of evidence rather than the evidence of absence, if that makes sense.
Yeah, Vice Chair.
Sissel Heiberg - 0:31:32
Given the timing issues and the areas not provided assurance over for the external audit,
Are there other ways that we can get assurance?
What are the plans around?
I might need a little bit of help reminding myself of what the internal audit plans are
over there with ARIUS and other plans.
Owen Sparks - 0:31:52
So there are other methods of assurance that the committee can receive.
Obviously there is Sarah's internal audit plan and obviously the audit she does.
Obviously we also have the annual government statement that again members review and there's
the range of internal controls that we have in place to give that assurance.
I think everything is obviously bearing in mind that the year before, in 22 -23, there
was an unqualified opinion given the account, so it's a year's gap at the moment for members.
So I think, again, obviously we'd much rather have an unqualified opinion for every year,
but I think there's comfort from that previous audit and some of the other sort of controls
we've got in place that give members some level of assurance, so obviously it's not
ideal.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:32:38
Sissel Heiberg - 0:32:39
Just to follow up specifically on those areas, like the PPE area, for instance, is that on
an internal audit plan that we could get some sort of interim comfort?
Sarah Marsh - 0:32:51
So our plan is completely different from what external audit does. So external audit are
looking at the figures and the financial accounts, whereas I'm looking at processes, I'm looking
internal controls, governance and risk management.
So they're complementary but completely different ways
that we give assurance.
Understood.
Sissel Heiberg - 0:33:14
And in that context, given that we don't have the external audit
perspective on PPE, for instance,
just taking that as an example, are there other ways that we can
get assurance over that area?
Owen Sparks - 0:33:30
Not really, I would say, without having an audit done of those areas. I think, again,
there's the processes, financial regulations got in place and those internal controls that
support making sure those activities have got oversight. But to get the assurance that
obviously Debbie would want, she would need to do her own external audit. So I think there's
no way we could give Debbie comfort and yourselves about going through that process.
No, understood.
And I guess perhaps I'm not being clear in my question.
Sissel Heiberg - 0:34:01
I'm thinking about for the Council, for the Audit and Governance Committee and our ability
to feel comfortable, given that we now don't have the PPE lens as an example on the external
audit side.
When was the last time we did a PPE internal audit, for instance?
Sarah Marsh - 0:34:22
So you have to remember that the internal audit plan is a risk -based plan and we're
doing it from the corporate risk. If I thought there was an area of weakness, then I would
go in and look at it. We do key financial control type audits on a cyclical basis where
we would look at more fixed assets, but we don't tend to do that specific piece of work.
You're reliant on your finance team doing their work and then the assurances that external audit can give
Give it consideration. I think mr. Wilson's offering to come in on that as well
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:34:55
We've got an overall rating of none so appreciate that
doesn't look great at face value, but if you read the detail of the work performed,
there's various areas where some assurance has been gained that will carry forward through to
next year. There's a couple of specific areas where there wasn't time to gain full assurance,
and I think a particular area was in completing the work with valuations, but we've actually
sort of formed a base level of assurance to take forward into next year, and subject to
building on that assurance next year, we would certainly hope, we were hoping we could get
at least a partial assurance this year, we would very much hope we could get to a substantial
next year. So, thank you, Jim.
Okay. We didn't do instructions at the start, we would lean from context that Jonathan's
one of our finance team has been involved in the audit.
it. Councillor Morris. If you could turn your mic on, please.
That's it. In the introduction you mentioned that the
evaluations included subsidiaries as well. But you also mentioned that they weren't all
complete. Is there any more detail about what was completed and what wasn't? Seems
like quite an important point. I may hand over to my team to give you the detail on
that but yeah, I'll let Sanchita or Matt answer the question on that one.
Thanks Jeremy. So we picked several samples for PPE and investment property and out of those samples
for example I'll just take hypothetical, not hypothetical, in PPE we selected eight samples of
which three was given to our specialist team to look at and investment property eight plus
two of subsidiary total 10 samples of which five were given to our specialist team to look at it.
So the samples which we gave to our specialist team to look at it, those were all clear and
there were no issues rooted in that. So and the samples which we as a audit team,
core audit team were looking at it, we could not complete procedures on that. That is why
concluded that not all audit procedures were concluded on this one.
