Meeting Details

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Speca, Thompson, Back and King.

Councillor Byatt substituted for Councillor King.

On the proposal of Councillor Lynch, seconded by Councillor Gandy, it was 

RESOLVED

 
That the minutes of the meeting held on 24 March 2025 be accepted as a true record.

The Committee received report ES/2447 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources and Value for Money, which related to the 2024/25 Draft Statement of Accounts.

The Cabinet Member introduced the report.  In accordance with statutory requirements under the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015 and the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, the Council’s draft Statement of Accounts for 2024/25 had been published on its website by 30 June 2025. The draft accounts for the financial year ending 31 March 2025 were prepared in line with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Code of Practice. The accounts provided insight into the Council’s financial performance over the year and served as an important demonstration of sound financial stewardship of taxpayers’ money. Particular attention was drawn to the narrative report within the statement, which offered commentary on the Council’s financial and non-financial performance in 2024/25. The accounts were made available for public inspection from 1 July 2025 for 30 working days, in accordance with the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, with the inspection period set to end at 4pm on 11 August 2025. The committee was asked to review the draft Statement of Accounts for 2024/25.

Councillor Gandy thanked the Officers for their work and asked if there had been any public comments on the accounts. The Chief Financial Officer confirmed that no comments had been received, which was usual.

Councillor Lynch inquired about the likelihood of meeting the September deadline for the accounts, given issues with Ernst and Young. The Chief Financial Officer confirmed they were working closely with David and his colleagues to meet the deadline.  There was an agenda item later in the meeting for the 2024/25 audit timetable.

Councillor Byatt highlighted there was over £1 million in rent arrears, representing 4.56% of income, and questioned whether this was typical compared to other councils and how quickly it could be reduced. The Chief Financial Officer responded that she would need to look at benchmarks and actions to date and agreed to follow up after the meeting. Councillor Byatt noted it was positive that arrears had decreased over the past two years. Councillor Langdon-Morris added that the internal audit report showed a 21% increase in debt collection and a 20% rise in fees collected compared to 2023/24.

Councillor Lynch asked about the status of the refunds for overcharged housing rents and service charges. It was confirmed that most refunds had been completed, with only more complex cases remaining. Exact figures would be obtained from Housing, and efforts were ongoing to reach the final group of harder-to-contact tenants.

Councillor Lynch questioned whether arrears would begin to rise again after recent reductions, especially as some decreases may be due to refunds. The Chief Financial Officer agreed to refer the matter to Housing and circulate figures with an explanation after the meeting.

Councillor Byatt asked why Waveney Norse still appeared in the documentation despite having ceased trading. The Chief Financial Officer explained that the company had not yet been wound up and remained active, so it still needed to be included in the accounts.

The Head of Digital, Programme Management and Customer Services informed the Committee that a sustainable housing KPI dashboard was available, providing data on housing and housing finances, including arrears performance over the years. She noted the information was accessible online and via the intranet, and she would send the link.

Councillor Lynch referred to comments on the risk register noting that Sizewell C was now seen as positive for the Council, with a risk rating of amber, and questioned the political leadership risk marked red. The Head of Digital, Programme Management and Customer Services explained this referred to a corporate risk covering potential changes at local, regional, or national levels. It addressed the impact of shifts in political direction—such as local government reorganisation—on council operations, including planning, housing, and related policy adjustments.

Councillor Lynch acknowledged the explanation but questioned why the target wasn’t also rated red, as it appeared it hadn’t been met. He noted that with ongoing political changes, especially in a functioning democracy, the risk might remain amber indefinitely.

The Head of Digital, Programme Management and Customer Services responded that the risk register was drafted on 1 March 2025, and later in the agenda the target was shown as red. She explained the risk is continually reviewed and may be mitigated over time, demonstrating its ever-changing nature.

Councillor Lynch stated that since it related to the 2024/25 statement of accounts, he would prefer the target to be marked red if it was possible to change.  The Chair suggested that there could be supplementary information circulated with the link to explain the rationale.

It was confirmed to Councillor Byatt that the directors of ESSL were correct at the time of publication of the draft accounts.

