Audit and Governance Committee - Tuesday 28 November 2023, 6:30pm - Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Webcasting

Audit and Governance Committee
Tuesday, 28th November 2023 at 6:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Slide 1
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished
Slide selection

1 Chair's Introduction

good evening and welcome to the audit and governance committee on Tuesday, the 28th of November 2023, I am Councillor Munday and I am the Chair of this Committee, before we get on to the agenda items, please give you a further agenda for attendance to the following announcements from Clerk, Ms Morgan,
thank you, Chair and good evening everybody.
in the event of the fire alarm ringing continuously, you must immediately evacuate the building at walking pace officers will escort to via the most direct available route, and no one is to use the lift.
we will make our way to the fire assembly point, which is by the entrance to the Town Hall Yard, car park and Munson Way, and once outside a check will be made to ensure everyone has safely left, no one is to re-enter the building until advised that it is safe to do so.
this is a public meeting and proceedings are being webcast live online, a recording will also be available for playback on the Council's website shortly afterwards.
can I remind everyone to use the microphones when speaking the red light indicates, the microphone is on and any comments that are not recorded for the webcast will not be included in the minutes of the meeting.
you should all be aware that any third party is able to record our full council meetings unless exempt or confidential information is being considered, the Council will not accept liability for any third party recordings.
it is very important that the outcomes of the meeting are clear at the end of each substantive item, the Chair will ask whether the matter is agreed in the absence of a clear majority, or if the Chair decides a full vote is desirable, a vote will be taken by a show of hands, Members should raise their hands to indicate their vote while called and keep their hands up until the count has been announced. Members requesting a recorded vote must do so before the vote is taken. Thank you Chair,
for the British, with the recording, we're going to take a roll call.
thank you, Chair, expected Members here this evening, Councillor Alan.
present Councillor Barrass, present Councillor Frances, present Councillor Lidstone present Councillor Sankey, present Councillor White present, Councillor McMillan.
present Councillor Munday, present Independent Member Edward Eliot, present parish representative Councillor McConnachie, prison Councillor Edwards, present, thank you unexpected officers here this evening, Lee Collier prison, Gary Stevenson, brilliant.
Claudette Bulman.

2 Apologies for Absence

3 Declarations of Interest

present. Katherine Woodward, present, thank you Chair very item 2 on the agenda, apologies for absence, Clerk to Iommi apologies, we've had apologies this evening from independent member Geoff Toddla, thank you item 3 declarations of interest. Members of the committee should state at this point, if I have any declarations of interest related to any item on the Stephens' agenda, does any member have any declarations to make?

4 Notification of Visiting Members wishing to speak (in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 18):

I see no item for notification of persons to speak at this time, we note whether any members of the public or visiting members of the Council have registered to speak this evening, do we have any such persons, we have no registered speakers this evening Chair.

5 Minutes of the meeting of the Audit and Governance Committee dated 19 September 2023

ITEM 4 minutes of the meeting of the audit and governance committee dated Tuesday, the 19th of September 2023.
members are asked to confirm that the minutes of the previous meeting are true record of proceedings, please, may I remind members that only matters for discussion is accuracy, but do Members have any comments?
thank you, I see known the motion is to agree the minutes are we agreed?
motion carried, thank you.

6 Future Work Programme as at 11 October 2023

item 6, the future work programme as at the 22 of August 2023.
the Committee's future work programme is set out on pages 12 and 13 for reference Members are also asked to take note of the dates of the next upcoming training session, which is the role of external audit on the 12th of March 2024 to be held after the normal meeting. Are there any comments or questions?
OK, thank you, the motion is to note the work programme, are we agreed?
motion carried.

