Interactive webcast player

Audit & Governance Committee
Thursday, 3rd September 2026 at 7:00pm

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Martin Morris
  2. Sarah Marsh
  3. Cllr Martin Morris
  4. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  5. Cllr Martin Morris
  6. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  2. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  3. Cllr Martin Morris
  4. Cllr Martin Morris
  5. Cllr Michael Owen
  6. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  7. Sissel Heiberg
  8. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Martin Morris
  2. Cllr Martin Morris
  3. Cllr Martin Morris
  4. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  5. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  6. Heather Kneale
  7. Heather Kneale
  8. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  9. Nuala Donnelly
  10. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  11. Cllr Martin Morris
  12. Nuala Donnelly
  13. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  14. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
Share this agenda point
  1. Nuala Donnelly
  2. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  3. Cllr Michael Owen
  4. Nuala Donnelly
  5. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  6. Nuala Donnelly
  7. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  8. Nuala Donnelly
  9. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  10. Cllr Martin Morris
  11. Nuala Donnelly
  12. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  13. Cllr Martin Morris
  14. Nuala Donnelly
  15. Cllr Martin Morris
  16. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  17. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
Share this agenda point
  1. Sue Linsley
  2. Hannah Crawshaw
  3. Sarah Marsh
  4. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  5. Sarah Marsh
  6. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  7. Sarah Marsh
  8. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  9. Cllr Michael Owen
  10. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
Share this agenda point
  1. Nuala Donnelly
  2. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  3. Cllr Martin Morris
  4. Nuala Donnelly
  5. Sissel Heiberg
  6. Nuala Donnelly
  7. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  8. Cllr Michael Owen
  9. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  10. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
  11. Cllr Jon Whitehouse
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:00:00
Okay, welcome everyone to the Audit and Governance Committee meeting.
Thanks for coming along.
Thanks to you for being able to make the training beforehand.
I'll just read the webcasting announcement and just remind you all that the meeting will
be filmed live and recorded and uploaded to the internet and capable of repeated viewing.

1 Webcasting Introduction

So by participating, you consent to being filmed and to the possible use of the images
and sound. If anyone on the team doesn't wish to have their image captured, please turn
off your camera and please turn on your microphones before speaking.
Right, do we have any apologies for absence?

2 Apologies for Absence

We've received apologies for absence from Councillor Braha and Councillor Hever.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:00:57
I don't know if all of you have met Mr Donnely, who is our Deputy Section 151 Officer, but
welcome to the committee tonight and welcome to all of you on Teams tonight.
Thanks for joining us.
Are there any declarations of interest?
Nope.

3 Declarations of Interest

4 Minutes

The minutes are on pages 4 to 9.
People happy that they have a correct record?

5 Matters Arising

Okay, so we can move on to the matters arising.
Anyone got any matters arising that don't come up anywhere else on the agenda?
Nope.

6 Audit & Governance Committee - Work Programme

So we can deal with the work programme on page 10.
And one of the things in fact we did talk about at the last meeting was the work plan
and one or two issues that we wanted to consider over the course of the year.
That is item 6 in the minutes.
So we talked about AI and you will see in the internal audit report that there is a
bit about that there.
We had a little chat before the meeting about getting the owner of the AI policy along to
this meeting just so we can ask a few questions and understand a bit more about how that was
developed and how it's been implemented and gain some assurance on those issues.
So we'll find an appropriate date for that if members are happy with that.
We talked about subsidiary companies.
Again, there's bits of that that come up under risk management and so forth.
And I think independent members should now be seeing the progress reports on the QALYST
and TVS.
So that gives you an opportunity to raise any questions or find out more should you
want to.
But again, we can timetable something extra into the agenda if we need to.
And local government reorganisation of various legal deadlines and stuff, getting ready for that.
I know that's something the internal audit section are very much involved in, in the various internal working groups and so forth.
So there's an opportunity to ask questions about that when the internal audit report comes up.
But again, if we feel we need to do a deeper dive, we can look at getting something that brings us trans together if we want to.
There's one other thing on the work plan, which is you'll see we agreed a meeting on 21st of January for the external audit report.
We've been asked if we can bring that forward to the week beginning 11th of January.
And the suggestion is that we meet on the Thursday the 14th of January instead.
Is that alright for people?
14th yap, so just a week earlier than originally planned.
Anything else people want to raise on the work plan?
Cllr Martin Morris - 0:04:12
Looking at LGR in a bit more detail, do we know roughly when that will happen?
I assume there's already a plan, a set of objectives for that.
Sarah Marsh - 0:04:30
Cllr Martin Morris - 0:04:32
Excellent, thank you very much.
that's going to work. So I think if you leave that window, it will come back to you. Is
that why I expected anything above and beyond that? The committee wants to look in more
detail and can then work out what that actually is and the programming.
Yeah, and obviously there's all sorts of service issues and things, but I suppose from our
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:05:09
point of the Audit Committee particularly, we want to understand that, you know, the
legal deadlines and hoops are being jumped through, that we've got a good understanding
of how the finances worked, we handed over in good order.
We look at risk anyway and the Government organisation brings additional risks and we
need to be keeping on top of those.
Cllr Martin Morris - 0:05:37
I think the transfer for LGR, transfer into the new unitary, I think we have been to a
fair few meetings on this.
Safe and legal is the thing, isn't it?
So I think what we'd want to assure ourselves is that the plan that we've got for LGR does
ensure that all the services remain both safe and legal during the transition and once the
new unitary's up and running.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:06:03
Okay, so we'll wait to hear back more from what, as Owen said.
Anything else on the work plan?