On the proposal of Councillor Gandy, seconded by Councillor Lynch it was

RESOLVED

That the Audit and Governance Committee:
1. Reviews and comments upon the Draft Statement of Accounts for 2024/25.

The Committee received report ES/2448 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources and Value for Money, which related to the 2024/25 External Audit Planning Report.

The Cabinet Member introduced the report. The external audit planning report for the financial year ended 31 March 2025 was presented. Local authorities had been required to publish the unaudited statement of accounts by the statutory deadline of 30 June 2025, following the application of the Accounts and Audit Amendment Regulations on 30 September 2024. A revised statutory deadline of 30 June 2025 was set for authorities to publish unaudited accounts for the financial years 2024/25 to 2027/28. Ernst and Young had provided the provisional audit planning report for 2024/25, offering a basis to review the proposed audit approach and scope. After completing the audit, Ernst and Young would provide an audit opinion on whether the financial statements gave a true and fair view of the financial position as of 31 March 2025 and whether they were prepared properly in accordance with the relevant accounting and reporting framework. The planned audit work included value for money assessments, review of the council’s annual government statements, and evaluation of the council’s financial sustainability, governance arrangements, and service delivery. A value for money commentary was scheduled to be issued within the 2024/25 auditor’s annual report by 30 November 2025.

Following the council’s 2023/24 statement of accounts receiving a disclaimed opinion, Ernst and Young and the Council’s finance team maintained regular dialogue. This collaboration was crucial during the recovery process as both parties worked to meet statutory deadlines and address challenges from previous disclaimed opinions to rebuild assurance in future statements. For the 2024/25 financial year, the backstop date for audited publication was set as 27 February 2026. The Committee was asked to comment on the report.

Councillor Lynch noted an increase in pension liabilities risk and questioned how this affected the Council’s liability. David from Ernst and Young explained that Suffolk County Council manages the pension fund, and East Suffolk Council must apply the IS19 accounting standard. Actuaries from Suffolk County Council provide reports with relevant figures, which are significant and pose a risk. Since Suffolk County Council is in a surplus position, this adds complexity in recognising assets. Last year’s accounts were qualified as a single entity, and these factors have contributed to the increased risk.

Councillor Lynch asked what actions were needed and about the action plan. The Chief Financial Officer replied that the pension fund undergoes a tri-annual review to assess its position and reconsider employer contributions. They had requested these reports from the actuary to support the audit process.

Councillor Lynch questioned why the pension fund review occurred only every three years and asked if more frequent reviews were possible. Ernst and Young replied that while the formal tri-annual evaluation was statutory, the fund was monitored annually. They noted there were ongoing discussions about potentially widening the review period.

The Chair asked if the Committee could review any supplementary reports. The Chief Financial Officer replied that Suffolk County Council held pension committee meetings, and she would explore whether relevant information could be shared with the Committee.

The Head of Internal Audit noted that, as part of the audit partnership, Suffolk County Council pension experts were invited to brief the audit committee annually. She agreed to request a similar briefing for this committee, aiming to arrange it for the next Audit and Governance Committee or around December.

Councillor Byatt noted that some assets were not valued during the 2024/25 process and questioned why a full asset review hadn’t been conducted, suggesting it would be better to have a full picture of all assets.

The Cabinet Member asked why some assets were not valued. David Riglar explained that investment properties must be valued annually, while land and buildings are revalued every five years, but the valuations are materially accurate at year-end.

Councillor Lynch noted the previous delays and asked if Ernst and Young had improved their staffing levels to meet audit timelines.

David Riglar replied that the report and future updates would address the issue, noting that staffing challenges had affected not just Ernst and Young but the entire sector. An independent review had highlighted systemic problems. Statutory backstop dates running through to 2027 prevented further delays. Changes in accounts and audit scope were expected to address the underlying issues. The Devolution Bill aimed to establish a local audit office for sustainable auditing. Ernst and Young had higher staffing levels than ever in the public sector but increasing accounting and auditing standards continued to increase the workload for both council officers and auditors.

Councillor Lynch praised the Council’s internal audit team but expressed concern about a communication gap between external and internal auditors. Ernst and Young responded that auditing standards prevent them from directing internal audit on what needs to be done.