7 Proposed Changes to the Constitution

item 7, you might have seen this in the original agenda as being Members' attendance, it is actually the proposed changes to constitution, there was a slight discrepancy between the original agenda.
and the supplementary information.
so members would have notification of the publication of the agenda and it has been a change, the original item list is what Members attendance and has been replaced with the proposed changes in the Constitution Unit receiving your supplementary report, an amendment that the supplementary was made in circumstances today, so all members should have up to date.
agendas with them, which is your printed copies, okay, the report starts on page 2 of your supplementary pack, Mr Bramall and Lord, but please, thank you, Chair good evening members, they are a number of amendments proposed to the Constitution,
we have been, we've taken this paper to the Constitution, Review working party and because of the number of amendments I have not actually dealt with every single amendment in terms of what I am proposing to do is to address the changes, as I did at the constitution review working group, I will refer to each appendix give a brief overview as to what that is about. I'm going on the basis that these will have been read and not looking for a decision to be made necessarily on each as we go along, but if there are amendments proposed, then obviously that can be put forward, so beginning with the first appendix which is Appendix A B and C and lots referred. These are amendments to be made to Part 3 of the Constitution relating to responsibilities for functions and scheme of delegation in relation to the Licensing Committee and the amendments in Appendices. A B and C also cover changes in legislation
reallocation of some of the delegations and just a general tidying up, it has just been brought to my attention, however, that paragraph 3 numbered paragraph 3 on the template proposed changes, the there's a slight change to the title of the officer in question says Head of Environment and Street Housing Health Surrey,
housing and health.
can you just clarify whatever that is, we will therefore make a slight tweak to cover that, so that is all that I propose to say in relation to Appendices A B and C.
unless anyone has questions on that, do you have any questions?
OK, so I'll move on now to Appendix D, which is in relation to the responsibility for Executive functions, and you will see that it is just simply replacing the current appendix in the Constitution with the various.
responsibilities of the Cabinet at present Members should have seen that read lads, and really there isn't anything that I can answer that really.
any comments.
no.
so the next appendix relates to.
in addition to be made to the Constitution in relation to disturbance by the public at meetings, and this followed on from an incident that occurred some time ago and it is therefore proposed that the change be incorporated, not in it, I think the incident arose in relation to a planning meeting the intention is not to add this to,
the planning procedure rules but to add the changes to just the general procedure rules at Part 4 of the Constitution, so it applies to all meetings and the Constitution does whilst it refers to the Mayor the constitution does actually say in relation to committee member and in relation to committee meetings, any reference to the Mayor is through the Chair etc so so that is all covered and so nothing further to add on that unless Members have questions,
Councillor Lidstone.
thank you.
the liberal in me on first reading of this felt a touch.
constrained by some of some of the measures, and I think my concern is.
it is around some of the subjective nature of some of these times, so what?
what is offensive to to perhaps one person may not be to another.
and the potential for this to kind of actors, a limit on the ability of members of the public to pose questions also from my experience.
you know, in the case of serious accusations against members or officers, the process allows for a response by by the
portfolio holder and the Mayor, OK and sorry, the Chief Executive occasionally when we make clarifications as well, so again I feel that the process allows for a correction of the record in those situations as opposed to us preventing a member of the public from,
from from raising issues or raising these accusations in the first place.
and I guess so I noticed this this wording says, met at at their discretion was that I'm trying to recall back to when I read the agenda papers as it changed slightly, because if that is the case, I think I'm willing to back this if we we invite we're asking for them to use their discretion as opposed to placing a blanket privy prohibition on on these sorts of questions.
thank you, so, yes, there was a change, it was, the Mayor will require such person, and that was changed after some discussion to what it reads now.
again on that basis, on, I'm happy with that, yeah, thank you.
any other questions.
moving on to the next change, and that is in relation to
but just a minor amendment being made to the Cabinet procedure rules, which would enable a member of the public raising a question of Cabinet to be given the ability to raise a supplementary question which isn't there at the moment, and that led to some confusion at a previous meeting and advised that had been given prior to the prior to the meeting so that's just for clarity that if a question is raised by a member of the public at a Cabinet meeting that they could actually raise one supplementary question,
in line with the other provisions in the Constitution.
any questions on them.
so moving on the next amendment which is Appendix F, and that's a sort of just a technical correction there, and I think to be honest, that is quite self explanatory.
sorry, I am now on appendix G, sorry, apologies there.
so, yes, as I've said, it's a technical amendment whereby all references will now be made to general.
Surrey usable reserves in place of General Fund.
any questions.
getting my appendices right, so the next step is Appendix H, and that is an amendment in relation to the assets of the Council, whereby officers, prior to commencing discussions with third parties in relation to the sale, acquisition or any dealings with Council property, should first liaise with the Section 1 5 1 Officer to to get that approval before proceeding.
Councillor Sankey.
what has the current process?
I can find that in the
so the term processes, the section 1 5 1 4 Officer, has overall responsibility for the use of and disposal of all assets, so it's not as particularly as clear as not restricting.
the Head Heads of Service or anybody else, councillors from starting negotiations or discussions with third parties without authority, or an understanding of the Council's legal ownership of particular assets, that is a further safeguard.
thank you for that makes good sense, thank you.
any other questions.
the next appendix is Appendix I, and again that is just a tidying-up exercise and, following an audit I think about two years ago actually.
I am sorry it says in 2022
it was a recommendation that there should be consistency in the Constitution.
there were references to virement, there were also references to budget transfer transfers, there are one and the same, and it was recommended that the references be made to budget transfers, and that is just a tidy flat up to comply with that recommendation.
many questions.
moving on to Appendix J, and that amendment is in relation to the methods by which the Council can dispose of its assets and one of those methods is by private treaty, the Constitution currently provides that there can be saddled by a private treaty but in cases where land exceeds 10,000 pounds that Cabinet approval must first be obtained given the values of land at present, it is thought that 10,000 pounds is a very low sum and therefore it would mean that almost everything has come into Cabinet and therefore,
one amendment has been sought to increase the 10,000 pounds to 100,000 pounds so that if there was a sale of land by private treaty.
in cases where land was considered to be of a value of about 100 foul up to 100,000 pounds would come to Cabinet instead of 10,000 pounds.
Councillor Barrett,
so thank you.
and is it just the 10 100,000 is a nice brown figure reserve, what's the the change, it's gone up tenfold, so when was this 10 10,000 introduced and what timescale is lad?
foreigners, we actually think this is an error, so the Council's constitution was based on a model that hugs throughout the whole of Kent and elsewhere, other Kent authorities that fewer than 1,000 we think it's just the zeroes being omitted and to be consistent with the operation and practice throughout the rest of Kent it makes no sense to just bring that in line.
Councillor Lisburn.
yes, this is an interesting one, isn't it, it's 1 1 and 100,000 is quite a kind of property, is quite a small figure, as you know, so could you perhaps other examples leave the nature of properties that the council owns that would sell for less than 100,000?
it is most likely be in relation to pieces of land parcels of land at the end of estates during the stock transfer process, but there was many pieces of land that were not particularly identified or went across to the Health Association it makes sense to deal with those tamsin cellar garages some time so a public convenience a bit I appreciate that we wouldn't be making such a decision on an important asset like public conveniences without discussing first with Cabinet but there will be there will be small garages and other stores in grounds recreation grounds,
like I say, 2 m pieces of land.