7 From Reset to Recovery - External Audit Presentation

Okay. Let's move forward then to the external audit presentation about from reset to recovery.
Please we've got Debbie Hamby and colleagues here from Ernst & Young and I will hand over
to you. Thanks very much.
Thank you, Chair. We've got two reports to present to you today. So what I was going
to do was take you first of all through our reserve risk assessment update report which
effects supplements, our audit plan that was previously brought to the committee, and then
I'll take you through a presentation that's linked to the national report that EY produced
called Reset to Recovery, which was a wider picture about rebuilding insurance. But what
I'd like to do is take you through, first of all, the specific risk assessment that we've done for
Epping. So if I can take members of the committee to that report, and hopefully we're all on the
correct report, I will just cheque your agenda pack in terms of which order the report's going,
just so I can make sure that we're on the correct page.
Yeah, perhaps I ought to add, not all of you may have seen the XG email that went out today,
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:07:14
which had a supplementary bit with a different set of slides.
So if you've not got them, that's where they are, but I think you're going to go for them
anyway, aren't you?
So we'll see them on the screen.
I wasn't going to put them up on screen because members have got the pack.
So what I'm taking you through, first of all, is the report that's actually in the papers
that were initially issued.
So at the front of that,
the council had actually done a summary
of our national report,
but I wasn't gonna take you through that.
What I'm taking you through is the report
that starts on page 35 of the pack.
And that's called Epping Forest District Council
Rebuilding Audit Assurance,
The Path to an Unqualified Opinion,
and was dated the 31st of July, 2026.
So can I just cheque that all members
have got access to that and are on the same page
before I start to take you through that.
Okay, yeah, everyone's nodding.
Yeah, everyone's nodding, excellent.
It's always good if we go through the same report.
So this in effect is a supplement to the audit plan that we previously brought to you.
In that plan we refer to the fact that we would be undertaking a more detailed risk assessment
to assess basically the pathway to rebuilding assurance for Epping Forest
and to do a risk assessment in terms of the additional work that we would need to do
to gain that assurance.
So on page four of our reports, that's 38 of your pack,
we give some sort of background
and regulatory context to that.
And that obviously notes that we've previously reported
to you the local authority resite plans.
We've reported to you the LARIG that was issued by the NAO,
which basically set out the likely timeframe
to move from disclaim to unmodified opinions,
but also the LARIG requires auditors
to undertake specific risk assessment procedures, specifically over reserves, because that's
the key area where we have a challenge rebuilding assurance, because all of the transactions
within an individual year impact on the reserve balances.
In the case of Epping Forest, as members will remember, in 23 -24 we were not able to undertake
any audit procedures at all because of the backstop date and the date at which the predecessor
the predecessor auditor issued their opinion on the 22, 23 and 21, 22 accounts.
However, the positive element of that is that those opinions that were issued by the predecessor
auditor were both unmodified. Therefore, the significant gap we've got in assurance is
for 23, 24. However, for 24, 25, we were also not able to complete all of our planned procedures.
I think we previously reported this committee, but that's largely because it was in effect
year one audit for EY and the council and therefore there was quite a lot of learning
from each side to get to know each other to understand our processes and to make sure
that data could be provided in the way that we needed it to be provided to support our
data driven audit. So in undertaking our risk assessment procedures we've considered all
of the individual reserves, the level of movements in those reserves and also other transactions
during the unaudited years. We've also considered the complexity of those reserves, any susceptibility
to misstatement, including fraud and management bias, and then also the wider control environment
and the council's financial reporting process. What we haven't done as part of this risk
assessment is actually done any work over those historic balances. We were just determining
whether we were able to obtain such assurance. So on the next page of the report, we then
take you with an assessment of all of the key balances.
Where we've assessed the balances as either a higher inherent risk,
a significant risk, or a lower risk.
I'm really pleased to note that we didn't identify any of
the reserves balances for Epping as a significant risk, so that's positive.
We did identify three key ones as
higher inherent risk and they relate to the general fund balances,
the related earmarked reserves,
which in effect are very similar,
and then the housing revenue account balance.
And that's because there are complexities in all of those reserves balances.
And as I said, we've got a complete gap in 23, 24 where we don't have any assurance,
but we also have gaps in 24, 25 where we couldn't complete all procedures.
So those are the usable reserves which we considered.
We then moved on to look at the unusable reserves, and there's two key reserves there.
So there's the capital receipts reserve and the major repairs reserve, which links into the HRA.
And those are very much impacted by disposals, depreciation, etc.
Those sorts of accounting entries in the disclaimed year of 23 -24.
And also we were unable to complete all of our disposals testing in 24 -25.
Therefore we have some risk around those reserves, but it's not as high as in relation to the usable reserves.
We then move on and talk about a couple of other unusable reserves.
So we've got ones that are specifically linked to all the movements in valuations of assets
and other PPE related movements.
And those are both assessed as higher inherent risk, the revaluation reserve and the capital
adjustment account.
And that's because there are significant movements going through both of those balances due to
PPE movements.
And therefore we will need to assess how we can rebuild that assurance.
We then have a couple, another capital related accounts, which is the deferred capital receipts
reserve, which is again a higher risk reserve. And that's because we don't have assurance
over the opening balance. So we've audited the movements in year, in 24, 25, but we don't
have the opening balance assurance. So we'll need to do some procedures to gain assurance
over that. And then finally, we've got the collection fund adjustment account, which
is lower risk. It's mainly timing differences. It's not particularly complex, and it doesn't
impact the reported financial position, but we didn't obtain assurance in either 23, 24
or 25, so therefore we say that is still a risk but it's a lower inherent risk.
So moving on to what that means in terms of the impact for the audits, what we now need
to do is following undertaking that risk assessment, myself, Ian and the rest of the audit team
will go through and assess in more detail exactly what information will be needed to