And I think that's a really important point because we used our specialists to look at the
more complex, more unusual assets and they were satisfied with the approach adopted by your
valuers and by the resulting valuations which I think gives us a really good base to say that
actually we're satisfied with the processes. It was a time issue that meant that we didn't have
time because a lot of our queries on PPE and IP have to go back through the finance team to the
pencils valuer and that builds in an extra time lag.
And I think a lot of the valuation firms and valuers
have been very physically responding to audit queries
during this period as well and that's impacted.
So I think we've definitely, as Jonathan said,
got a good starting point in the fact that we didn't
identify any problems or issues in the assumptions
methodology approach, it was just that there wasn't
sufficient time to do all the testing we would need
to have done.
And we're also relying on some sort of cyclical valuation
approach as well with council. So it's an area we certainly need to discuss with the
finance team for next year in terms of how we can kind of maximise the
assurance we're getting in that area moving forwards.
Okay, thank you very much.
Okay, thank you. Are there any more questions, particularly on the statement of council?
Councillor Owen, yeah.
Cllr Michael Owen - 0:38:41
Yeah, I slightly disagree with the answer earlier on the car park to be honest
because we borrowed 19 million, it's now worth three, we're saying it's not a loss.
I mean, it's certainly not a gain, and I agree it's not a cash loss or it's not a technical
loss because we haven't sold it, but we've lost 16 million of value here, so I just want
that noted.
The second question was related to this, actually, which was Arlington Close have said that our
potential fair value is more like 30 -odd million.
We're talking about potentially like 50 million of losses on QALYST if you go with that valuation.
Can we get some commentary around why the auditors seem to say some valuations are okay,
Arlington Close seem to say others.
We're talking already about 16 million of write -offs for potentially next year, so I
think maybe these valuations aren't as strong as have been suggested.
Can we get some commentary on that?
Yeah, I mean, I think one of the points we made is we don't yet have a complete picture
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:39:35
on the valuations, but Ms Hansen, did you want to come back on that, or Mr Wilson wanted
to come back first, I think.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Yeah, thank you, Chair.
I'll pick up both of them.
So on the car park, see, there was a very detailed public report that went to cabinet
to support the decision by the council to purchase from Qualis, and that was in March
25, I think.
I think just coming back to what Owen said, the valuation, I think, was based on one year
of car park income, and that was the car park predating the Leisure Centre usage.
and you know so there's definitely a possibility that the evaluation basis
changes over time and increases. The council obviously made a decision to
purchase at cost so they bought the car park from Corliss at cost and
obviously within the group that has impacts on both sides of the equation
but we would hope that there's further value in that car park assessment going forward but
But note nevertheless that the point is reasonable,
the member raises that in the short term
there is a significant loss in terms of the value
versus the cost at that point in time.
In terms of the Arling Close valuation,
they apply specific methodology.
So we at the council don't expect the value of those loans
to be the fair value quoted by Arling Close,
but we do accept that their methodology is based on
applying, effectively treating Qolsys as if it had a specific credit rating
and they would then apply a methodology that effectively, if it was a company in the private sector,
they would discount future cash flows and come to the value they've come to.
In our assessment of that, we come to a very different figure, which is based purely on the ability of Qolsys to pay back their loans over time
based on the assessment of future development sales and the cash flow position that Owen
mentioned earlier. So we are concerned about the financial position of policies, as has
been discussed already, but the scale mentioned by the member is probably overstating or definitely
overstating it in our view as things stand and there's further work on that to assess
that's the go -forward texture.
Mr. Gorringe, I think, wanted to come in.
Yeah.
Hi, good evening.
So yeah, I just wanted to be order's opinion on that.
So for the Cottes Lane car park, obviously,
that transaction took place on the 31st of March,
25, between Qualis and Epping.
So that was definitely an area of focus
and a flag to not value for money work
due to it being transferred at cost in exchange for loan
forgiveness to Qols and then subsequently revalued down.
So we did feel that was qualitatively significant as to be included within the
narrative of Epping's financial statements.
But of course, we do also note that it was a group transaction therefore would come
out in the group consolidation anyway, if you could give an Epping's issue a letter
of support to Qols who would ultimately be financially responsible for that.
For the Arling Close, so they provide expected credit loss valuations on the value of Qols
loans. So, again, that was an area of audit focus there. So that was definitely a value
for money risk, so we looked at kind of the Council's long -term plans for how that kind
that gap between the quality of its value and how they can expect to fully repay those
loans. So we did look at the historic position and basically that's why it was a value for
money risk but ultimately we found that the council's arrangements at present place and
time were sufficient to account for that. So that's why no significant weakness was
reported.
