It was noted that, in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990, notice had been given that Councillor Robert Watson had been appointed to the Committee in place of Councillor Stef Bristow for this Meeting only.

At this point in the meeting, Members were invited to declare any relevant interests.  Declarations were made as follows:

Councillor Jill Makinson-Sanders requested it be noted that she was on the Board of Directors for PSPS Limited.

Actions from the last Meeting.

Members were referred to the Action Sheets, pages 1 to 4 of the Agenda refer.

Members noted that the Actions from the Meeting held on 14 January 2026 and 19 November 2025 were confirmed as completed or in hand as follows:

• In reference to Action No. 62 which related to a request for clarification on the reasons that the Executive Board was not subject to any form of mandatory training, a Member commented that the question had been aimed towards the specific need for financial training, page 1 of the Agenda refers. 

·         A Member further commented that Executive Board Members could gain additional benefits by undertaking a skills assessment, which would help identify any existing skills or knowledge gaps.

The Chairman advised Members that she had attended the Audit and Overview Committee Chair’s liaison meeting on 23^rd January 2026 where discussion had been undertaken on the budget process.

Members were advised that there had been further discussion regarding the impact of Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) and that she had attended the East Midlands Audit Chair’s Forum on 10^th February 2026 which had provided a number of key considerations.  This included the critical importance of consistent and robust record-keeping and an emphasis on supporting staff wellbeing and organisational stability throughout the reorganisation period.

The Chairman further highlighted that the Local Audit Office was expected to take over responsibility from Public Sector Audit Appointments (PSAA) in 2027.

Members were invited to put their comments and questions forward.

• A Member queried whether the Audit Chair’s Forum provided any insight on how Council’s should maintain continuity during the Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) process.  In response, the Chairman advised Members that the forum had not provided an in-depth consideration of approaches to LGR and was more broadly based on how Audit and Governance Committees should function effectively.

• A Member commented that the Deputy Chief Executive, Programme Delivery had experience of LGR and would be an appropriate point of contact for advice.

To receive a report from the External Audit Director, KPMG.

James Boyle was in attendance on behalf of KPMG, External Auditors, to present the External Auditor’s Annual Report for the year-ended 31 March 2025 (pages 5 to 60 of the Agenda refer). 

The purpose of the report was to provide a summary of the key findings and issues arising from work undertaken for the Council’s 2025-26 audit.  This included the impact of the statutory backstop, rebuilding assurance, key changes to the audit plan, significant risks and other significant matters, including audit misstatements and commentary on Value for Money (VFM) arrangements.

Members were invited to put their comments and questions forward.

• In reference to Risk No.1 ‘Formal record of discussion and actions for efficiency savings’ where the external auditors identified an absence of formal recording of discussions and corresponding actions from key meetings that were held in 2024-25, a Member further stressed that the lack of meeting recordings for Portfolio Holder meetings continued to be a concern, page 30 of the Agenda refers.

• In reference to Note 30 – Remuneration Report where the salary figures were identified as not complete due to the Council including taxable pay instead of gross pay, a Member sought reassurance that the error had been highlighted to the payroll team to ensure that it did not reoccur, page 40 of the Agenda refers.  In response, James Boyle (External Audit Director, KPMG) advised Members that similar issues were frequently identified across many councils due to the comprehensive guidance that auditors followed.  Members were assured that the issue identified was a reporting disclosure issue rather than a fundamental control issue.

• A Member commented on the lengthy audit findings and queried whether the same issues were commonly identified at other local authorities.  In response, the External Audit Director (KPMG) advised Members that findings were allocated into two functions, significant risks of fraud and significant risks of error, and that the external auditors considered the likelihood of them occurring.  The External Audit Director (KPMG) provided some examples and further explained to Members that there were always common significant risks, such as pensions which were known to fluctuate.  Members were assured that the risks highlighted in the audit plan were not specific to ELDC and were routinely identified for other authorities.

• In reference to SELCP Shared Management Transactions, a Member highlighted their concern that Section 113 management costs had incorrectly shown as 100% to SHDC instead of ELDC, and queried the measures taken since the control deficiency had been identified, page 42 of the Agenda refers.  In response, the Director of Finance and Section 151 Officer advised Members that a process was already in place as part of the audit work and that a full update would be requested to provide further assurance. 

• In reference to Control Deficiencies No. 11 - ‘Data used in the Valuation Land and Buildings (Income)’, a Member queried the reason the recommendation had not been accepted by management and where the Council’s car parks were valued on an ‘existing’ use basis and not on any ‘highest/alternative’  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

To receive a report from the Assistant Director, Regulatory.

The Chairman welcomed Pauline Lyon, Group Manager (Building Control) to present the Audit of Building Control Service by Building Safety Regulator (BSR), pages 61 to 66 of the Agenda refer.