plug those gaps and to gain the assurance over those reserves.
And then we'll have discussions with the finance team
in terms of whether there is capacity
to provide that information as part of the 25 -26 audit
to enable that assurance to be rebuilt in 25 -26.
What I would stress, however, is it's really crucial
that we are able to complete a normal 25 -26 audit
on the figures within those financial statements,
because that will give it a lot of natural rebuild next year.
What we don't want to do is divert resources to rebuilding assurance for those gap years
and put delivery of the 25 -26 audit at risk in any way.
So those will be discussions we'll be having with Owen and Jonathan and Mandy and the rest of the finance team
in terms of ensuring that we're able to complete all of the 25 -26 normal plan procedures
and then assessing what additional procedures there is capacity to do this year.
So that's really what I wanted to take you through in terms of that report.
I'll pause at that point before taking you through any further information.
There is an appendix in that report which just sets out where the Council's progress is against the Larrag.
That notes that we issued disclaimers in both 23, 24 and 24, 25 for the reasons I've noted.
And therefore the Council is slightly behind where the Larrag is.
And that's primarily because, as I said, because of the timing, we couldn't do anything in 23 -24,
whereas for most councils, 22 -23 was the year when no audit procedures were performed.
So time -wise, you're just one year slightly behind.
And also we have the challenges of it in effect, 24 -25 being our year one audit,
where we weren't able to complete all of our planned procedures.
But very happy to pause at that point before I take you through the presentation.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments that members had?
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:15:20
Cllr Martin Morris - 0:15:24
I wasn't very clear how this is going to work. So you're going to verify the balances in these funds.
So you've got the biggest one, presumably the General Fund and the HRA.
And this is going to go back several years to verify these balances.
So, I mean, how's this going to work?
I mean, you're not going to go over every single transaction, presumably.
I mean, you're going to need access to a lot of documentation to do all this.
As I said, luckily we don't have to go back over several years
because your previous auditor issued an unmodified opinion on 21, 22 and 22, 23.
so we have assurance over the balances as that 31st of March 2023.
I'm just going to make my ears correct here.
So the 22 -23 opinion was unmodified, so there is assurance over all of the work forward balances at March 23.
But however, because we didn't do any audit procedures in 23 -24,
we basically don't have assurance over the movements in those years that fed into the reserves balances.
So that's why we will have a programme of work which will involve some testing of transactions
in those years and may also involve some additional testing of transactions in 24, 25, where we
are not able to complete all planned procedures. But that's only those transactions that impact
on reserve. So there will be a schedule of work that we need to undertake. One of the
main areas we'll focus on is we'll look at the Movement in Reserve statement and in that
statement there are a number of transactions that are in effect a kind of statutory override
And some of those are the key ones that impact on the reserves figures.
So that would be where we're focusing on our audit effort.
We'll also only be looking at kind of material transactions in those years that could impact on the reserves figures.
So it is additional work that we would not normally have to do, but it's not re -auditing every transaction in 23 -24.
Okay, so therefore there will be additional costs to carrying out this work.
Cllr Martin Morris - 0:17:30
So as it says in here, okay.
All right, okay.
Okay, thank you.
Councillor Owen.
Thanks, Chairman.
Cllr Michael Owen - 0:17:38
Yeah, I've been on this committee a while now,
but as you pointed out in, I think, 22, 23,
our previous order to Deloitte got us up to speed
and we were kind of done on time,
but it seems like that's now not the case under Ernst & Young.
Is that correct?
That's not absolutely correct, no,
because the previous auditor issued their opinions, if my memory is correct, in December,
significantly after the year -end, which only left us two months to basically come in and
audit financial statements for 23 -24. So because they were significantly delayed in issuing
their opinions, we were unable to do an audit. So the delays in issuing those opinions for
those years impacted on our ability to undertake an audit in 23 -24, and there was a statutory
backstop date by which we had to issue an audit opinion and there was just insufficient
time that was left for us to do an audit in that time period before that backstop date.
This is covered a bit more in the next presentation as well.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:18:44
You mentioned the additional work needed. To what extent have you considered the work
of internal audit over internal controls, financial controls rather?
We consider the work of internal audit over financial controls as part of our overall
Sissel Heiberg - 0:19:02
risk assessment and planning of the audit. So we would look at the work that they have
done on the key financial systems and whether that has identified any significant weaknesses
or issues that would indicate a risk for our audit. However, auditing standards prevent
us from placing any direct reliance on internal audit in terms of the actual audit of the
statements. So we purely assess them as part of the assessment of the overall control environment
and we haven't identified any significant issues or concerns as a result of reviewing
internal audit work or our own work on looking at internal control arrangements.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:19:43
Okay. I mean, just looking at the sort of risk assessment you've done for the various
reserves, I mean, that certainly seems to make a lot of sense. I suspect from this committee's
obviously it's the biggest reserves, obviously the ones where if there's an error, the percentage
for error is greatest.
And the earmarked reserves, there can be a lot of movement in and out of some of those.
Others stay static for quite a long time, don't they?
But particularly where money is earmarked for particular projects and so forth, we need
to be confident that the money is there to do what we want.
And though accuracy is key,
I mean the risk of Councillor Hull would be more
if reserves were overstated than understated, wouldn't it?
Because obviously that means we can't deliver
what we plan to.
Okay.
I, yeah, was there anything else on that?
Or should we move on to the next presentation?
Okay, if we can hand back to you.
Thanks very much.
Thank you.
So as I said, just to note that the presentation that was in
your original PAC in advance of the report I've just taken
through was actually not, that's actually not an EY presentation.
That was a summary that the Council's made of our national
report. So I'm not going to take you through that because that
was the summary that the Council has produced. What I'm taking
through is a presentation which was sent out as a late paper earlier today and that is
titled From Research to Recovery and it's an audit and governance committee briefing