Councillor Gandy said the situation was a "movable feast," noting that most councils nationwide faced similar challenges. David Riglar replied that around 230 to 240 councils were in a comparable position for 2023/24, so they were definitely not alone. Another 50 that hadn’t even had their opinion.  Quite a few councils that had more than one year disclaim.

Ernst and Young confirmed they were conducting a full audit but could not provide a true and fair opinion due to historical issues. This year’s audit report would be more detailed than the previous one, showing the progress made in rebuilding assurance and the estimated timeline to achieve a clean opinion. They emphasised the importance of assessing available assurance during the year, including finance team capability and internal audit reports. It was confirmed that the delays were linked to external pressures, such as a shortage of local authority auditors, rather than internal factors.

Councillor Lynch said the report was good, but he couldn’t see the costs. David Riglar confirmed the cost table was on page 210, with the top figure representing the scale fee set by the PSA. Since IFR 16 work had not yet started, the exact scope and cost were uncertain. For budgeting, David Riglar explained that additional charges vary by council, with some using previous year’s extra fees as a baseline.

The Chief Financial Officer confirmed that budgeting is based on council fees. The Council had received government grant funding, with a second tranche expected later in the year. This second payment would be dependent on the PSA fee and the scope of work required, which had not yet been finalised.

On the proposal of Councillor Gandy, seconded by Councillor Lynch it was

RESOLVED

That Audit and Governance Committee:
1. Reviews and comments upon EY’s 2024/25 Provisional Audit Planning Report.

The Committee received report ES/2449 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources and Value for Money, which related to the 2024/25 External Auditor’s Annual Report for 2023/24.

The Cabinet Member introduced the report. On 17 February 2025, after reviewing the provisional audit results for the 2023/24 accounts, the Audit and Governance Committee delegated authority to the Section 151 Officer, in consultation with the Committee Chair, to sign off and publish the accounts. This decision was made due to timescale pressures related to the backstop date.  On 24 February 2025, Ernst and Young completed their audit work, originally outlined in their 26 February 2024 plan, and issued a disclaimed audit opinion on the 2023/24 financial statements, in line with the National Audit Office’s 2024 Code of Audit Practice and international auditing standards. East Suffolk Council subsequently published the audited statements by the revised 28 February 2025 backstop deadline.  The Code of Audit Practice required Ernst and Young to report to the Committee on their audit work and any governance issues identified. Their Annual Report, including a value for money commentary, outlined any significant weaknesses and provided recommendations for improvement. As agreed at the 17 February 2025 meeting, the Council sent a letter to Ernst and Young on 21 March 2025 expressing disappointment with the disclaimed audit opinion. Ernst and Young responded on 10 April 2025, explaining the factors that led to the disclaimed opinion and stating their commitment to acting in the public interest and supporting the recovery of local audit functions.

Councillor Lynch expressed strong disappointment over receiving a disclaimed audit opinion, noting substantial extra charges and attributing the delays to Ernst and Young. He strongly objected to the audit outcome, stating that the Council had done everything required but still received a negative result.

The Chair expressed frustration, noting that assurances had been given that the audit would be completed. He acknowledged the wider context highlighted by Ernst and Young, with many councils facing similar issues, and hoped that Local Government Reorganisation would not further complicate the situation.

Councillor Byatt noted that no significant weaknesses were identified in the report and congratulated Councillor Langdon-Morris and the finance team for their work. He also welcomed the growth of the procurement team and was pleased that each department now had a dedicated procurement business partner.

Councillor Byatt asked if a clear narrative had been prepared to explain the use of the backstop, emphasising the need for public understanding. Councillor Lynch agreed and suggested the recommendation include acknowledgment of the situation and the correspondence between Ernst and Young and the Council.

The Chief Financial Officer agreed to prepare the narrative and circulate to the Committee members for comment ahead of publication.

Councillor Gandy asked if there would be a reduction in fees, they had increased during Covid.  David Riglar confirmed that the PSSA set the audit fees.