any other questions.
next appendix is Appendix K, and that is in relation to the signing of the declaration of acceptance by newly elected members and just giving clarity the amendment they're shown in red, giving clarity to that been witnessed by statutory officers, I think Dem services have experienced some difficulties in the past.
forgetting relevant officers to be present to sign those, so to give the resilience it's been amended to include all statutory officers, so section 1 5 1 Officer, the Chief Executive and the Monitoring Officer, so whoever it would be present would be able to to deal with that requirement.
I couldn't.
thank you, the next amendment is to its appendix all, and that's in relation to the childcare allowance and dependance carer's allowance for members, and it's just deleting from this, so the payment is made, it's the national white living wage, but the provisions at present actually referred to two specific sums there so deleting those two specific songs and just leave you need to add the national living wage.
the comments.
thank you.
okay, so that then takes us on to Appendix L, which is the spreadsheet, and before you and again I am not proposing to go through each amendment on that spreadsheet as there were a number of them but what I have done and I've spoken with the Chair on this is to identify the proposed changes that were considered to be of significance and will raise with the constitution review working party at the meeting with them. So the
very first amendment, but please do if you have picked up on something else that I don't mention, please do raise questions and are we happy to deal with those, so the very first amendment that I am proposing to look at is 1 2 3 is the fourth one on the first page, and that's in relation to the key decision.
so at present the constitution, the threshold for a Key decision in the constitution is expenditure or savings in excess of 250,000 pounds, and that it is proposed that this be increased to 375,000 pounds and that relates to a number of things in relation to contracts coming before Cabinet and sale of land etc as well so 375,000 pounds being the threshold at which one would then take a decision to Cabinet as a key decision.
many questions aren't.
Councillor Sankey.
so just confirms that's at the officer threshold for above that it goes to Cabinet.
sorry, that would actually be the portfolio holder limit, so we've already discussed the 100,000 pound figure and there will be some further changes proposed in a while, so thank you.
any other questions.
turning over.
the page.
and counting 1 2 4 5.
6 amendment. That's just minor, but I thought I would just highlight it, given my role is just some minor changes to the constitution, which is extending the type of changes that the monitoring officer could make to the Constitution already the the Constitution provides for changes in legislation, typographical errors, inconsistency, that's just again just tidying up, so there is one, for example, if there was a restructure, for example, and that restructure was approved by Full Council, then I could just go ahead and make that amendment, without actually coming back to group unto yourselves for that amendment to be made
many Christians lament.
turning over to the next page and item 1 to 3 and again to be consistent, it is proposed that the Constitution be amended so that the
acquisitions and disposals of land, as well as appropriations up to a value of 100,000 pounds, could be made by the chief financial officer, subsection 1 5 1, officer given authority to do that without come into the portfolio holder necessary, I've been obviously there will be the consultation with and discussions with, I'm sure there will be those discussions to dispose of land.
but it would not need to come to Cabinet so it just gives that delegation of 100 up to 100,000 pounds many questions.
the next amendment is immediately beneath that amendment, and it's in relation to all transactions in relation to Royal Victoria Place, so Councillor Sankey, you may recall that at the last meeting you raised Councillor McMillan item, I was a councillor as I was countless thank you.
raise the issue as to why those particular lies had been brought.
to f and g, and we've taken that on board, there was to be an amendment going, and I think we did disclose that at the time there was an amendment going, but in light of what you've said, we've sort of tweaked it slightly so it now reads as is which is all transactions in relation to Royal Victoria Place up to an amount of a million pounds in consultation with the Chair of the investment advisory panel.
could be entered into without actually come into Cabinet on each mindful that the investment advisory panel isn't meeting every week every month necessarily, and therefore those decisions need to be made to enable any voids to be filled and analysis to be completed, that amendment any questions Councillor Singh Councillor listed,
thank you very much that has been, it is self-explanatory, to me at least.
who is the therapy investment advisory panel?
Councillor Rutland.
and the group is cross-party as well.
Councillor Macmillan.
can I just say that seeing events that is at the I wish I meet him as he was a Councillor, I think he wrote up the leasing and sub leasing if that was what he was, I think the issue that he raised before is this just to do with leasing within a Rovers warrior place or is there any any anything at all to do with it like for example spending a million pounds on reducing the car parks spending or extra money outside of that to redevelop paths that the the the buildings.
Summit, so it does refer to transactions, I would not necessarily consider payment on a car park, for example, to be a transaction as in a land transaction, but if you're seeking greater clarity, I'm sure we can consider something.
I think I think I would like a little bit more clarity around that, given what I know Matthew was trying to achieve, and I think that's what we're looking to do and hoping we can do that but make it clear this is to do with the leasing of the of of that's the that's the type of I think that's what you would try to aim at wasn't it if I remember correctly,
yeah they.
some of it was, and I know what you call it out.
and Appendix we could discuss, but it basically meant that every time we wanted to read anyone anything in Royal Victoria Place, I had to come to us via the whole system which would take forever and then we'd be in the same positions. Maybe the previous landlords were, but I appreciate what you're saying, and maybe the word capital capital payments might need to go in there. This excludes capital budgets. I'm not an expert that's your area Calder, but for example, we don't want to use this as a loophole to start spending millions of pounds on things this must be earning. I guess this is what we're trying to do. It says this is a it's a bit of a property transaction, I guess then, rather than a capital expenditure
if I may, the intention was to more quickly deal with with the least is as over 100 of ours, but some of those leases will require a capital investment upfront in order to do fit out, so I wouldn't want to exclude capital fit-out from that, maybe if we exclude car parks so therefore it is in relation to the Royal Victoria Place shopping centre all transactions associated with that.
would that be more in line with HMIP members in intentions?
Councillor Sankey, sorry thanks, et cetera, so I thought you were wanting to reply back, no okay, Councillor White.
I was gonna say, shall we earmarked this one, to come back to discussion for a first starting to note down for for this, rather than trying to get it changed now, was when midway through Claudette or
I, I think yeah make basically saying audacious, that's what I mean yeah, we've only got two or three items left to go through and we do we want to go through those all and then go back into discussion, or would you want to take this one now I'm happy to take it now.
happy to do that MP, to come back, that's fine.
this analysis concerned a geographic, I'm wondering whether car park even excluding car parks, is enough, whether it needs to be really clear about it's the actual outlets, because you could also then send a million pounds on the scent making the the the minute you know that what you call it sort of caught within sight of the centre looking nice, so I think we just need to be really clear on this. So there is the Pacific
outlets, so every professional name is for them in the in the centre.
first, the West report and then come back.
so continuing on.
so where were we
so three amendments, sorry, three panels down. It's in relation to in order to allow the maximum public participation at any one meeting, no person may submit more than two questions, so that was something that was discussed at the constitution review working party and there was discussion on it and therefore suggested that it come here for further discussion
Councillor Whetstone, what was the recommendation from the constitutional review working party?
there wasn't one.
there was a split view on it.
and I think it was understood why that proposed amendment was being suggested, but also there were other Members who felt that the rights of of the public to participate, et cetera, should not be.
limited to that extent, there was discussion as to whether the number could be increased from 2, it was decided that it would be left here and then eventually on its way to full Council, thank you.
do you want to ask a follow-up, personally, I'm sorry?