14 FROM RESET TO RECOVERY - UPDATED EXTERNAL AUDIT PRESENTATION

document so hopefully everyone has got that and as you've got it in a PDF form I was just
going to take you through the key messages from that.
So Research to Recovery is a national report that EY have produced and we pulled that together
to share some of the observations that we pulled together from the work that we've been
across the local government sector and some of the themes we brought together in, as I
said, that national report of reset to recovery, which we could circulate separately after
this meeting as well.
That's a fairly lengthy report and this is a much brief summary of the key messages.
So the report very much looked at what happened during the local audit reset and what we've
learnt from the fact that EY audits over 100 local public bodies and perhaps most importantly
what the next phase of recovery looks like.
Because in many ways the sector has solved one problem, so the backlog has largely been
addressed, which you will see when we take you through some of the slides.
But now the challenge is rebuilding confidence and assurance, because the issue of a disclaimed
opinion is one thing, but a disclaimed opinion does not provide any assurance over the accuracy
of the financial statements.
So I think I really want to give you some context about the reset and as I said, some
of the messaging that we've been trying to build up in our reporting over the last couple
of years, which again will be repeated in our audit results report that we'll bring
to this committee later this year or in January. We've got some benchmarking in here, but as
I said, that isn't the purpose of this, the purpose is to give you some context of the
national picture, but we will talk about some recommendations for you as an audit committee
towards the end of the presentation.
So the first, so I'll take you to the next slide, which is page 4 of the report, so that's
the coloured bars on the right. What this slide shows is that, as I said, the reset
achieved its objective in proving timeliness. You can see from the issue there that basically
opinions have been issued and back lots have largely been cleared and the system's moving.
As I said, activity is not assurance. The fact that many opinions were disclaimed means
that there wasn't enough time or evidence to rebuild that assurance and therefore the
the audit opinion has not provided that to readers of the accounts.
So I think now the question is not really has the audit been signed, because audits
will be signed by the boxed update, it's around how quickly we're able to rebuild that assurance
and get to an unmodified opinion.
So the next slide which is on is very much what was in the previous report I took you
through when you're seeing the audit results report.
So that basically takes you through the sort of larrikin and the progress.
So it takes you through kind of disclaimed opinions to basically disclaim or qualified
and then qualified after that and then unmodified.
So I think that one of the key things to note is that one of the misconceptions is that
sometimes that once a disclaimer has been issued, in the following year we've in effect
got a clean sheet of paper.
But we don't have that because there's assurance gaps that roll forward.
So if we didn't have assurance over an opening balance last year, that doesn't fully disappear
because it rolls through.
So it can take some time to sort of clear through to get from a disclaimed to a modified opinion.
And therefore that recovery will take some time to work through.
And we noted on there we're raking six, which again was reported previously, so it is slightly behind
because we had to issue a disclaim in both 23, 24 and 24, 25, so we're behind that ideal trajectory.
So the next slide takes you through the gaps in assurance and it shows you where there
is substantial, partial and no assurance for different types of bodies. You'll note that
for London boroughs and uni -two councils there would be the gaps in assurance probably. District
councils are sort of sitting in the middle and then police and county councils are where
we've got generally more assurance. So I think interesting to note that there are different
different positions for different types of bodies.
So then we thought about what is driving that difference.
So I think, as I said, it's things like PPE
and income expenditure balances can be some of the ones
that are more challenging to plug the gaps on,
but there are differences between
the different sorts of bodies.
The next slide then just takes us through,
before we go into a bit more analysis,
in terms of usable and unusable reserves.
So in the previous report I took you through, I took you through the fact that we've got
different categories of reserves.
Usable reserves are obviously, as the chair of the committee noted, are really the key
reserve in terms of local government, in terms of assessing the financial sustainability
and financial position of a body.
So they're really crucial in terms of getting assurance over those reserves.
And as we said, the key risk is are those reserves overstated, in which case the council
doesn't have as much funding and finance as it thinks it does to undertake and provide
its services. In local government, however, there's an additional layer of complexity
compared to a corporate entity where we also have unusable reserves. And those are very
much driven by kind of the accounting standards and some of the statutory overrides. They
link to some of the accounting adjustments that need to be put through to comply with
it for code. So they don't represent any real money or real resource that can be used. So
as I said the evaluation reserve is an example so that recognises movements in valuations
of property, plant and equipment but they don't impact on the council's spending power
or council tax because those assets are typically not sold. So those movements go into an unusable
reserve. So that's a specific area of complexity. However some of those reserves if the entries
put through incorrectly, there can be an incorrect entry between usable and unusable. So that's
why it's really important that we focus on these reserves. I'll pause there just to see
if anyone's got any questions about reserve before I move on to the next slide.
Councillor Morris.
Cllr Martin Morris - 0:27:24
Yeah, just a quick question. So the revaluation reserve is about unrealised profit and loss on
assets presumably?
Every year on a five -year recycle, the council re -values all of its property, plants and
equipment. All of those movements up, down, would go through the revaluations of all the
capital adjustment accounts. As I said, because it's not real money, whereas in the corporate
world you might say that asset is increased in value, therefore I'm planning to sell it,
so that's actually an increase in our equity.
Cllr Martin Morris - 0:27:56
What's the scope of that? Does it include the latcos like Coralis, for example?
for example, who own assets on behalf of the council, I guess, would be there.
So they would account for their asset movements in line with the kind of accounting requirements
that they have to comply with. Then it would be consolidation to the council's accounts.
So any movements in those wouldn't be recognised as a usable reserve in the council's accounts
is my understanding. We haven't looked at that consolidation process to cheque how that
but it wouldn't translate into a kind of usable reserve for the council.
No, I assume it wouldn't. It would remain unusable, I guess.
Correct, yeah.
Cllr Martin Morris - 0:28:38
Is there a plan to look at that in any detail?
I would have thought that was a fairly important part of the council's asset base.
I mean, they're the sole owner of Qalis, for example,
so everything that Qalis owns is essentially part of EFDC.
In terms of the audit approach to that, we obviously give an opinion on the group of
accounts, which includes QALYs. We undertake our audit procedures on councils accounts
primarily and then we issue instructions to the auditors of the components or to QALYs
to basically gain assurance over their audit procedures that they are going to be taken.
We I think from my recollection have actually included some of the QALYs assets in our own
work and so we're engaging our own evaluation specialist to look at some of those assets
and evaluations. Then the final step after that is the consolidation process, which is
when the quality accounts are brought into the group accounts, but there's various accounting
adjustments made to basically ensure that the group accounts are SIT for code compliance.
So that will mean some adjustments and transfers as part of that consolidation process. There's
a number of different stages and effects to how we then gain assurance over the group
reported position.
Okay, thanks, please continue.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:29:57
Okay, thank you.
So the next slide I really just wanted to take you through was the summary of assurances,
again, more detail around that.
So basically that sets out the national picture, so this is for everybody, and that basically
sets out where arrangements are effective, where improvements are required, and where
arrangements are ineffective.
and this again would have been reported for epi in your audit results report last year.
So again, if you look at that bottom row you can see that the timeless and financial statements is largely green now,
so most councils are producing accounts in line with the deadlines required by the accounts and audit regulations,
which was not the case in previous years, so a lot of accounts were produced very late,
which was another driver for basically the audits being late because the accounts weren't produced on time by councils.
And then you look at the other areas such as quality working papers, etc.
So as you can see from that there are differences.
I think one of the things again we try to look at is what is the strongest finding that's driving a move to good assurance and unqualified opinions.
And I think what we noted was the organisations making the fastest progress weren't necessarily
the largest and they weren't also necessarily the least complex.
They were the ones that were best prepared with good draught accounts, strong working papers,
timely evidence and responsive teams with sufficient capacity in those teams.
So I think those audit readiness indicators which we've got in that table there are really
key indicators for the engagement and basically how quickly we can get to back to full assurance.