Thank you. I mean that car park decision sort of went back and forth and to call ins and
source didn't it and but you know at the end of the day part of the discussion was
does the loss get borne by the council or the loss get borne by Qolis because
they don't cost more to build than it generates. I would have come to the
Cllr Michael Owen - 0:43:57
same decision but I don't think it's a fair representation of that meeting to
say we were told the car park was currently worth 3 .4 million I don't
think that was discussed in the meeting but correct me if I'm wrong. I don't
think that value was mentioned certainly I don't recall the value but the value
coming up at that stage. Perhaps we ought to move on to the value for money stuff because
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:44:14
we're sort of getting into some of that discussion now, aren't we? Ms Hansen, do you want to
lead off on that? Yes, thank you very much, Chair. And as I say, we have very much moved
with the value for money, so I think that makes perfect sense. So in terms of the value
for money work, we basically consider three key criteria. So we look at the Council's
to financial sustainability. We also look at arrangements for governance and then we
look at arrangements to ensure economy efficiency and effectiveness and the delivery of services.
And I think it's important to note that all of the value for money work is looking at
arrangements. So in order to never report and say the council has delivered value for
money because that's not a judgement that we can make, what we can say is what arrangements
the council has got in place to ensure that it's managing its finances correctly, supporting
decision making, etc. and all of those things. So as we noted, we noted the QALYST scenario
and the challenges that QALYST is facing as something that could impact on all three of
those criteria, quite obviously on financial sustainability because ultimately the council
is supporting and has given the guarantee, as Matt has already said, to QALYST. Also
in terms of governance, in terms of how the council is managing its oversight and ensuring
that any necessary decisions are made and we can see evidence that changes are
being made in those governance arrangements now and that some schemes
are being paused or stopped and so we can see evidence of that governance. And
then finally economy efficiency and effectiveness in terms of we are noting
there's significant delays in some of the Qolis projects and therefore
there's a question around kind of is that delivering the services that Qolis
was originally set up to deliver. So in terms of those areas we've obviously
We've focused a lot on qualities and we have concluded
that the council has put in place appropriate arrangements.
There clearly are costs that have been borne by the council
in relation to the quality position.
As I said, that is not something
that's kind of unique to Epping.
We are certainly seeing that in a number of housing companies
where costs are significantly increasing,
but the income that's being generated from sales
is not necessarily matching those increases
in costs at the moment.
However, we recognise that the council
does have strategic aims in terms of why quality was set up and the actual overall intention
of providing that sort of housing that is needed. We don't just look at quality notes,
so I think it's important to note that we also look at other things, so in terms of
financial sustainability, we also looked at the council's budget setting and budget monitoring
processes, the medium -term financial plan. We also looked at savings plans, so we noted
that in 24, 25 for example,
there's 3 .5 million targeted savings.
Not all of that was achieved.
Therefore the council has put in place
greater arrangements for accountability for 25, 26,
and the latest monitoring that we looked at
showed that the savings for 25, 26 were on track
at the point we looked at those being reported.
We also look at levels of reserves,
and we note that the council has a general
from a reserve of four million that it maintains.
In addition to that, it also has earmarked reserves.
As we've noted, obviously the QALYS load is significant.
It's £81 million, having reduced from the £95 million
because of the Cottes Lane car park transfer.
And at the moment, there's an expected credit loss
of £5 million in relation to that.
And again, that's increased from a figure of £2 million
in the prior year.
I won't go any more on the Cottes Lane transfer
because I think we've picked that up in the previous item.
But we did have also looked at the current position, as we said, the Arlen Close report,
which sets out the expected credit loss. And we've made recommendations in the report in
relation to all three of those areas in terms of financial sustainability, governance and
three E's in relation to QALYST. We also note that the council has got further
loans but it has restricted those further loans. There was originally a facility of
I think 75 million, that's now been reduced to 20 million.
So those are some of the actions that we can see
the council taking to respond to the risks
that are being presented.
We also note that the MLP policy has been set aside,
so the council is setting aside
what we call minimum revenue provision
in relation to some of the risks around those loans.