On the proposal of Councillor Byatt, seconded by Councillor Gandy it was 

RESOLVED

That Audit and Governance Committee:
1. Notes the Auditors Annual Report (AAR) which includes the Value for Money commentary (Appendix A).
2. Notes the letter correspondence between EY and the Council regarding the delivery of audit services provided and the receipt of a disclaimed audit opinion and its wider impact on Council’s resources (Appendix B &C), as agree at the Audit and Governance Committee on 17 February 2025.

The Committee received report ES/2450 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources and Value for Money, which related to the Internal Audit Annual Report 2024/25.

The Cabinet Member outlined the purpose of the report which was to provide an independent and objective opinion on the overall adequacy and effectiveness of the Council’s framework of internal control, risk management and governance observed during 2024/25.

The Head of Internal Audit confirmed a reasonable audit opinion and expressed confidence in the work carried out. She clarified that the public sector internal audit standard involved an audit of the auditors (the Head of Internal Audit and her team) to ensure compliance, which the team passed with flying colours—over 140 questions. This covered the period up to 1 April 2025, after which new global standards were introduced. The team was already working toward compliance with these new standards. She highlighted the high level of regulation, quality, capacity, and professionalism required in delivering audit work.

The report provided a snapshot of the audits undertaken throughout the year and the outputs from them.  This reports feeds into the Head of Internal Audits’ opinion and assists the Annual Governance Statement.

Councillor Lynch queried the terminology “essential” in the Economic Development/Regeneration Audit outcome.

On the proposal of Councillor Gandy, seconded by Councillor Lynch it was

RESOLVED

That the Audit and Governance Committee:
1. Reviews and endorses the Head of Internal Audit’s annual opinion for 2024/25.
2. Notes the conformance statement relating to the Public Sector Internal Audit Standards relevant to 2024/25.
3. Notes the current position of the Internal Audit Quality Assurance and Improvement Programme.

The Committee received report ES/2451 of the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member with Member with responsibility for Corporate Services and the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources and Value for Money.  The report related to the review of the annual Information Governance Report 2024/25.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources and Value for Money presented the report. The report provided Members with an overview of the work carried out during the 2024/25 financial year by the Information Governance team and the Data Protection Officer across all Information Governance activities. It included detailed statistical data on the time and resources allocated to this work. The activities were undertaken in compliance with the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), the Data Protection Act 2018, the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The report was essential in demonstrating the Council’s approach to corporate governance, risk management, and control. It was prepared in line with the Audit and Governance Committee’s terms of reference to review the effectiveness of systems for monitoring legal compliance and management's response to any non-compliance. The Cabinet Member outlined the purpose of the report which was to provide an

Siobhan Martin

Councillor Byatt asked about the council’s costs for handling Data Protection and FOI requests, noting the number of days spent as shown in the report. He inquired whether the costs were broken down by individual requesters and if there were repeat requesters.

The Head of Internal Audit confirmed she also served as the Council’s Data Protection Officer and oversaw the Information Governance team, which consisted of six people. She stated that resources were currently adequate to handle customer inquiries, though some cases were more complex. While there were repeat requesters, there were no vexatious cases. She emphasised the team’s helpful approach and noted that the Council received many valid questions while staying off the radar of information commissioners. She was proud of the team’s work in maintaining compliance.

The Chair asked about the number of appeals. The Head of Internal Audit replied that few reviews had taken place. She explained the process: if a requester was dissatisfied with the information provided, they could request a review, then appeal to the Information Commissioner, and to a tribunal if still unsatisfied. She emphasised that this law was important for transparency, especially given the use of public funds.

Councillor Lynch asked whether the figures in Table 1 represented the actual number of Data Protection requests or the number of cases processed, and if all requests were fully actioned. He suggested future reports should differentiate between requests and cases. The Head of Internal Audit confirmed that all requests were answered, though some required clarification, and that future reports would include detail of the various processing types.

On the proposal of Councillor Lynch, seconded by Councillor Gandy it was

RESOLVED

That Audit and Governance Committee:
1. Reviews and comments on the annual Information Governance Report 2024/25.

The Committee received report ES/2452 of the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Services and the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources and Value for Money.  The report related to the review of the annual Senior Information Risk Owner Report.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources and Value for Money presented the report. The purpose of the report was to review the annual Senior Information Risk Owner Report 2024/25. This report presented Members with an overview of the Senior Information Risk Owners role within the Council, the governance measures and controls in place to protect the Council, work undertaken for the financial year from 2024/25 and priorities for 2025/26.