The next table basically shows how I think compares. Once they begin, that is not to
create a lead table, it's just to provide some context. So every organisation is rebuilding
assurance from a different starting point. So as I said, your starting point is kind
of one year behind in terms of most of EY's audits because we couldn't do any work in
So I think it's the key question is what progress is being made and what can we learn from others
who are further on. We did find that those that are in quarter one were more likely to
be those that were qualified rather than disclaimed which is probably fairly self -evident. Whereas
those in quarter four were more likely to have sort of value for money findings, internal
control weaknesses, etc. In terms of where Efkin sits, you're kind of at the edge of
and again that's probably very much driven by the fact we couldn't do anything in 23 -24
and because of the year one challenges we couldn't complete everything in 24 -25.
So the next one is around how you compare to peers again.
So that looks more around where arrangements are effective, improvements required.
So again as we can see there, arrangements are effective in some areas.
We didn't have any where arrangements were completely ineffective, which I think is positive,
but there were areas for improvement.
And again, I think a lot of that links to the fact that it was year one audit and there
was a lot of learning from that year one which we reported previously.
Then if you look at sort of district councils again, we look at kind of where we are in
insurance, full assurance, partial assurance and null.
And again, very sort of similar position for repping in relation to that for the same reasons
as I've already highlighted.
The next slide tries to sort of look at
the assurance movement,
so how that's improved over the years.
Again, difficult to make a comparison for Epping
because we didn't have any assurance in 23, 24,
so we've really only got the 24, 25 data to look at there.
What we'll be looking at for next year
is how we can see that movement between 24, 25, and 25, 26,
and that's really gonna be the key metric
in terms of how prepared the council is to move forward to support that move to full
assurance. So we'd be looking to see that bar increase in 2526 is our ideal aim.
So moving us on to the final slide which is really just around what's the role of this
committee in terms of helping to support that sort of movement. So the comparisons we've
provided you are only useful if they're into action.
So I think the committee's role is to help support
in terms of maintaining insurance gaps
into a kind of live agenda for the council
in terms of making sure that arrangements are in place
to sort of move that assurance forward
and to support the year -end audit.
Having said that, it's not just a year -end audit issue.
An audit occurs at year -end,
but there's work throughout the year
in terms of ensuring that systems are there
and information's able to be provided, et cetera.
So I think the key things around confidence that you've got as members of the committee
in terms of driving this forward. So do you understand where the assurance exists? Do
you understand where the gaps remain? And are those gaps reducing year by year to be
a key metrics? And I think also just ensuring that you treat readiness as a year end issue.
It's going to be delivered by leadership and focus on rebuilding assurance by your finance
team. Local authority accounts are incredibly complex. Your finance team has got a lot of
work to do, not just on the accounts but on issues such as local government reorganisation
which has already been mentioned, budget setting, etc. So I think one of the key things for
this committee is to make sure that your finance team actually has the resources and support
they need to drive those improvements in the financial statements processes, but they are
also able to do all of the incredibly important things that the finance team has to do through
the year. So I think it's about how the committee puts in place something to ensure that you're
tracking through the year how the finance team is doing, do they have the capacity,
where are the gaps and are we able to work on filling those gaps. So hopefully that provided
some useful context about where we are. We're working very closely with the finance team
at the moment to prepare for this year's audits. I think we've done some early sampling this
which is really beneficial. So we put some time in early to pick samples and we're already getting
a lot of that information back. So just wanted to express a thank you to the finance team for
that as well at this point. But very happy to stop at that point and take any questions or comments.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:36:29
Okay, thank you very much for that. And I think it did pick up on some of the
accounts from Owen's point about having sort of moved from, you know, complete and accurate,
but delayed certificate to very quick but incomplete and obviously what we're
aiming to get back to is both on time and complete and unqualified. So any
questions or comments members wanted to to make? I think, yeah, Ms. Neill.
Heather Kneale - 0:37:03
I think it's possibly one for Mr. Sparks because I was going to raise it at some point anyway.
I know I've asked before, but it would be very nice to have some more reassurance.
Are we going to have enough capacity within the finance team this year?
Because I know there were some issues around availability of staff and therefore availability of data.
Are we confident we've got enough resource for it this time?
I would say, first of all, you never have enough resource.
I think that's part of the science to start with.
I think as Debbie said, we're working very closely
and having for a while, we need to plan the work
and make sure we've got capacity in place at the right time.
Obviously, it's priority for us to make sure we get
that rebuild done and make sure we get unmodified opinions
as we go into LGR.
So we are often prioritising it.
It won't be easy because we have got lots of other things
going on with LGR, I think setting the new finance system,
but we are prioritising it.
So we're going to do the best we can,
but we have to be careful still in that.
And I'm slightly concerned because of the,
it sounds like the team are going to be really, really stretched,
particularly with all of the LGR commitments.
Is there no possibility that there will be any additional resource
coming through as part of that?
I know you mentioned there were PMOs coming on board and things.
There have not been any arrangements for additional finance support
to help manage that workload.
Heather Kneale - 0:38:32
We have got additional funding coming in for LGR.
Again, we're balancing those various strands as best we can to make sure we can achieve
obviously the LGR, Must Hats and obviously the ULD Bill back at the same time.
So we are getting more resources in and we are obviously working with Demi to make sure we're on top of it
and we are providing the resources to them and also that rebuild work, that additional work,
really getting clarity on what they involve and how we can support that.
There is a sort of planning error on the short committee of that and that prioritisation
how we can motivate those demands.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:39:07
Thanks for that. I think when we looked at the audit plan last meeting, didn't we, we
sort of noted how some of the crunch periods actually were also crunch periods for other
aspects of the finance team's work as well and that picks up on what Mr. Sparks has just
said about planning ahead to try and deal with those.
I was interested that Ernst and Young sort of flag up
in their report that the finance system, because I mean,
that appreciate with the advent of LGR and decisions
about that, and also decisions about replacing the existing
finance system and so forth.
It's not necessarily straightforward for the council, is it?
It would be helpful to understand from Ms Donnelly or Mr Sparks what the position is on that.
Yes, so we have signed a new contract with Integra for a new finance system
Nuala Donnelly - 0:40:04
and we're currently working with them to implement a new finance system by the 1st of April, 27.
So we are also making provisions that we have our existing finance system over year -end
to support the year -end audit.
So we have the information available on the system that we need.
So the contract was signed just I think at the end of 27th of August.
So we're just waiting on a programme, a detailed programme of implementation so we can work that
around the audit, the Azure and the other work streams.
Okay, thanks for that.
Does that present an extra pressure
into the training needs and so forth
and getting up to speed on a new system?
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:40:49
It is a significant, it's a significant project
but we're doing a kind of lift and shift.
So it's a kind of a,
just we're doing the minimum
and we're not kind of over developing the new system
given that it could change in a few years time.
So it's, we're making sure we have an effective system
but not a singing all down, you know, it's a lift and shift of our existing system.
Okay, thanks for that. Councillor Morris.
Cllr Martin Morris - 0:41:18
So the new finance system, is it the same one that the other councils will be using? So we've got Harlow and Oxford.
Nuala Donnelly - 0:41:28
At the moment, Oxford are using...
Sorry, can you put your microphone please?
and during 27, 28, so they'll be looking to come on to the same platform as we do.
Harlow and Domenier are using Unit 4, which is a different system.
So there is part of the LGR workstream where we are looking at the options for finance systems
through the transition, so it's a work programme that we're very involved with.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:42:03
Is there anything the portfolio would like to add?
Nothing to add, I think it was all said.
Okay, thanks. Sorry, I missed you, Mr Sparks.
We did too, we should be working with internal as well, public implementation,
as well as the role of the working, so that will be part of that process.
Okay, right. If that's everything on those, I mean I only had a chance to flick through
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:42:30
the late reports before the meeting, but there's quite a lot in there, so it is worth people
having a look at after the meeting if they've not had a chance to fully absorb it right
now.
Okay, we'll move on to the Treasury Management Update, so we just thank Ms Hamby and Mr Young