If I then move on to governance,
so as I said, we can see that there's improved
strength and oversight being put in place,
but we've also looked at areas such as
the annual governance statement, the council's risk management arrangements, internal audit
reports and then we also flagged obviously there's risks to the council as a result of
local government reorganisation which will put pressures on the finance team as well
in terms of capacities. I think it's very important that that's noted in terms of going
forwards and the potential impact on 2526. And then finally in terms of the three E's,
the other areas we looked at very much was performance management and procurement and
contract management and we didn't identify any issues to bring to your attention in those areas.
So as I said, we were satisfied in relation to 24, 25 with the Council's arrangements for
the colleagues but I'm sure members will be not surprised that we will again be continuing to review
that and keep that under review for 25, 26. Very happy to take any questions or comments.
Okay, no, thanks very much for that and that's all set out in the report on the agenda.
And on page 35, there's three recommendations there as well, one of which involves this
committee.
And those have been agreed, as it says, by management.
And members, any questions on the value for money side of things?
Okay, Cass, go on and then I'll…
I've got my own questions.
Cllr Michael Owen - 0:50:11
One clarification actually probably from Mr Sparks, but I've seen banded around recently
about Google money, but can we just confirm that Google money left about a year ago?
It wasn't in last year's accounts either, was it?
Essentially it's been lent to Qualis and now written down, I would argue, but anyway, a
comment around that would be pretty good.
Owen Sparks - 0:50:33
So the Google receipt has been used for internal borrowing, so that's to support the capital
programme and that is the capital programme across the board going back a number of years.
So what that's been used for really is that differential between having money in the bank
and the higher cost of borrowing, it's been used to support that.
So that's, I think, saved, it counts about £3 .4 million
since it received interest costs.
And again, at the moment, that's also been used
to support the minimum revenue provision
that's been applied to some of those historic loans
and the range of loans that's been applied for.
And that doesn't include quality loans
apart from the car part we discussed previously.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:51:17
Okay, thanks. I was going to ask about some of these figures and recommendations. I mean,
obviously, we've had COLIS and the potential of the loans as a red item on the risk register
for quite some time now, and through the Treasury management strategies, we've been aware that
monies not come back from Qolis in terms of the original schedule and we've been making
loans instead in an order to get the current developments completed and that there aren't
further developments planned after the current developments are completed.
This is the first time I think we've actually had some of the potential figures and write -offs
sort of quantified.
I got the impression what Mr. Wilson said that the 16 million
pound potential write -off that's mentioned in the value for money
report was not sort of an agreed figure or final figure yet.
It would be helpful to know a bit more about where that figure
comes from, how it's been calculated and what the status
of that is, Mr. Sparks, first of all.
Owen Sparks - 0:52:29
So what we're obviously doing is monitoring the QALYST forecast on an ongoing basis. So
that's looking really at the outstanding loans and what we think some of the sales process
will be for some of the projects that are in place. And obviously as they come and get
crystallised we'll review that on an ongoing basis. But that's the process, we'll be reviewing
outstanding loans and the income we think we're going to receive from the projects that
try at the moment. So that represents a sort of a median view does it or where
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:53:01
Owen Sparks - 0:53:03
does that sort of sit within the range of possibilities? We think it will be
around that figure again it does depend on the market, when it comes but it will be
around that sort of figure. Thank you.
Councillor Morris wanted to come in.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:53:21
I think it is been slightly more obscure words, but Mr Sparks can come in.
So as part of that modelling what we've done, we've looked at when that low will
Owen Sparks - 0:53:58
need to be written off again based on the cash flow forecast. So there is provision
for that in 27 -28 and 28 -29 when we think that's when the short fall will crystallise.
Does that answer your question?
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:54:13
It does, yeah. Thank you, I'll have to read the medium term financial plan again. Thank you.
Okay.
Do we have any more questions either on picking up on the recommendations or to dig in more
detail?
Councillor Sumner.
Thank you.
Cllr Darshan Sunger - 0:54:31
Just on page 29, a note at the bottom there saying having completed our procedures to
address the risk has outlined on the subsequent pages that they are satisfied.
There are no significant weaknesses in the Council's arrangements in relation to the
group, perhaps just a commentary on that.
I mean, in a nutshell, does that mean that we're doing everything
possible to mitigate our risks?
Well, as I read it, it sort of means we know where on the map
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:54:59
we are, even if not where we'd want to be,
if that makes sense.
So we understand the position, or the council
understands the position.