The activities detailed in the report had been carried out in line with and adhering to the legal obligations/statutory obligations under (not exhaustive):

• UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR)
• Data Protection Act 2018.
• Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 2000
• Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) 2004
• Payment Card Industry Security Standard

The report is fundamental to demonstrate the Council’s foundations of corporate governance, risk, and control.

This report has been prepared in accordance with the Audit and Governance Committee’s terms of reference to: Review the effectiveness of the system for monitoring compliance with laws and regulations and the results of management’s investigation and follow-up of any instances of non-compliance

The Head of Internal Audit thanked the Head of Digital, Programme Management and Customer Services’ team for their cyber security work.  The Output report gives the Committee assurance and confidence about cyber security.

It was confirmed to Councillor Gandy that as long as all casework was carried out on the laptop with the Council’s security settings it was compliant with cyber security.

On the proposal of Councillor Gandy, seconded by Councillor Lynch it was

RESOLVED

That Audit and Governance Committee:
1. Reviews and comments on the annual Senior Information Risk Owner Report 2024/25.

The Committee received report ES/2453 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources and Value for Money.  The report related to the Corporate Fraud Annual Report 2024/25.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources and Value for Money presented the report. The purpose of the report was:

To provide the Corporate Fraud Annual Report for the 2024/25 financial year to be commented upon and noted by the Audit and Governance Committee. These results are as a result of the Corporate Fraud Business Plan agreed by the same Committee in March 2024.

To ensure the Audit and Governance Committee fulfils its terms of reference to ‘Monitor the counter-fraud strategy, activity and resources’.

The Head of Internal Audit expressed pride in the team for saving over £2.8 million for the council through their work, primarily in housing. She highlighted the strong collaboration with housing and legal services to work to detect, prevent and pursue fraudulent activity.

Councillor Byatt thanked the Head of Internal Audit and her team and asked what percentage of fraud cases investigated resulted in prosecution. Siobhan replied that no prosecutions had been undertaken, as they are rare and costly. She explained that different solutions were reached depending on each situation, with a balanced approach taken to each case.

Councillor Lynch noted the thorough report.  As a member of Audit and Governance Committee he was a little bit disappointed that in 2024/25 there were 2 internal frauds, costing the council money.  He was grateful they had picked them up but it was a shame they had happened.

Councillor Lynch asked about Covid 19 grants and whether they were transferring investigation from central Government to local authorities.

The Head of Internal Audit explained that post-COVID anti-fraud work was still ongoing, with residual tasks remaining. She praised East Suffolk Council as exemplary in fraud risk assessment, noting their thorough gateway checks and feedback to central government about loopholes. This led to improved practices and heightened expectations for risk assessments and corporate fraud checks, benefiting other council activities as well.

Councillor Lynch noted a substantial increase in tenancy fraud and asked about the cause. It was explained that there had been a rise in unusual sub-letting, with the fraud hotline and public referral process generating useful information to support investigations.

Councillor Lynch asked if enough was done to communicate the council’s fraud prevention efforts. The Cabinet Member responded that a press release would follow the committee meeting highlighting anti-fraud activities, an article would be published in the public magazine, and the housing department promoted ways to report fraud suspicions.

Irregularities had increased, but the amount of money involved had decreased. These irregularities mainly involved income evasion, taxes, and grant funding issues, reflecting the types of cases being reported.

Councillor Gandy referred to income evasion statistics on page 325, noting the impact of cost of living issues. She asked if there was an estimate of how much this had cost the Council. It was agreed that this information could be provided to the Committee as an action.

On the proposal of Councillor Lynch, seconded by Councillor Byatt  

RESOLVED

That the Audit and Governance Committee comment upon and note the Corporate Fraud Annual Report 2024/25.