yeah, I'm I'm not in favour of this, I feel it does feel a bit restrictive to me and a bit heavy-handed and perhaps Claudette, if you can just clarify the the backstop, to prevent a member of the public taking over the meeting for argument's sake it's the am I right in saying that there is a 30 minute limit to the time spent on questions from members of the public across the whole of the agenda item in Full Council.
I believe that is correct, yes.
any other questions.
S, so the you said that there was an a general understanding as to why, and I guess it's just reported back from.
Peter, but is the has there been a particular issue, the people in the the the officers and others who have noted appraise that there has been taken over by members, I've not experienced that in the meetings that I've attended, it's there's been a few to ask a few questions but has not been disruptive have I got to have an experience to others?
so I don't think it is to address questions that have been disruptive. I don't think that is the issue here, it is just that there are times when one particular member of the public, for example, could ask several questions. I'm quite a bit of time is spent trying to address those I have been at meetings where that has been the case, but it is not for me to decide this is for members. Thank you any other questions at this time or two on him Jackson in the debate, etc
OK, if we.
picking this up later, yeah.
so moving on and to the last page.
it's not a major issue, but just flag, in a just in case there is concern for the very first proposed change on that page, it's not a deletion of what a key decision is, it is simply that it is repeated, so it's two sections of the Constitution.
saying exactly the same thing verbatim, so we're just tidying up by deleting the duplication, so we've just got one definition and that will refer to the 3 7 5, and that has been discussed this evening is just a tidying-up exercise, but it's just to give clarity on that and then the very last proposed change again just disclosing it because of the role it's in relation to any complaints in relation to the monitoring officer or,
yes, that would be referred to the Chief Executive, so not mark in my own homework, in other words.
any questions on those two.
thank you.
corridor.
I think we can move on to debate now, I think we've got two items, we want you to debate fine, calling Rotherham country RVP, and also the two Members to speak any others.
yes, it was the 250 to 350 k cabinet.
authority, I think that probably deserves a bit of attention.
sorry, if I sorry Chair, if I may come in suits 3 7 5, not 3 50.
and the others, we want to talk her now, the same to that you've got there, but I will speak about one just deserves a little bit of discussion and you could put them in what do you want and if you're the other Chair Councillor Barrett,
say I appreciate and I am afraid I didn't see the amended document before I got here, so I'm sorry to be catching up, I just wanted to spot back to Appendix E if that's possible, the tissue, abusive or offensive, threatening towards or making allegations making serious allegations if that's possible.
thank you.
any other ones, no, okay, so if we start with Bendix even Kevin Dunn.
so if I'm looking at so think about what's appropriate or conduct in terms of council meetings, I think what we'd find to manage them, in my impression, is behaviour which stops the meeting would be able to operate, but I think people should be giving,
members of the public chance to ask a Dr and have their questions addressed if they don't have the chance to make the claim that the the statements they want to make because they are restricted from making those, then, if they do it in a polite, inappropriate way, then it strikes me as a legitimate thing to say we are.
that they should go to make those films if it's appropriate and managed in a sensible way, and they asked a question and they keep their peace, then there should be allowed to meet so far because it gives officers an and portfolio of a chance to respond to them and actually would answer those questions. I think if we were to just have to limit the just that the reasons for removing a member of the public to abusive offensive and threatening, then if inappropriate allegations of
of lying or mystery or over.
bias or pre determination would could be interpreted within the context of abusive and offensive if it's done inappropriately, if it is done in a balanced, and I hope.
a fair mind did not find it, but in a balanced way that those points could be made and responded to, and move or and without feeling like they become, by their nature, questions to be excluded itself, to the point I wanted to make and the question I wanted to raise.
thank you.
I think that the behaviour that we are discussing here goes well beyond appropriate and balanced and
it is to address exactly what is there.
where exactly that something but it says, or so it implies that they are independent, as opposed to any one of those would meet the criteria for exclusion, rather than saying what you're interested in, as you say, is addressing abusive offensive and threatening behaviour, disruptive behaviour in the Council meetings and I'm suggesting I'm arguing or making the point but,
that those that making serious allegations.
can be disrupted, but it is not by its nature disruptive, and therefore I was hoping to say that if it were our dressing, the points you're making, then those can be implied into the the previous parts without being points themselves.
I confess that I am not quite I might have missed 20 years ago saying I'm not quite following what you've said just just looking at the clause, as I said, I think it is not the cause of the proposed rule, it is to address behaviour that was displayed at a particular meeting I believe that the council owes a duty of care to its staff, its officers and therefore if if,
officers have been subjected to behaviors of of this nature. It is for the council to take it on board, to address it and to put measures in place. I think if, if a member of the public is being abusive or offensive or or you know the Mayor shoot and it does say at their discretion, it doesn't need no longer says will require such person to withdraw to withdraw the comments and if they don't then to take further action, so it's not mandatory that this happen, but I think it will be at the Mayor's discretion or the Chair's discretion to decide how to address such behaviour.
Councillor Burgess will come back or you are OK.
as it's a sequence, and I don't think I mean I hope, but I'm not saying anything, I hope it's different to work to the point you are trying to the reason and the rationale that you're making, but if you say if a member of the public attends a meeting of the Council and makes a serious allegation of the officers according to that reading that would be enough.
to trigger at least the consideration that the Chair that the Mayor removes will ask them to withdraw it.
that is correct.
I think it also will be up to the Mayor to make the context yeah yeah put it in short place, so the context would be the other parts that that would be definitive of the behaviour which would get excluded not the but fair enough I'm clearly not, I think Gavin saying is that by its nature accusing someone or an officer or a member of bias or lying whatever is offensive, I think that I think that's all can can be done in a way that can be offensive in which case American interconnect all could be done in a way that is,
inquiring or accused it politely is trying to establish the basis of it of a decision I mean, I'm with the A5, I've been accused of a bias before by members of the public, and I think that's you know or self-interest or whatever it kind of comes with the territory and and I I find that from my experience usually,
an explanation of the situation and explanation of the reasons behind your decision.
tends to offer a better solution to that than simply closing the door to them, so on that basis, on you know, I'm on I support, I think the point that Gavin is making to strike that second section, but you know,
open to what other Members think I appreciate the Mayor has got the discretion, so that does kind of allow for a bit of interpretation in this situation, and it is for Members to make that decision.
that's right, and I think there's probably a difference between officers and members Hicks I think you'll why I think it, as members were kind of that's part of a deal, but as an officer it's not because that is your name, it's your job and if so I wonder whether that's what we maybe we take out of.
am I saying to account members, but include officers' eggs, I think they are, I think it is a different thing.
potentially, but then I'm kind of happy with the discretion bit to keep it as yeah, I think as long as that the discussion about about the marriage keeps in, I think that allows a bit of context, as now in all cases.
Councillor Frost.
I am very happy with it where, as long as it shows you the mayor at their discretion, because I would believe that the Mayor would be are sensible enough to make a considered judgment.
yeah Casuarina, I, I agree with Councillor Francis, I mean I, I do the chairs of our meetings, although the Mayor or the Chair of the relevant Chair, I think it wouldn't be in a position to as they have that balanced view, so I think it is fine, it is.
we will be discussing any further role through, shall we take it as its red.
OK.
to get us working, okay, the next one I want to move on to was the 2 50 up 2 3 7 5 on the spritzy attachment on the first page, Councillor Sankey.
I'm not known for my maths, acumen, but that's a 50% in Greece and inflation is 10% just seems quite dramatic, given that it says.
to rise with inflationary measures well.