9 Treasury Management Quarter 1 Update 2026-27

for attending today and you're welcome to leave or welcome to stay depending on your other commitments.
Thank you, well I'll probably leave, I'm not sure if it will end.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Chair.
Good night.
Right, so the next report starts on page 47.
That's our Treasury Management Update. I think Ms Donnelly is going to introduce it.
Nuala Donnelly - 0:43:14
Good evening everyone. So the purpose of the report is to update members on the Treasury
management activity for the period the 1st of April to the 30th of June 2026
and the report demonstrates compliance with the Council's approved
Treasury management strategy, the SIPFAA Treasury Management Code and also the
potential code requirements. The key recommendations included in the report
are to note the Treasury management out -turn update. So in general Treasury
management remains compliant. We see full compliance has been achieved with the
Council's Treasury Management Strategy and the code requirements during quarter
one. All Treasury management potential indicators were within approved limits
and the Council remained active within its authorised borrowing limit and
operational boundaries. In terms of its borrowing position of the Council,
external borrowing increased marginally by 0 .4 million from 277 .9 million to
say 278 .3 million. Additional borrowing has supported the capital programme and
also the ongoing QALAS development activity particularly Springwood Grove.
All borrowing remains with the Public Works Loan Board and the average
borrowing rate continues to be low at 3 .49 % with an average maturity of approximately
11 years. In terms of investment, no treasury investments were held as at the 30th of June.
Liquidity was maintained through cash and cash equivalents of 22 .7 million and the available
cash over the quarter was 21 .3 million above the Council's minimum liquidity target of
10 or 15 million. Members are asked to approve the recommendations. I'd also like to remind
members that we did hold a member briefing earlier in August on capital treasury management
and investment which gives some detailed briefing on the key points included in this report.
This will be available to all members and councillors on litmus in the next few days.
Thank you.
Thanks, as ever there is quite a lot in this.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:45:37
Any comments or questions from members?
Councillor Owen.
Cllr Michael Owen - 0:45:50
It says there's no investments, but then later on it talks about the Treasury investment
position, and it goes total investments 22 million.
I guess the definition of investments is different than the table that says total investments,
is that correct?
Yes, there's Treasury investment and then there's non -Treasury investments, and the
Nuala Donnelly - 0:46:15
detail of that page. Basically Treasury, the summary and table 2 under 55. There is a difference
and the two different types of investment.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:46:44
I mean, you highlight, as we've had in previous reports, that some of the biggest bits of
borrowing the Council have got are maturity loans.
So we're not having to fund the repayment.
It would be on the interest regularly, but clearly they will become, when they become
due there's a lot of money to find at the one point. I know that we heard at the previous
meeting about writing off some of the QALYST loans for that, but at what stage does a council
need to be effectively putting money aside, drawing up plans or whatever, to ensure that
that money is available to repay when it falls due.
And of course, they've had the complication
that it may be a different council
when those loans fall due.
So in terms of accounting for borrowing,
Nuala Donnelly - 0:47:43
the council does make a minimum revenue provision
through its revenue accounts for repayment of debt.
So that continues at the moment.
So we do have that facility to repay the debts.
We've also got quite a broad profile of aid borrowing, so it doesn't all become due at
one point in time.
So we manage that very carefully as well.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:48:11
Does it make any difference at this stage as to some of the loans we've got backed by
assets that in all likelihood will support the repayment of the loan?
others we know won't. Does that make any difference to the provisions we need to make?
Nuala Donnelly - 0:48:37
I think in the main, so in the main, with the exception of the investment loan with
Qualis which is the 30 minute, 30 million, all of the other loans are backed by the minimum
revenue position and on the Qualis position that's backed by a legal agreement on the
kind of asset should that be defaulted.
There's a legal agreement in place that we could have ownership
or we could look at ways of dealing with that,
should that happen in the future.
Yeah, and obviously at that stage the critical value is
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:49:09
what's the value of whatever the ownership comes up as.
Okay, any other?
Catherine Moyes.
Cllr Martin Morris - 0:49:16
Yeah, sorry, going back to page 55, yeah.
How do you decide on the relative amount
you're going to invest in the different, you've got banks, building societies, local authorities,
money market funds.
And I was a bit curious to what you meant by UK government, which I think is a 10 -day
access period.
So it's not treasuries, so what is it?
So how do you decide on the various options in here?
So what ratios do you use?
Because you're getting 3 .74 % on your money market and only 2 % on your banks and building
societies.
So how do you balance that out and what is it that's in the line UK government at 3 .73?
Nuala Donnelly - 0:50:04
Sorry, yeah, oh yeah, can do.
So what we do as part of the actual capital credit we spent in the year, we actually set limits for each of those different kinds of investment areas.
So really, so we do spread out investments across the sectors and individual banks,
if you will, slightly within that, and set maximum amounts and durations.
What we can do, we can place the UK Government money overnight,
so those are accessed with the UK Government, and that's what we do.
It's almost like a Government bank, we give them the money, they get it out again.
So that's how that works.
What we try and do is to, it's really a bit of a balance,
depending on what's available, it makes it a bit more time.
We did know the parameters that are set out in capital
and invested straight through the year,
and that's how we're doing really.
Okay.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:51:00
I mean, it's always been the position of the council
that security is the most important factor
because the money we have invested isn't protected
in the same way that personal investments are protected.
I guess the UK government seems quite secure to me, but I don't know.
One would hope well.
As they say, if it's not, there are bigger problems that we're dealing with, aren't they?
Right. Sorry, yes, one more.
Just one more question on the Qalis loan.
Cllr Martin Morris - 0:51:31
That's 30 million, so it's bullet repayment, so they're going to repay at the end in theory.
You have got some sort of legal agreement about ownership of the assets if they default?
Is that what you are saying?
Nuala Donnelly - 0:51:50
I may need to ask Nicola, but it's referred to in the document as a floating charge.
Yes.
I'm sorry.
So the point about that is you've got a floating charge on assets which are worth way less
Cllr Martin Morris - 0:52:09
than the loans that you've given them.
So what's going to happen at the maturity of the loan?
I mean, what's the plan?
There must be one, I guess.
Did Mr. Tarksman come in on that?
That part of the process is sort of spoke of that form, isn't it?
So we've made a provision in the NTFP in 27 -28,
some of that debt right off to occur,
and that reflects that not all those loans
will be received for us, so we're managing that
and monitoring that on an ongoing basis.
But that's that provision that we've made,
because we know that all those debts
will not be fully repaid by police.
That's reflected in the NTFP,
we're monitoring it ongoing.
Again, we'll review it as part of the budget for this year.
I'm at some stage presuming that we need some sort of formal agreement with QALYST in terms
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:53:04
of revising the loan agreement to reflect what they can and they can't actually repay.
Yes, we will be reflecting loan agreements, what's outstanding and will be drafted.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:53:20
Okay, we're just asked to note this report, so I'm just happy to note it.