The Committee received report ES/2454 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources and Value for Money.  The report related to recently issued internal audit reports.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources and Value for Money presented the report. The purpose of the report was:

Internal Audit reports were issued to the Audit and Governance Committee to support the Committee in its responsibilities as set out in its Terms of Reference:

• To consider the effectiveness of the Council’s internal control system, including information technology security and control.
• To review the Council’s corporate governance arrangements against the good governance framework and consider annual governance reports and assurances.
• To consider the Council’s arrangements to secure value for money and review assurances and assessments on the effectiveness of these arrangements.
• To review the effectiveness of the system for monitoring compliance with laws and regulations and the results of management’s investigation and follow-up of any instances of non-compliance.
• To review the findings of any reports provided by regulatory agencies, and any auditor.
• To consider reports from the Head of Internal Audit on Internal Audit’s performance during the year.

These included updates on the work of Internal Audit including key findings, issues of concern, and actions taken by management as a result of Internal Audit work.

The Head of Internal Audit said there were two reports presented these were:

• Key Financial Systems 2024-25
• Homelessness: Temporary Accommodation 2024-25

They both had an effective audit assurance opinion.  She noted a correction in the earlier paper, where it said essential it should have said effective.

The Chair praised the work reflected in the two reports, especially highlighting the homelessness report for raising important issues, and commended the teams involved for their efforts.

Councillor Byatt praised the Head of Internal Audit for their work, noted the high expenditure on Bed and Breakfast accommodation, and said he would discuss the rough sleeping grant and its use with the Cabinet Member for Housing.

He expressed disappointment with the figures on page 342 for East Suffolk Lettings, noting the budget was much lower than the income. He wondered if the service needed more promotion and it was agreed to ask the Head of Housing for a response.

On the proposal of Councillor Lynch, seconded by Councillor Byatt, it was

RESOLVED

That Audit and Governance Committee considers and comments upon the two presented Internal Audit report(s)

The Committee received report ES/2455 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources and Value for Money.  The report related to recently issued internal audit reports.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources and Value for Money presented the report. The purpose of the report was to provide Members with progress on all Internal Audit actions agreed by management. Detailed information was provided on significant actions where the original target implementation date has passed, and the action has not yet been completed.

The Head of Internal Audit advised there were no overdue internal audit actions which was a very good position to be in.

Councillor Lynch said it was a great report and was pleased to see the Council in such a strong position with no overdue actions. He hoped Ernst and Young were taking note, emphasising that the Council had their finger on the pulse and ensured nothing slipped through.

The Chair agreed, noting this was a much better position compared to two years ago. He expressed his gratitude to all the teams involved for ensuring deadlines were met and thanked the Head of Internal Audit for the report.

On the proposal of Councillor Gandy, seconded by Councillor Lynch it was

RESOLVED

That the Audit and Governance Committee considers whether any further action or explanation is necessary from service areas to ensure that agreed actions to improve East Suffolk Council’s control environment are made. Where no further action or explanation is deemed necessary, that the Committee notes the report.

The Committee received report ES/2456 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources and Value for Money.  The report related to the Corporate Risk Management Update.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources and Value for Money presented the report. The purpose of the report was to provide the Committee with a six-monthly overview of the Council’s Corporate Risk Register. To build on effective corporate risk management across the Council, Members were asked to review the key risks on the register at regular intervals and consider corporate risk management when they were planning any future work programmes.

The Cabinet Member thanked the Head of Digital, Programme Management and Customer Services for all of the work carried out.

Councillor Lynch noted that the risk ‘flood risk due to flooding and tidal surges’ was shown as amber and suggested that this should be raised to red due to the flood risk in Lowestoft. The Chair noted that there was a separate risk for flooding and tidal surges for Lowestoft only which was shown as red. Councillor Lynch recognised this separated Lowestoft from other areas, but there was still a risk of inland flooding from tidal surges in the lower areas of the district. The Head of Digital, Programme Management and Customer Services confirmed she would raise this with CLT. The Chair recognised this was a difficult balance considering there had been flooding within recent memory which impacted the way people would view this risk. 

 Councillor Langdon Morris noted there was an Emergency Resilience Coordinator in post now, they could feed into that risk assessment too.

The Committee felt there was overlap with planning, noting that water and sewage were usually the responsibility of other authorities, not East Suffolk Council. However, they did not agree with this view.