so I'm just a I'm just a bit wary of kind of handing over that kind of authority so drastically I don't know if everyone agrees or not, but I just stood up put that out there.
sorry, I think in the document is, I say it was initially set at 20.10, so he got sort of 13 years' worth of compound inflation, this is gonna come at me.
Councillor Morgan,
today, just to confirm that that number 3 7 5 is goes to the portfolio holder and the end of the fine itself to decorate.
get?
sorry, so it would be savings or expenditure in excess of 3 7 5 that exceeds 3 7 5 would go to Cabinet up to 3 7 5 would go to the portfolio holder, 100,000 would go to the section 1 5 1 officer, stroke director of finance yeah, so just to be clear that the the big, the big differences, the is that do we trust the portfolio holder, so it managed the problem because that's the best the number, isn't it either personally gets to gets to grab the money from 2 50 to 3 7 5 is not, it's not the officers, it's there, it's the portfolio holder, so the question is, do we trust the portfolio holders
Councillor Sankey, Denis Hurley Grazer is a trusting of the portfolio holder, I think if we look at our are.
excuse me, I'll focus on five, one of those is transparency, and if we're now, we are raising the ability to prove my decisions without any without being in a public forum.
by 50%
I'm not entirely sure those two align.
any other questions on this item, everyone else happy with the proposed 3 7 5.
OK.
so then we move on to RVP.
any further points we will wish to make.
OK, Councillor Mowat, thank you Chair, I think we need to we need, we need to tighten up that clause, so we know I think we were all agreed here as members that we understand the need for which Councillor thank he raised and clarified this is about suddenly or leasing the Auto tenants enter the end to the end of the building itself as well as cut off.
renters or companies are coming in, but it's not to their general building or to the car parks or anything else. It is literally just to the units that are being let or sub-let. I think that's what we're looking at and that's where Leicester, presently, where I'm coming from, I don't know at rest the minutes, Councillor White, yes, I completely agree with that and we seem to be, as I said, a lot of money. I think we need to be wary because I understand the commercial reason for it, but I think we seem to be really clear about what we're saying is it is allowed
Councillor, thank you I completely agree, you know, it's OK, if this is, this is more about not really not preventing incoming money, no revenue, it's it's, but we do need to tighten up that we can't be giving people permission to spend a million quid on whatever which that looks like to me it can do.
but I totally appreciate why it's there for obvious reasons, any other questions for children.
Councillor Barrett,
says maybe not my area of expertise, but I will look at this what the the limitations of a transaction as of as well, because you could break down the transaction into component parts and extend the thing, but I appreciate it's not my area of expertise so I'm coming from May I'm sure other people more expert but I was interested in that as a as a consideration.
any others.
so just just the suggestion would you consider occupational rights leases and other occupational rights.
so instead of transactions so.
so yeah, all leases and other occupational rights, so I think there's two queries I had on this myself, one was it, you can read it as income and expenditure.
so so we could commit to spending a million pounds as well as getting income per million, so I think I have an issue with the expenditure side I I recognise own what?
with the fit out costs and all that sort of stuff, whether that's going back to Gavin's point at a lower level, number we put through.
the other concern I had was the phrase in consultation with the Chair rather than in agreement.
now you can consult but not necessarily agree on a position.
so I would like to see that changed the agreement, that'd be my own personal preference.
any other points.
so do we want to go back to making a distinction on income versus expenditure and set a different threshold for expenditure?
think to be honest, that may be problematic, but what about all occupational rights in relation to aerobic toy place up to now, the woman in power?
with the agreement of the Chair of the investment advisory panel, because though there will be a need for fit out capital costs and we won't want to restrict, some of those units are very large.
obviously they the individual agreement is probably worth taking as a state step back here, so the very first stage would be the letting agents having negotiated a new tenant or negotiate with existing tenant, sometimes there'd be various tons of those at least proposals once than the letting agent has reached an agreement with the tenant that will then be passed to Grinton Hart for the expert asset managers and they will view they.
arrangements and what's being proposed, and the particular units and the balance of a mix for the centre overall, and they will make a recommendation.
I will make a recommendation to two officers in the first instance and it's not just a case of they section 1 5 1 officer or the investment advisory panel deciding on that there'd be a separate overview by legal services to make sure that is delivering best consideration, that the proposals are in order and in normal course of events as agreed by Full Council. That recommendation from the Council's Asset Manager with the professional view of legal and financial and property would bring that to the investment advisory panel and therefore the transaction could be then completed but the transaction investment visor powers item 18 months a month and the meeting we currently have shareholders has been pushed back further.
cabinet this week has already got two further leases that need a Cabinet decision and the timeframe of financing them as advisory board and cabinet isn't conducive to the letting of some of these units we are keeping tenants hold on now we have we have good tenants that we've reached the end of negotiation that want to get on site ASAP but we were struggling to work with that that that process
that was agreed at Full Council wasn't expedient enough, so this allows up.
completion of the final stage of that process, I or the pressure advice has been received.
the Council has been satisfied at its officers were just checking in with a member Carter, Freud, investment adviser, but there are circumstances where that investment by the Panel isn't, the next meeting is not soon enough, and this therefore just gives the ability to to complete the transaction not to lose the tenant.
and for a process of consultation and that consultation is formal, so that consultation will have a formal e-mail that will be coming through through to myself, but a recognition of the asset managers and that will be passed on to the chair investment advisory panel and therefore no transactions can be completed until that consultation has taken place and then after the event.
all property transactions will be reported to both investment advisory panel and, importantly, into the Council's formal decision making process, so it goes to the quarterly property transaction report so as exempt appendix of all the transactions properly related that this Council is entered into that already takes place now, but we start to see Royal Victoria Place transactions appearing on that that report goes to the Finance and Cabinet Advisory Committee and Cabinet, so at any stage.
members or anybody is.
uncomfortable with with a transaction that's been agreed under this delegation, that will be an opportunity to say it's not working or we can amend, that there is an opportunity to change how that delegation is working, but as we see it at the moment in time we have a number of talents that we need to give instruction to now they're waiting upon us and that was the basis upon which we we said we would acquire and we would be more expedient.
if getting that centre delivering its full potential.
yes, thank you.
so I, I don't disagree with what he's saying that lie, I think we understand your point.
could the could these investments, or could they be termed as enticements, because there has that is that the technical term that we use with Rivington OK for?
investing in in fit-out et cetera, and I'm just really worried that we're allowing a million quid is a lot and if a little some.
in in six months' time, someone is authorising a million quid's worth of an investment in a new light fittings. We're all gonna feel really stupid in this room with all due respect, I'm wondering if we can outline them in this document as something like enticements or even fit out you've used the word fit out, I don't know him, I'm not sure
but I don't think anyone is comfortable as it currently stands.
lie that you just said that you just are you.
in and I I think we're all trying to work with you to get to where you need to get to you just said that you've got a number of people now that are waiting on us to come to a decision, can you tell us what's stopping no decision going on and what's the amounts of money involved it gives us an idea, sorry we won one particular case is it a tenure agreement for example,
sorry, sorry, 100,000 pounds rent coming into our Council, but where, for example.