10 Internal Audit Monitoring Report

Right, so we can move on to the internal audit monitoring report, which I think Ms Lindsey
is going to introduce.
Thank you, Chair.
Sue Linsley - 0:53:37
So this is the regular monitoring report to give you an update on the work of internal
audit and the corporate fraud team since the last meeting.
I'm going to take you through the first section on the audit plan, then I'm going to hand
over to my colleague Hannah to talk about the tracker, as she very much manages that
now. And then finally hand over to Sarah, who will take you through the rest of the
report. And if we could wait and have questions at the end of the whole report, please.
So the internal audit plans. Progress has been made as shown in Appendix 1. You'll see
that there were several audits in progress, all at different stages of completion.
And just by way of an update, a final report has been issued that's the Housing Health
and Safety Statutory Compliance audit.
And so you'll be receiving a summary of that audit at the next meeting.
I'll hand over to you, Hannah.
Thank you.
Hannah Crawshaw - 0:54:48
So with the recommendation tracker at the moment, we have two high -risk recommendations
that are not overdue currently and one medium -risk overdue recommendation.
An update to what we have already with the tree strategy works are progressing well.
There are small pockets of low risk areas still to be completed in their surveys and
this includes a few open spaces.
Work is progressing well, so they are hoping that that will be completed soon.
With the overdue payroll recommendation, the majority of the issues have been now resolved.
The last part is to redesign and implement new claims forms.
And when this is done, the recommendation will be complete.
I will now hand over to Sarah.
Thank you, Hannah.
Sarah Marsh - 0:55:49
I'm going to take you down to page 69.
So I needed to bring to your attention as an Audit Committee
the English evolution and community empowerment act 2026.
That's a bit of a mouthful, isn't it?
So this has come into force now,
and it now makes all councils have to have
an audit committee now.
So previously it was discretionary,
but we already had an audit committee.
So that's really good news.
They hope to bring in at a later date
about making it mandatory to have independent people.
And again, we're already ahead of the game there
because we've already got two independent people
on our committee.
So we're just waiting for some official sit
for guidance to come out to,
and then we'll assess our terms of reference
as a committee,
whether there needs to be any significant changes.
And then we'll bring that back to the committee.
So I just wanted to bring that to your attention.
Towards the bottom of page 69 is the internal audit mandate and charter, and if possible
I'd like you to approve this.
So under the global internal audit standards I have to have one.
Every single audit function across the globe, regardless of sector, has to have one.
I've used the model version and it's very similar to last year's.
In fact, it's hardly any changes to it whatsoever.
And it's exactly the same internal audit charter mandate
that I want to use across all four councils
where we provide internal audit services.
It's a really important document
because it sets out my independence
as head of internal audit and the internal audit teams.
And it gives us the mandate to go along
and audit anything that I want to.
We can be advised by senior management
not to look at particular area,
but if I want to look at it, then I can.
So it is a really important document.
Moving to the top of page 70 then,
the local code of corporate governance.
So it has its annual review.
Again, this is another important document
because it sets out our corporate governance framework
and the assurances that we get with that.
And then as explained in the briefing earlier
before today's meeting,
how that flows into our annual governance statement,
which gives our opinion on the governance framework
and how it's working.
And it's forms part of the statutory accounts
for the council.
Last part of the report is an update
from the corporate fraud team.
And it's been mentioned twice in this report.
I just really want to say well done to my team
for ensuring that we've got a brand new process
for declarations of interest.
It got launched in June, and it means that we now have
electronic forms for everyone to do this.
We had a paper -based system, so it wasn't particularly robust.
It's been administered through our iTrent payroll system,
so that we can capture all staff.
And we've had really good take -up at the moment,
but we're going to do another review in a sweep in the autumn,
and everybody will have to complete one or declare that they don't need to complete one.
So again I just want to say thank you to the team and the corporate fraud team for bringing
that into being. Thank you.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 0:59:28
Okay, thanks for that. We're asked to note the summary of the work and then approve the
mandate and charter and code of government. Are there any questions or comments members
had on any of that. You'll see the internal audit planned of AI is quite an
extensive one and based on the time that's available. Do you want to say
anything more about what you're planning to cover and what the approach is to that?
Sarah Marsh - 0:59:59
Is that the AI one? Yes. We're going to use a specialist for this to compare us to other
sure that we're not got any there's no easy wins on our opportunities of using
AI as well as making sure that the governance around AI is robust should be
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 1:00:25
an exciting piece of work. Why is it I mean it's allocated a big chunk of
time compared to the other audits what makes it so time intensive? I think
Sarah Marsh - 1:00:37
because there's a lot of people they're going to need to speak to and understand how it's operating at the moment across the organisation.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 1:00:47
Okay. So we can move on to approving the internal audit mandate and charter. Members happy to do that?
And then the code of corporate governance. I just had sort of one minor sort of pernickety comment,
which is there's quite a lot of examples of where we seem to be missing I was
going to say a verb I think it's actually a gerund you know for example
on page 89 we've got the council does this by that the council operations
performance and presume there should be an ensuring or having more or something
I mean it's we can all understand it but it's not quite English but actually
We'll review it and put those extra words in to make it better English before we publish it.
Thanks. Are we happy to update the... Catherine?
Cllr Michael Owen - 1:01:47
I mean, ironically, that's what AI is good for, is probably to put the documents through AI and say,
is there anything in here that doesn't make sense? And it would have picked that up.
Well, there you are. The possible case study for something.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 1:01:55
But yeah, with those changes we're happy to agree the Code of Corporate Governance.
Thanks very much, that's agreed.

