Agenda and minutes

Members and co-opted Members of the Council are reminded that, in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct and the statutory provisions of the Localism Act, they are required to consider in advance of each meeting whether they have a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI), an other registrable interest (ORI) or a non-registrable interest (NRI) in relation to any matter on the agenda. If advice is needed, Members should contact the Monitoring Officer in good time before the meeting.

 If any Member or co-opted Member of the Council identifies a DPI or ORI which they have not already registered on the Council’s register of interests or which requires updating, they should complete the disclosure form which can be obtained from Democratic Services at any time, copies of which will be available at the meeting for return to the Monitoring Officer.

 Members and co-opted Members are required to disclose any DPIs and ORIs at the meeting.

·         Where the matter relates to a DPI they may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must not stay in the meeting unless granted a dispensation.

·         Where the matter relates to an ORI they may not vote on the matter unless granted a dispensation.

·         Where a Member or co-opted Member has an NRI which directly relates to their financial interest or wellbeing, or that of a relative or close associate, they must disclose the interest at the meeting, may not take part in any discussion or vote on the matter and must not stay in the meeting unless granted a dispensation. Where a matter affects the NRI of a Member or co-opted Member, section 9 of Appendix B of the Code of Conduct sets out the test which must be applied by the Member to decide whether disclosure is required.

 The Chair will invite Members to make their disclosure orally at the commencement of Agenda item 2, to be recorded in the minutes.

There were none.

To consider the report in the public interest issued by the Council’s External Auditor on 26 January 2022 concerning the refurbishment of Fairfield Halls.

Madam Deputy Mayor invitedPaul Dossett, Head of Local Government at Grant Thornton to remind Members of the context of the report.

Sarah Ironmonger, Director, Grant Thornton, introduced the report and explained the main issues.

Questions to Grant Thornton

In his question, Councillor Collins stated that it was not unusual for capital projects to overspend and asked what mechanisms could be put in place with the council, working with council officers at the outset of major projects so that auditors could advise and flag up issues throughout the process, to avoid future overspending.

In reply, Sarah Ironmonger explained the usual process and agreed that it was not unusual for capital projects to overspend. However, overspends would normally be reported quarterly so that mitigations could be put in place and any large overspends should have been reported upwards to the Growth Board, which did not happen in this case. 

Paul Dossett explained that the role of the external auditor was to remain independent at all times.

In his supplementary question, Councillor Collins asked if there was a role for senior officers in terms of training around issues as complex as these and a role for councillors to be working with those senior officers better.

In reply, Sarah Ironmonger agreed that there was always a role for training and that was why paid specialist officers were in place. The legal side of this issue was particularly complex and Grant Thornton employed specialist legal advice to ensure that they got to the bottom of it. The role of the council’s Monitoring Officer was to ensure that the council was acting lawfully.

In her question, Councillor Hale stated that the final costs shown in the report of £67.5 million was considerably above the sum of £30 million approved by Cabinet. Brick by Brick claimed that this was due to contract variations in specification delays by the council and Councillor Hale asked how accurate that claim was.

In reply, Sarah Ironmonger stated that some of that went back to the original legal place where the council was unable to set a clear specification. However, it was clear that there were elements of additional spend such as around an issue with asbestos. There were also choices around items that the council requested, and getting to the bottom of the spend was a significant piece of work.

In her supplementary question, Councillor Hale asked whether the auditors believed that the council missed vital opportunities to manage the increasing costs which have now been imposed on Croydon residents as an additional borrowing burden.

In reply, Sarah Ironmonger stated that as there was no reporting back the council did not have the opportunity to challenge in real time decisions that were being made. There were conversations that were happening through the Fairfield Halls Board. The issue of asbestos should have been expected as the council would have carried surveys in the past.

In his question, Councillor Clark asked whether delays and cost increases were unusual in complex construction  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53/21