Members were advised that the purpose of the report was to share the outcome of the recent Building Control audit by the Building Safety Regulator and to provide assurance to Members of the work being done to ensure the service met the Building Safety Regulator’s Operational Standards.

Members were invited to put their comments and questions forward.

• A Member congratulated the team on the positive outcome and queried when an application became a legacy application, page 63 of the Agenda refers.  In response, the Group Manager (Building Control) explained to Members that legacy applications generally arose where applicants failed to submit the final documentation required for completion certificates and that incomplete or dormant applications remained live in the system until resolved.  Members were further advised that the BSR required authorities to keep the applications under active review.

• A Member queried whether the BSR provided guidance on how many inspectors a district like East Lindsey should have, and whether the service was sufficiently resourced and sustainable.  In response, the Group Manager (Building Control) confirmed that there was no national formula for the number of inspectors required.  Members were advised of the emphasis on the need for strong succession planning and that the Partnership was well equipped to train new inspectors, having three trainees completing degrees and two newly qualified inspectors awaiting confirmation of their registration.

N.B. Ian Silcox-Crowe, Independent Co-optee joined the Meeting at 10.52am.

·      A Member queried whether Building Control monitored planning approvals to ensure corresponding building regulation applications were submitted and that work did not slip through the net.  In response, the Group Manager (Building Control) explained to Members that although there was a working relationship with Development Management, there was room for improvement.

·      A Member asked whether there was any national recognition or awards scheme for good practice.  In response, the Group Manager (Building Control) advised Members that Local Authority Building Control (LABC) operated annual awards, mainly related to building projects and beyond this there was no wider national recognition.

·      A Member queried whether the full BSR inspection report was publicly available.  In response, the Group Manager (Building Control) confirmed that the audit document was not in the public domain and was not published by the BSR, however she was happy to share it with Members if required.

·      A Member further queried what qualified as a high?risk project in the context of legacy case review.  In response, the Group Manager (Building Control) explained to Members that East Lindsey had few nationally defined high-risk buildings and typically this would include sleeping accommodation above commercial buildings and residential care homes which were the most prevalent in East Lindsey district. 

·      At the indulgence of the Chairman, Councillor Daniel Simpson queried whether there was a cut-off date for legacy applications.  In response, the Group Manager (Building Control) advised Members that there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

To receive a report from the Assistant Director, Regulatory.

The Chairman welcomed Christian Allen, Assistant Director (Regulatory) to present the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000 - Annual Update, pages 67 to 74 of the Agenda refer.

Members were advised that the purpose of the report was to provide Committee with an update on the Council’s activities in respect of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000. The report also sought to update Members on anticipated changes necessary to the Council’s Policy and Procedures landscape to reflect current guidance issued by the Home Office and the Investigatory Powers Commissioners Office (IPCO), the regulatory body that oversees compliance with RIPA by public bodies.

Members were advised that the Council’s January 2025 return relating to last year’s activities had been zero as no covert activities had been undertaken.

Members were invited to put their comments and questions forward.

• A Member queried the relationship between the Council and contractors such as Kingdom in respect of RIPA compliance and how the Council received assurance that contractors met their obligations.  In response, the Assistant Director (Regulatory) explained to Members that any contractor conducting surveillance or using Body Warn Video Cameras (BWVC) was responsible for its own compliance as a data controller.  Members were further advised that Kingdom’s responsibilities were embedded within their contract and that they managed their own BWV systems and associated data.

• A Member queried the number of Council employees which used RIPA powers and whether activity was largely contracted out.  In response, the Assistant Director (Regulatory) explained that there were 12 BWVC managed by Boston CCTV Control Room which were available to officers across the Partnership that had been trained in the use of this equipment.  Members were further advised that RIPA powers were discretionary and rarely used by the Council.

• A Member queried whether the Council had any plans to utilise drone technology for surveillance.  In response, the Assistant Director (Regulatory) confirmed that the Council did not use drones and had no current plans to do so.  Members were advised that drone operation was costly and highly regulated and if required in the future, it was more likely such work would be commissioned through specialist contractors.

• A Member queried whether officers were required to complete the available e-learning training.  In response, the Assistant Director (Regulatory) advised Members that officers in the relevant posts were required to undertake training every three years and that compliance with this cycle was monitored.

• A Member queried whether all BWVC devices being stored in Boston for docking and data upload was a deterrent for officers based at East Lindsey or South Holland District Councils.  In response, the Assistant Director (Regulatory) explained to Members that the current users which were primarily community safety officers, were Boston?based and no deterrent had yet arisen.  Members were assured that as usage expanded, the arrangement would be reviewed.

• A Member queried whether the Council should have a policy for drone usage.  In response, the Assistant Director (Regulatory) advised Members that a policy would only be required if  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

To receive a report from the Group Manager, Insights and Transformation.