200,000 pound fit alcohol, so the total value of that transaction over a 10 year period. It is near that million pounds that is the issue is not the Council. Every time there is a protected, potentially spending a million pound, it is 10 years multiplied by a potential rent comes up near. It exceeds very quickly the threshold for Cabinet decisions, pretty much every major unit there. Over a 10 year period, the value of that lease will exceed what was the 2 50 and the 3 7 5, so that is why the million pound threshold is required. Then sorry, can I shut up on that day? Well, then there's two sides of that than isn't it, because effectively I think the bit that we are worried about is the fit-out costs right where we're all sitting here, guy, we're renting them out. I mean if
we're not saying to you, don't bring in a million pounds into the Council and certainly not saying that, but we're saying what we're trying to be concerned about is the the amount that that can be signed off as a fit-out or took out the Sankeys words, an enticement or whatever it might be. That's the amount we're worried about, we're not being worried about the revenue side worried about the cost side, how do we protect what's going on on the cost side, not on the revenue side, because the revenue side, as you say we've got all that we've got all the what I would call the the experts around us, so if they don't do a job they don't get paid as well, but on this cost side, given that one of our things is financial control, we're now five things. I think there needs to be a little bit more understanding from outside or a bit more control because where you could fit out
under that terms, you could fit out 500,000 and rent out 50,000 per 10 years that doesn't that doesn't show me with sort of glee.
would Members be more comfortable with the word net?
or shat, or shall we just leave the just pure income then?
the the the income level within a lease up to a million pound, but the fit out be restricted to the 3 7 5, that is within the amended constitution when proposing.
Councillor, thank you.
sorry.
so, together with the the the words net income, and perhaps Claudette, could you maybe put this into a phrase for us to understand?
sorry, sorry to cut cross herb, were I'm conceding the word net incomes, and I think we both understand what the issues that that could lead to, so I think the phrase and we're having all all transactions related rocks, a place up to the and income amount of 1 million pounds in consultation with the Chair of investment advisory panel we don't need to stipulate the 3 7 5 expenditure company or if you would prefer,
and all transactions with an expenditure amount up to 375,000 pounds.
yeah
so as it appears that, but with the word income.
for the 1 million pounds and expenditure threshold of 375,000 pounds.
can we also change the word consular consultation with agreement?
we
we we can we can.
that isn't how the constitution normally works, but in this instance, yes, we will we can do that.
any other extra cash, thank you.
are we, including, sir, or what I've got written down here, is all transactions in relation to leases and occupational rights of rugby to replace out to a net income amount of 1 million pounds in constant agreement with the Chair of investment advisory panel I didn't get the last bit about 375.
expenditure.
they can catch up.
okay, if I say if I start reading and please dump in.
all transactions in relation to Royal Victoria Place up to an income amount of 1 million pounds.
or an expenditure amount of 375,000 pounds.
with the approval of the Chair of the investment advisory panel
Councillor White.
yeah, sorry, I'm sure I'm kind of with cuts, thank you for that, we are still quite likely something in there that it's about the units and the leasehold of the units, otherwise I'm still worried that someone is going to go and buy and transcend 5,000 pounds from lives.
I just kind of it doesn't feel 100% clear to me, I don't even know I mean, if no one else agree that's fine by dusk, which I think we could just make it.
feel happier if that was included as well.
so are we any more comfortable with all leases and other occupational rights with an expenditure in relation to Royal Victoria Place, et cetera, are we happier with that?
yes.
policies on health, occupational women's.
in relation to in relation in relation to all transactions in relation to leases and yeah.
Everyone agreed on that one should move on to the next item.
yes, do you have a note of it?
you're trying to keep up, so I shall write it, should I read that out again so that we, we Claire, know for the minute so that so that Emma is Clare on the on on the minute, so all transactions in relation to leases and other occupational rides at Royal Victoria Place up to,
an income amount of 1 million pounds or an expenditure amount of 375,000 pounds with the approval of the Chair of
year investment advisory panel
net incomes are widening just income or to an income amount of.
thank you, so the soda up from the bottom, then on the penultimate page, limiting people to speak 22 questions, Councillor, thank you.
I do have a problem with this and whilst
we do have some people that come to Council, they ask some pretty
odd questions.
which we may find repetitive, that is their right, and actually we're trying to encourage people to become involved in democracy here in the Council, I think that's in our focus on five, and if we're starting to limit people,
I think I have an issue with that, it's not exact, that's not why we've got a queue of people trying to get in, so any form of limitation, I think, is putting up barriers and I cannot get on with that, I'm afraid.
Councillor White, and I do agree with that, and I think two questions is unfair. I suppose the only thing that we might want to stop is one person coming and taking the entire 30 minutes which I think has potentially happened before could happen, so I want to add, but I don't know whether that's really difficult to put into Council the constitution, but you want enough people to come yeah, you want more and enough people, you ought to set you up my questions. I think we are limited to three minutes per person loads anyway,
the the alluded to the three minutes per question per press of the button, I guess I think I am I also right in thinking the mayor is in charge of deciding which questions get asked, so he can apply some discretion if we do all of a sudden find ourselves with a queue of people knocking on the door to ask questions and more than one he can sit there and go well actually.
there's enough to fill half an hour with everyone asking to and actually because you ask first and you can get your third.
Councillor Stone. Thank you. I completely agree with Councillor Sankey and I I think, your I think you're right, if I recall back to the heady days of of Calverley Square when we were to the talk of the town and we had been accused outside the town hall of people waiting to come in, I believe some of the questions were grouped together because they were of a similar nature, so you know, even in these extreme circumstances, I believe that the the Mayor will use their discretion in advance of the meeting, so I am fully fully support Councillor Sankey and I'll be in favour of just removing this restriction
anyone can I ask you to discuss.
this doesn't change anything that has been said here, it's just ready to say that there is a 30 minute window in which those questions need to be answered, isn't 3 minutes per person, it's just the window of time within which all questions need okay.
so as everyone in agreement, Catherine just just a question, really Claudette, on what you have just said, that I mean what if it bovine Barnaby was condoms, when it is often not the free minutes as it said what if instead there could be a system where, so you have said we only have two people want questions, they get, let's just say to people get 15 minutes each is that possible in the constitution I mean, I'm not saying where that should happen, but it's an idea
while the Constitution already sets out that if one person raises say four questions and the three other people who have raised questions, you take the first question by the very first person who has raised that question. Then you skip over the other questions that they've raised. You go to the next person and the next and the next, and then you can then you can go back to the first person who had raised, say three questions, you then take the next question in turn and you do it in that way and then, once you get to the 30 minutes and it's ended, a decision is made as to how any other questions are going to be dealt with, whether there'd be written responses or that's it lost, etc so I'm not wanting to try to
to add to the process any further in that way, but you know again it's down to Members as to whether they wish to see a change or not, whether you want to say right to is too small, but we're limited to four, it's down to members it's just a suggestion by officers but it's down to members thank you Councillor, thank you.
thank you for that, I just don't see it as a need to restrict any of this half an hour at a time.
that this is what we're here will be paid to do this while being paid to listen to the residents and the public, and I just think this is a bit nit-picking, so I'm I'm I can't get behind it, I'm afraid,
I understand what you buy away where you are coming from, but I'm quite happy to take the questions.
I think the general mood is that we don't approve the item, does anyone disagree with that?
OK.
OK, so no to come to a vote on the recommendations, so recommend that the audit and governance committee recommends to the full Council to approve the amendments to the Constitution, as set out in Appendix is 8 m in this report, with the amendments on Royal Victoria Place and striking out if that's a proper word or ignoring the the time limit sorry the question limit at full Council are we agreed,
motion gallery, thank you.