11 Risk Management

So we can move on to the Risk Management item.
Is that Ms. Donnelly?
Nuala Donnelly - 1:02:15
Got the hang of the mic now.
Thank you.
So the report sets out the quarterly review of the Corporate Risk Register and members
are asked to consider whether corporate risks have been
appropriately identified, risk scores remain appropriate,
existing controls remain effective,
further mitigation accounts are adequate,
and any new or emerging risks should be added to the register.
The committee is asked to consider the updated corporate
risk register and recommend it to cabinet for approval.
There have been a number of significant changes since April.
The first one is the planning risk has increased.
So PLA005, so the quality of major planning applications,
the score has increased from 50 to 20.
This risk has increased because the risk has materialised
and government intervention measures have now been imposed.
PLA001, the five -year housing land supply.
this is a new corporate risk and has been given a score of 20. This risk has
been escalated from the operational risk register to the corporate risk register.
FIN 002, the financial viability of QALAS, this score has been reduced from 15
to 12. The reduction follows completion of the subsidiary company review and
and cabinet approval of a package of recommendations
in July 2026.
Members should note that government arrangements
have been strengthened and the implementation
of improvement actions are now underway.
Partner management, STR002.
Again, the score has been reduced from 15 to 12.
The lower score reflects improvements arising
from the Sidgery company review and greater clarity
partnership governance arrangements. And finally community cohesion the risk
risk has improved. The score has reduced from 16 to 9. The reduction reflects the
fact that the Bell Hotel is no longer being used by the Home Office for
accommodation purposes. This has significantly reduced local tensions and
and associated risks.
Members are asked to approve the recommendations.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 1:04:47
Thanks very much for that and particularly
for explaining the changes from the previous scores.
Did members have any questions or comments they wanted to make?
Councillor Morris.
Yeah, I just had a question.
Cllr Martin Morris - 1:05:01
I mean, we've got a list of risks here.
I didn't count how many there are.
But, I mean, how do we know that, I mean, what's the procedure or process for ensuring
that we've got all the risks captured?
I mean, I can look at these risks and make a, you know, a judgement about whether I agree
with them or not, but what about the ones that, how do I know they're all here?
We are missing something.
There must be a process that you go through to ensure that you've captured all the risks.
What is that process?
Nuala Donnelly - 1:05:44
So there is a process which is managed by our risk manager.
So every service within the council has its own risk register, so local service directors
will indicate what risks they perceive to be part of their service provision.
Those are then collated, reviewed by the senior leadership team on a regular basis.
The discussion from there will escalate any local risks to corporate risk.
There's a review process from a bottom -up basis across the Council.
Okay, Vice Chair.
Thanks.
Sissel Heiberg - 1:06:25
We talked earlier about the risks attached to the year -end external audit process.
I couldn't see anything related to that on this corporate risk register.
So is that captured on a lower level register somewhere?
It's definitely on my risk register.
Nuala Donnelly - 1:06:40
Yeah, so it is on the finance risk register resourcing and we're constantly reviewing
that on a monthly basis.
Thanks.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 1:06:51
Cllr Michael Owen - 1:06:55
Yeah, it's easy to obviously focus on the ones that go up rather than the ones that
go down.
So well done on the ones that have gone down.
But the one that went up, the quality of majors, 15 to 20, do you think we kind of missed a
trick here?
Because we all knew it was maybe not coming, but like the impact would be big.
So jumping it five points kind of like after the horse is bolted and all that, should it
not have been 20 before?
I think the reason it's raised is obviously we knew the projection was above the 10%,
we also knew that going forward the projection was over time, it's in a rolling 12 month
period, it would go down below the 10%. I think obviously what's happened that's made
jump from, I think, 20, is obviously that section 62A designation.
We knew it was a possibility, we weren't expecting it to happen,
because we had that trajectory going down below that 10%.
I think that's been a changing factor in that one.
Okay.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 1:08:07
Two questions I was going to ask.
I mean, it's quite striking that the five -year land supply risk
has sort of jumped from nowhere in the court register,
it's just straight in number one as it were,
or straight into 20.
Is that because there's a particular trigger?
It's something that I know the planning department's
been monitoring for quite a long time.
So I was wondering what catapulted it,
sort of particularly at this level
into the corporate risk register.
Yeah, Mrs. Sparks.
It's because we haven't got that five -year land supply
at the moment, so it's really highlighting
the work we need to do to try and get that back on track.
So it's monitored very carefully
as part of the planning of the stuff,
because it's hit that trigger point
and that's been estimated corporately,
that does have an impact on planning decisions
and how they can be defended
and all that sort of thing.
So it's housing delivery test announcement,
whatever it was that was a sort of trigger point
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 1:09:22
that rather than just it gradually building as it were
through sort of green, amber, red.
Yeah, but on that third bit of stuff,
NUCL was saying that process up to a fourth book
because it hit that trigger point.
Okay, and we heard with the coalition of subsidiary companies
that the plan agreed at cabinet in July was being implemented.
Do we have a sense of how far through that implementation process we are?
Because for various legal changes, didn't it, and reconstitution of boards and so forth,
are those new boards now in place? If not, do we have a timescale for that?
Are you on mute I'm afraid?
Ah, I think it was a range of recommendations within that report and some have been completed and some are still on track.
I think we're looking to get the most will be done by January and then there'll be a few that will happen in March.
And a lot of that has to do with loan out contracts and some of the changes in the support provision.
So that's sort of the type scale, but there's a range of completion dates.
Some have been done, some genuinely and some for March.
Cllr Jon Whitehouse - 1:10:52
Could we perhaps have a sort of update report in our March meeting just to confirm all that's been implemented and done?
And then that will marry up with the external audit recommendations from what we talked about at the last meeting?
Members happy with that? Okay anything more on risk? Okay so this report will go to cabinet
as well who will discuss it and agree it or not. We're just asked to note it, members
happy to note it and we've commented on it. Okay that's the end of the agenda. I'm assuming

12 Any Other Business

5 Matters Arising

there's no other business? No other business, Charlie. Okay, so thank you very much for

13 Exclusion of Public and Press

attending and we'll see you next time.
Nuala Donnelly
Service Director - Finance & Deputy S151 Officer
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Nuala Donnelly
Sissel Heiberg
Co-optee - Audit & Governance Committee
View profile Sissel Heiberg
Heather Kneale
Co-optee - Audit & Governance Committee
View profile Heather Kneale
Sue Linsley
Senior Auditor
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Sue Linsley
Sarah Marsh
Chief Internal Auditor
Epping Forest District Council
View profile Sarah Marsh
Cllr Martin Morris
District councillor for Waltham Abbey North ward
Labour Party
View profile Cllr Martin Morris
Cllr Michael Owen
District councillor for Loughton Forest ward
Loughton Residents Association
View profile Cllr Michael Owen
Cllr Jon Whitehouse
District councillor for Epping East ward
Liberal Democrats
View profile Cllr Jon Whitehouse