But clearly, it's not the position
that the council hoped it would be
when it embarked on the sort of qualis journey.
But Mr. Sparks will.
Owen Sparks - 0:55:18
I think again Debbie may have a view, I think we are aware of the risks if we manage them
appropriately to minimise the impact and maximise return from what is still being delivered.
Yeah, and that is the point, as you say, hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it, and we would
all love to know what the future holds in two or three years time, but the council is
cited on what the problems are and what the challenges are and is taking action to address
there as well still being minded to the fact that the projects are ongoing and
therefore you can't just suddenly start some of those projects and so therefore
it's managing those risks in the best way that you can and that's what we are
satisfied with at the moment the council is doing but as I said we will continue
to keep that and do it with you. Can I just pick up on what you mean by
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:56:03
strengthened oversight, enhanced governance structures and conditional
funding arrangements.
I mean, one could argue there's quite a lot of governance
around Qalis, so, I mean, is it the fact that, in your view,
it's not been effective or the structures are wrong or it just
needs to be more frequent because the issues are
crystallising or what lies behind that?
I think it's a combination of things.
So as you say, I think the sort of levels of risk
and exposure have increased, and therefore the council
needs to review or revisit and say,
are the governance structures that you have in place,
are they still appropriate?
And I think Jonathan or Eoghan may want to comment,
because I think from my understanding,
there have already been some changes made to those governance
structures.
In relation to, we can see obviously
the risks are on your risk register, which is appropriate.
So we are satisfied with that.
And then I think in terms of the,
it was about the, sorry, I can't remember
the exact word that we used now,
but it was around the kind of,
if further funding and support is gonna be given to QALYST,
then it needs to be very clear to both members
in terms of making those decisions,
going back to maybe some of the comments that have been made
that members are fully cited and fully understand
the decisions that they're making
and the support that's been provided to QALYST,
and that if necessary,
there are conditions attached to that support.
So it's a number of different elements,
It's probably really for the council to consider what it needs to do to make sure that officers
and members can be assured that those governance arrangements are robust and are kept under
regular review as I said.
Okay, thanks for that.
Mr Soonger and then Mr Matthews, Councillor Matthews wants to come in.
Yeah, thank you.
Cllr Darshan Sunger - 0:57:52
Also given the fact that we've got this, we're managing our risks, but we're still as a council
delivering on the infrastructure and the commercial income that we generate and
also the affordable homes as well so if you look at how we're managing it
compared to the national picture with other councils as well neighbouring
councils I think we're doing a fairly good job
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:58:18
okay Councillor Matthews Thank You chairman
Cllr Tim Matthews - 0:58:20
Councillor Sunge took words out of my mouth almost I just wanted to say
actually I welcomed this audit and this report and you know the thing that no one wants from
an audit is a surprise or something highlighted that you haven't expected and I think this
really does support the fact that quality is operating in a high risk environment as
anyone in the development sector is currently and the fact that the council has done its
diligence and identified the risk correctly and the audit supports us, those risks have
been identified and the mitigation is in place to a satisfactory level for the auditor.
So I think that's the real key takeaway from this audit is the Council has identified
the risks that quality is operating within and has put the mitigating effects in place
that satisfy the auditors at this stage.
and as Councillor Soongar rightly stated there,
the qualities within that situation,
still managing to deliver affordable homes,
still managing to deliver commercial income
and infrastructure, whether it's the car park,
the homes in Wolfram Abbey or the commercial portfolio,
these are still bringing in critical income
to this council while operating in the high risk scenario
that has been described by the auditors.
So yeah, I think it's actually positive.
Now we know the profitability and the financial position
overall cannot be described as positive
and we would all prefer it to be
a much more positive scenario.
However, the fact that it's all delivering
within this situation, I think actually gives us
some assurance that we're doing the right things.
Just this evening, I've come from chairing
a cross -party steering group on the direction
of Travel for Qualys and TVS, our other arms length company, on how the future looks for
that and how we can prepare those companies best as we move forward to LGR.
So the steps are being put in place to constantly evolve the business and the companies associated
with this council.
So I think it's very reassuring that the auditors have identified this and supported our actions
so far.
Thank you.
yeah I mean as we heard earlier the external order is not making a judgement
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 1:00:44
on whether things are value for money or not making judgement or whether
arrangements in place to enable the council to sort of secure and judge
value for money and then it's for the wider council to decide whether you
know the things that Councillor Soomer and Councillor Matthews mentioned are
worth the money that's been expended to achieve them. Councillor Owen.
