Audit committee raises concerns over feasibility of council's work programme
Barking and Dagenham's Audit and Risk Committee has expressed significant concerns regarding the feasibility of the council's proposed work programme for the upcoming year, questioning whether all planned agenda items can be adequately covered.
During the meeting on Tuesday, 06 October 2026, councillors Phil Waker and Caleb van Ryneveld voiced reservations about the packed schedule, particularly concerning planned sessions with company subsidiaries. Councillor Waker highlighted that the feasibility of covering all agenda items adequately within the proposed work programme for 2026/27 was a concern, especially the planned sessions with company subsidiaries. He suggested that some topics might necessitate separate, dedicated meetings to ensure thorough scrutiny.
The company subsidiaries scheduled for review include:
- Reside (comprising five independent companies and LLPs: B&D Reside Weavers LLP, B&D Reside Regeneration LLP, Barking & Dagenham Reside Abbey Roding LLP, Barking & Dagenham Reside Ltd, and Barking & Dagenham Reside Regeneration Ltd). Their core business is the letting and management of affordable homes and market rent homes.
- BDTP Group (which includes BD Management Services Ltd, London East UK Ltd, BD Together Ltd, BD Corporate Cleaning Ltd, and BD Service Delivery Ltd). Their core business is providing repairs and maintenance services for council properties, as well as catering and cleaning services.
- Be First (Regeneration) Ltd, which focuses on regeneration and place shaping, delivering housing, commercial buildings, and infrastructure.
- B&D Energy Ltd, the council's energy company and district energy supplier.
Councillor van Ryneveld echoed these concerns, emphasizing the importance of in-depth examination. He proposed that certain significant agenda items, such as the counter-fraud strategy, could potentially be moved to meetings with fewer reports to allow for more focused discussion.
Councillor Waker specifically noted that the November meeting, which includes a review of Reside, already appeared heavily laden with reports. He suggested that fitting in the Reside review along with everything else on the list might mean that justice is not done to the topic. He raised this as a concern for thought, suggesting that a 'slightly different approach' might be needed if they are to do justice to the topic. The reason for the meeting being 'heavily laden' is implied by the extensive list of other items on the November agenda.
Councillor Waker further elaborated that if an item 'looks as if it might be quite big' or 'could take some time or depth or whatever,' it might need to be scheduled for 'another or separate meeting.' This implies that the complexity, depth, or time required to adequately scrutinize an agenda item would be the criteria for determining if a separate meeting is needed.
There is a concern that if too many items are on the agenda, there is a 'danger that... we have the pressure we have tonight well, we're going to move on, we're going to move on, whereas... there was a thing in the first report there was a load of stuff in each paragraph that could be questioned if we did justice to it.' This suggests that the consequence of an unfeasible work programme is that agenda items may not be adequately covered or scrutinized, leading to a superficial review rather than thorough examination.
The committee agreed to note the work programme for the time being, with the understanding that adjustments could be made as the year progresses to accommodate the depth of scrutiny required for each item. The full agenda and reports can be found in the Agenda frontsheet and Public reports pack