The Committee noted that with a potential Mayoral Authority expected next year, responsibility for infrastructure and finances would shift, meaning these risks would need to be coordinated across councils, as they were broader than just an East Suffolk Council issue and affected the wider coastal area.

Councillor Byatt questioned why housing standards were not included as a risk and noted that water supply was listed as a new risk and rated red rather than amber. He felt both were serious issues requiring attention. He cited the recent sewage outlet failure at Ness Point as an example of concern, questioning why Anglian Water did not have a backup pump in place.

The Head of Digital, Programme Management and Customer Services, guided the Committee through the report and emphasised the importance of understanding how risks are assessed and positioned on the register. She highlighted the value of reviewing the risk scoring grid and explained that mitigating factors play a key role in determining the final risk scores.

The Committee asked how frequently risks could change throughout the year. The Head of Digital, Programme Management and Customer Services explained that risks were reviewed by the Audit and Governance Committee twice a year and by the Corporate Leadership Team quarterly. Additionally, the Performance and Risk Officer monitored risks more regularly, making it an ongoing assessment. She gave housing as an example, noting that its risk had recently been identified as worsening following a newly published report.

Councillor Langdon-Morris, said it could be reviewed at Cabinet and Informal Cabinet.  Referring back to the comment regarding Lowestoft sewage output, Councillor Langdon Morris said the water quality was important to attract tourism and business.

Councillor Lynch suggested there should be a recommendation for the planning team to consider whether there was water supply and sewage before approving any planning applications. It was noted that this issue was already included on the corporate risk register due to the increased demand for housing, which is why the planning team had highlighted it as a risk.

The Head of Digital, Programme Management and Customer Services was asked to speak to the planning team as to why inadequate sewage treatment and water supply had been placed on the risk register, what controls and mitigations were in place, and to share the concerns that the Committee had. The Head of Digital, Programme Management and Customer Services noted that the planning team did have policies about these issues and if the Committee wished for further information they could ask the Head of Planning and Building Control to attend a future meeting. 

On the proposal of Councillor Lynch, seconded by Councillor Byatt

It was

RESOLVED

That Audit and Governance Committee:
1. Members are asked to note and make comment on the corporate risks from the Council’s current Corporate Risk Register (CRR) which is governed and monitored by the Corporate Leadership Team (CLT). 

The Committee received report ES/2457 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources and Value for Money.  The report related to the draft Annual Governance Statement 2024/25.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources and Value for Money presented the report and outlined its purpose. The Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015 required councils to produce an Annual Governance Statement (AGS) in line with the timetable for the Statement of Accounts. For 2024/25, the document was required to be published on the Council’s website by the statutory deadline of 30 June 2025. The purpose of the report was for the Committee to review and approve the draft Annual Governance Statement for 2024/25, alongside the draft Statement of Accounts for the same year. The draft AGS was subject to external audit review and could therefore change. Any amendments would be presented to the Committee alongside the audited Statement of Accounts for 2024/25, with the timing dependent on the completion of the external audit.

The Chief Financial Officer noted that a new section had been added to the Annual Governance Statement to allow for a forward-looking perspective, in line with new guidance from CIPFA on good governance. Although the guidance would take effect in 2025/26, it required consideration during 2024/25 and had therefore been incorporated. She added that, following the Audit and Governance Committee meeting, there would be wider communication across the organisation to reinforce that good governance was everyone’s responsibility.

Councillor Byatt congratulated the team on how clear and easy the document was to read.  He also asked about the timescale for gathering citizen feedback, noting that the public often felt that decisions were made to them rather than with them. The Chief Financial Officer agreed to follow up on this point.

Councillor Langdon-Morris stated that the Council was doing well in terms of consultation and noted that community engagement could be focused on. He also highlighted the role of the Youth Council as a positive example of involving the community.

On the proposal of Councillor Gandy, seconded by Councillor Lynch

RESOLVED

That the Audit and Governance Committee:
1. Reviews and approves the draft Annual Governance Statement for 2024/25 alongside the draft Statement of Accounts for 2024/25.

The Committee noted the forward work programme and suggested the following addition for September 2025.

Planning - Risk mitigation in water, sewage, planning (TBC), dependent on what the outcome is from the action regarding risk assessment.