Suzanne Rolfe, Group Manager (Insights and Transformation) presented Members with the Q3 Risk Report 2025/26, pages 75 to 94 of the Agenda refer.  A copy of the Quarter 3 Strategic Risks was attached at Appendix A, Partnership Risks at Appendix B and Fraud Risks at Appendix C, pages 83 to 94 of the Agenda refer.

Members were invited to put their comments and questions forward.

• A Member commented on reports provided at Internal Drainage Board Meetings that indicated Mablethorpe would be under water in 14 years time and queried the reason that the risk of flooding was not listed on the risk report.  In response, the Group Manager (Insights and Transformation) advised Members that an update would be provided to the Committee as part of the next quarterly risk report.

• In reference to the new risk around AI Governance, the Chairman queried whether the new risk would capture wider AI implications than just ICT departments, such as scam, impersonation and safeguarding children, page 78 of the Agenda refers.    In response, the Group Manager (Insights and Transformation) confirmed to Members that the risk was being examined across the Partnership and was not just related to ICT departments.

• In reference to risk ELDC05 – Health and Safety, the Chairman queried the reasons that the RAG rating was marked as Red and the action was overdue, page 84 of the Agenda refers.  In response, the Group Manager (Insights and Transformation) confirmed to Members that the risk had been examined by the Health and Safety Working Group and that a further report was expected in Quarter 4. 

• At the indulgence of the Chairman, Councillor Daniel Simpson, queried whether Councillors should be made aware when a report had been generated by AI.  In response, the Group Manager (Insights and Transformation) assured Members that the Council had an AI Policy in place and that Committees would be kept informed when AI was being utilised.

• In reference to the direction of travel column, a Member queried ‘SELCP Partnership Risks – SELCP-02: Trust’ which was the only risk with a downwards direction of travel, pages 77 to 78 of the Agenda refer.  In response, the Group Manager (Insights and Transformation) explained to Members that direction of travel scores had remained similar to previous reports and that a downward direction was positive.

No further comments or questions were received.

Following which, it was

RESOLVED:

That the Q3 Risk Report 2025/26 be noted.

To receive a report.

Members were presented with the Audit and Governance Committee’s Annual Self-Assessment Action Plan, pages 95 to 106 of the Agenda refer.

The Chairman highlighted the recommendations that had come forward from the Self-Assessment undertaken in January 2026 and invited Members to put their comments and questions forward.

• In reference to Recommendation No. 1, a Member queried the reasoning for keeping the Terms of Reference (TOR) under continual review, page 99 of the Agenda refers.  In response, the Chairman explained to Members that the ToR had been examined by the Constitutional Working Group last year and that it had been satisfied with the content. 

• A Member commented that the reason the requirement had been brought back as a recommendation was due to the responses received through the questionnaire.  In response, the Chairman confirmed this was correct and indicated that she was content to re-examine the ToR on an ongoing basis.

• The Scrutiny and Policy Officer further advised Members that the wording of Recommendation No. 1 could be improved.

• A Member queried whether Independent Co-opted Members could have access to any training materials that was circulated in the Members Point Brief newsletters.  In response, the Chairman confirmed that copies of Audit and Governance Committee training materials would be circulated to Independent Members separately.

• A Member queried whether it was in the Committee’s Terms of Reference (TOR) that Members of the Executive Board should be in attendance at Audit and Governance Committee meetings.  In response, the Scrutiny and Policy Officer advised Members that further clarification would be obtained.

• Members further discussed the attendance of Executive Board Members at Committee meetings and queried whether the Constitution could be improved to promote better attendance.  In response, the Director of Finance and Section 151 Officer highlighted the need to be clear about what the Committee expected from Portfolio Holders and how their presence would add value to the Audit and Governance process.  Members were further advised that officers were able to provide direct and factual responses to questions whereas Portfolio Holders might provide answers shaped by political considerations.

• In follow-up the Chairman supported that it was best practice for Committees to have a good relationship with Portfolio Holders and the Executive Board.

• At the Indulgence of the Chairman, Councillor Fiona Martin highlighted that concerns in relation to attendance was not just limited to Executive Board Members and that the lack of sanctions other than the 6 month rule was largely ineffective.

• A Member stated that he was providing a response generated by AI and that it was supported that Committees should be objective and independent, and should only invite Executive Board Members on an individual basis depending on what Items were on the Agenda.

• A Member commented that Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) guidance should be followed to undertake good practice and that it was reasonable to consider examining the Constitution to encourage better attendance.

No further questions or comments were received.

Following which it was,

RESOLVED:

That the Audit and Governance Committee’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

To consider the Audit & Governance Committee Work Programme 2025/26.

Members were presented with the Audit & Governance Committee Work Programme 2025/26, pages 107 to 112 of the Agenda refer.

No questions or comments were received.

Following which it was,

RESOLVED:

That the Committee Work Programme 2025/26 be noted.

The programmed date for the next Meeting of this Committee was noted as Thursday 26 March 2026 and that the work programme would be updated to reflect this change.