8 Strategic Risk Register Report

OK item 8 on the agenda, the strategic risk register report, the report states on starts on page 15 of the agenda. At each meeting, the Committee asks the risks a risk owner is invited to discuss the risk for which they have responsibility. This evening we have Gary Stimson, Head of Housing, Health and Environmental, to discuss his risk, Mr Simpson knew or thought police
thank you very much, I guess I'm happy to take questions, really having a had the reports, my first time in front of you.
as a committee just in way of background to this rates to our major outsource contracts which formally my service area, so that's the grounds maintenance contract, Mumbai, Tivoli, the sports centres, management contract run by fusion and our waste and street cleansing contract run on Lumby matter if you look at the history of the risky it has been high for a period of time and that was associated with back end of COVID kind of contractual issues that we were dealing with and an acknowledgment that we know that in the future the cost of the services,
and will be higher than we are currently paying, if we don't change the specifications to reduce our costs because got very good deals last time. Many of these contracts and obviously with inflation, although our contracts to Claire contain inflationary clauses, there are elements of cost that contractors haven't had a claim from us, and therefore we know that the same service for the same specification will cost more when they come up for renewal and they we've aligned them. Actually it had to be 2027 2028, when they all will be up for renewal, so we will be busy during that period of time.
but it was felt that gives us a good opportunity to see what the future costs of our services were in one go. The reason why in September I was able to reduce the the risk rating or recommend it was reduced anyway and as it has been accepted that a number of things that had come into play at that point so the Tivoli contract that we had we've extended that with relatively
and that has been working well, the arrangements we have with them, that's bedded in to unacceptably so I was happy with that in terms of the Urbaser contract. We'd be aware that the members agreed to provide some additional financial support to enable the contractor to provide new a new fleet of vehicles and also to change the rounds quite significantly to improve their efficiency and reliability. That bedded in in July, but it was operating a kind of August time where we were satisfied that that had been operating and was stable, so that was that that elements in the third plank was at that time fusion who, as part of the comfort of the Covid,
impact had taken out one of the Sale Bill is Lola Corona impact business continuity loans.
and they were in the process of re negotiating that financing with their bank, and at the time I wrote the report in for FISA, for September, they were, we've been told that they had agreed with their bank that that refinancing package put in place so,
we we met with them former holiday 2 2 weeks ago and that has been agreed in principle, but it hasn't actually been signed yet, so to be slightly cautious, I put the risk slightly up for this so that the the likelihood Councillor Pass asked me that question this morning so that's why the risk is slightly increased at this time so it's a living document it moves regularly.
because until I see that agreement has actually been signed and I've put it in Ireland and under 1 5 1 Officer is happy with that, I've just nudged the risk up slightly there's all of those services are stable, but that's the the reason for the change of of colour rating this time round.
the questions have been brought.
catalyst?
yeah, I've got a couple, if I may, I am.
mentioned one of the mitigation measures, this is supplier failure plan produced, Gary is that available for members to see.
it's only can be made available, it's been discussed with, this is in relation to our sports centre, provide a specifically and are portfolio holders have been involved in the sing that, but more than happy to make that available to the committee confidential documents.
yeah, thank you, I was thinking of the sports centre in particular in my patch, so I'd be reassured to know what a plan would be if that were to happen and then, if I may ask a second,
just obviously a bit of a way of tw 2027, but I've noticed that three very large contracts all up for renewal within about four months in 2027.
which is, it is gonna, be a challenge, have you it is that, in factored into your thinking around those contracts and
it certainly has when the decision was made to say so, that's a consequence of the Grounds Maintenance contract being extended that took her to 2027, the waste contract is 2027, and also when we had conversations with usually around extending at that, took us to 2027, so when those decisions were made,
we were conscious in the fact that that's going to be a lot of work at that particular time, but we recognise it will need to resource that appropriately with legal colleagues, property colleagues as well as a service. Colleagues, so yeah, we were fully aware of that and have already started drafting some some plans that take us to that point, including providing the opportunity for those service specifications to be re, reviewed and for member input to to happen. So you know honestly we know we cannot afford to deliver the quality of the service that we have at the moment, unless we can point further efficiencies or say specification changes that are gonna make the contractor or any person's costs lower than they currently are
Councillor Barrett,
my official heads up for that question we're gonna ask.
what's the basis of how do you think you're gonna get to the idea of towards a target of are unlikely?
a high incidence and and minor harm.
a number of things, I suppose that there is a long term and short term here, so one of the things I didn't mention the first time round is that in terms of the increasing cost of the service, the medium term financial strategy has been updated to reflect that in 27 28 29 there will be a significant cost so if we can deliver the medium term financial plan that will reduce the financial impact,
on the budget, when we come to read Retender, that's got a long-term in in the short term, if I'm honest, I think we would struggle to get to Green because.
certainly if we are looking at our sports centre contractor so that contract basis and management fee of 100 million pounds ish big year, so if that were to fail and we know that the marketplace that it is is current, that if you were to go to re-tender that you would be paying more than 0 I'm struggling to see how we can get below that I've had the same there's no the question you asked me the dilemma I've had looking at that.
Matrix and say that I don't think we will get to Green, I think we will get to.
and when we had the opportunity to 2 50 we would be the maximum.
customer, I asked your follow up questionnaire.
non-Marxist thinking on the it seems that obviously, if you've got a Risk factor, then you have you can cushion a risks by having a highest surplus or discretion and we will obviously have a
if we are taking on contracts which are tighter contracts or more competitive contracts, then we obviously have factories, a high risk of maybe high risk of failure was that day that one or a correct one or assessment of of of commissioning
so at the outset of commissioning we we would not accept a contract that there was a risk of failing as part of the procurement process. We would be looking at what pre-tendered qualification questionnaires on on the stability of the of the contractor, that that risk really has arisen, and we say we're talking about sports centres, it's it, it goes back to COVID centres being shot and then the reopening of those centres and getting back to the level of activity and centres that we're seeing pre-payment. We're not there yet, so that's the real risk, but it's only are procuring. Although those companies have to pass in a financial test that 1 5 4 1 Officer will review and then sign off, so their procurement we're not looking at risk of failure. This is kind of a real-time look at the fact that we know
there is a risk there that that company it may not survive to the end of the contract it's staple, currently you know it, it's refinancing its position, so I don't have any reason for it not to be there, but it's you know it is a slightly higher risk than it would have been at the start of the contract.
yeah thanks very much, I was thinking that maybe there was the other contract which there was a risk of failure, but you will not get back to him that in that's cool.
no, so J turning the clock back, so we know going to the start of this, not not much failure below, obviously once we agreed the extension with the Timperley contract, because there was an unknown price there that year that year there was no risk of failure, is more risk of cost versus spec, and with the Urbaser contract. As we know, there has been no issues associated with that contract which had been resolved and then say the services stable so yeah tight time has moved on. That is really the sport into contract that has made the risk change in this last period.
any other questions.
thank you for your report.
I said, sorry, do we have any other questions or any of the other risks strategic risks?
there was a new one, sorry.
OK, sorry.
the recommendation is that it set out in the report that the Committee considers and notes the strategic risk register and the arrangements for managing the risks, and we agreed.
sorry Becky Bowes asking whether there's a timeframe for when the RVP risk is gonna be presented as soon as that was was going to mention sorry, looking at the work programme I'm coming, she had scheduled only way to prevent risks at the next audit governance meetings I'm very happy to pick up no Victoria Place at our next meeting.
thank you.