I think just a comment on what Councillor Matthews has said and I like
Cllr Michael Owen - 1:01:08
Councillor Matthews by the way so this isn't named to you but until Qalis is
making money I don't think it can be described as successful because if
you're operating with losses you can deliver whatever you want you can
deliver affordable homes that's great but like we need to make profits that's
the ultimate line because if we make losses we can do whatever we want I could
set up a company tomorrow make massive losses and give out whatever I want but
it means nothing.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 1:01:34
I mean, ultimately, as always, we're aware the loans made to QALYIS need to come back
to the council to repay the debt that the council took out in order to make the loans
in the first place.
And that's the model that QALYIS was designed to fulfil.
Oh, sorry.
Councillor Matthews.
Cllr Tim Matthews - 1:02:02
Thank you, Chair. If I may just respond to Councillor Owen. I was very careful not to
use the word successful. I don't by any stretch of the imagination describe a business that's
losing money as successful in terms of financial success. However, the difference between a
business that Councillor Owen or anyone else may set up and what the Council has set up
there is a clear direction to deliver for residents.
Profit would be desirable and obviously beneficial
to all the residents, but fundamentally,
we're enabling developments within the district,
which will have long -term benefits for residents,
long beyond our tenure here.
Thank you.
I think I saw the agenda for one of the forthcoming
scrutiny panels has QALYST as an agenda item,
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 1:02:53
and that's an opportunity to take up some of these
more policy issues if members want to do that.
On the governance side of things,
I think the Audit Committee would probably like to sort of
know what comes out of the working group that's looking at
governance and understand a bit about the timescale for
implementing that, well, understand what the
recommendations are and what the timescale for implementing them
in and what difference that will make.
So it would be helpful if, you know,
that comes back at some stage.
And I expect the Audit Committee is happy with the recommendation that regular progress
reporting to Audit and Governance.
Clearly, we look at the Treasury management side, but perhaps we need to pay more attention
to the repayability side as well.
Were there any other issues that members wanted to raise, ask about, or clarify?
Was there anything the external auditors wanted to say before we draw the meeting to a close?
No thank you chair, I think that's been a really good discussion I think.
So sometimes we take reports and we don't get many questions so we'd much rather have a lot of questions than to speak with.
Okay, Mr Sparks did you want to say anything before we conclude?
Okay, well thanks members for your contributions tonight, particularly bearing in mind how
little time you had to fully absorb them and I'm sure Mr Sparks and others, if you do think
of a question that you didn't quite get in today, would be happy to deal with them.
We do have recommendations in both the supplementary and the main papers.
First of all, just to note the reports which we've considered
and then can note the reports we received from Ernst & Young.
And then because there are a few more changes to make,
you're asked to approve me to sign the accounts on Thursday,
which would then be able to be submitted in time for the Blackstock date on Friday.
And I hope... is that okay with members?
You're not necessarily nodding to say you're happy with all the individual figures...
It's not only to say you're happy with the arrangements and the work that's gone into it,
not necessarily that everything in the garden is rosy, but if you're happy for us to get that,
we can get the accounts done by the timescale we need to.
Okay. Well, there are no other items on the agenda, so thanks for your attendance.

7 Exclusion of Public and Press

Thanks to everyone who has joined us virtually and your time on that.
and I'll close the meeting.
Thank you, Chair.
Here we are.
Thank you, thanks very much.
Cllr Steven Heather
District councillor for Waltham Abbey South and Rural ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Steven Heather
Sissel Heiberg
Co-optee - Audit & Governance Committee
View profile Sissel Heiberg
Heather Kneale
Co-optee - Audit & Governance Committee
View profile Heather Kneale
Sarah Marsh
Chief Internal Auditor
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Sarah Marsh
Cllr Tim Matthews
District councillor for Waltham Abbey South and Rural ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Tim Matthews
Cllr Michael Owen
District councillor for Loughton Forest ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Michael Owen
Owen Sparks
Interim Strategic Director / S151 Officer
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Owen Sparks
Cllr Darshan Sunger
District councillor for Chigwell with Lambourne ward
Conservative Party
View profile Cllr Darshan Sunger
Cllr Jon Whitehouse
District councillor for Epping East ward
Liberal Democrats
View profile Cllr Jon Whitehouse