9 Internal Audit Assurance Progress Report

so item 9 internal audit assurance progress report, the report starts on page 43 of the agenda, Ms Woodward, your presentation, please.
sorry.
sorry, Councillor, thank you can hear it, but neither of them please.
that's I just fell asleep and we are not going to agree the recommendations of the last one Deborah made by default, Snake sorry.
Ms Woodward, thank you Chair, so my audit progress report that you have on pages 43 to 52 in your agenda packs summarises the work that we've completed, so fine 23 24 care on the plan that this this committee agreed back in March, so there are three main areas of this report that I want to go through today. The first is resources, the second is our audit progress, and the third is the follow up work we've done
so the first area of resources can be found on pages 47 and, as I previously mentioned to you in other meetings, that resourcing of the team has presented us with some challenges, however, we have made good progress in recruiting to some of our vacant posts, we do still have some current vacant posts and we are currently utilising a contractor to assist us in the delivery of this year's plan and we may have to increase the use of that contractor or be progression through the year but we will remain within our allocated financial budget to do so.
the second area that I want to go through with you.
is the audit plan progress which can be found on pages 48 and 49?
so the first table at point 14 shows the audit work that was brought forward from last year at all of this work has been completed, but these audits were completed after we gave our annual audit opinion, so these will feed into this year's annual audit independent opinion.
and the appendix on page 51 gives you details about each of these audits as well.
so the tech second table at point 15 detailed all of the work that is currently in progress this year and has been allocated that will be completed by the end of this year, we are currently reviewing the remaining audits with a view to completing those with the additional support I mentioned from our contractors.
so the last area that I just want to touch on with you is the follow up work that we've done.
which you can see on pages 49 and 50, so when we complete each of our audit, we issue a management action plan that's agreed and completed by the management and the services.
in my annual audit opinion, I did highlight to you that due to our resources we paused a bit of our work on the follow-ups, but that work has now commenced and we have been following up on the actions that were raised, so we're working quite closely with management team to review progress on these actions and we put a bit of a new process in place so that will take a little bit of time to bed in but the table that you have at point 22 details all of those actions that were raised last year and those current actions that are outstanding, so you'll see from this there are a total of 20 actions that are outstanding.
I take quarterly information to Management Team so that they can see these, so they're currently looking at this and obviously we've got the revised process in place. What I do want to highlight to you is since I wrote this report and it was issued, we have been working very very closely with the management team on some of these actions. So just to update you on those 20 outstanding actions, three of them relate to building control, audit and the service have confirmed that these have been completed. We're just waiting for the evidence to demonstrate that
eight of the actions relate to the declarations of interest audit that was completed last year, all of these actions are in progress, some of them will be resolved with the wider changes to the constitution that Claudette mentioned in her previous report, and there are some nearby liaising with IT and software developers to make some changes regarding using the system put on a both recommendations were made.
so 5 recommendations relate to procurement, as this was a shared service audit, so obviously the procurement is shared with Tunbridge Wells and Mainstone, only two of them specifically related to Tunbridge Wells, and they are being worked on in consultation with legal as again they relate to amendment in the constitution that was mentioned earlier.
and four of those recommendations relate to performance management, and they've all now been actioned and signed off by us yesterday, so they will grind, so the position is significantly improved from where we reported here, I think sometimes it helps to put it in a report to you because we tend to get a lot of action as a result of that which is a good thing, but we are working very very closely with management team to pursue the rest of those
and you know we now, we have this new process and we're bedding it in, I think it's becoming a much clearer process for officers and and us to be able to.
make sure that that work is completed, so I'm happy to take any questions that anybody has.
thank you, Members, jolly Christians.
Councillor Gruen, thank you so on.
thank you, Catherine.
where does consultations fit under this because I know that we had an issue with those and they were raised last time, and I can't see them highlighted specifically, so which review are they in place?
so that was from an audit and audit that was pre 22 23, so that was 21 22 audit and all of those recommendations are completed.
Councillor, thank you, because he provided a breakdown of of of the update for this, where did the free high risk ones from 21 22 spent in that?
I brought the information with me because I thought I'd be asked, so two of them are in relation to the declarations of interest audit which project team are working on and
one of them is in relation to.
performance management which has now been signed off.
any other questions.
thank you, the recommendation is that we set out in the report that the audit and governance committee note the work completed so far on the 2023 24 audit and assurance plan are we agreed?
Read banking question card.

10 Urgent Business

ITEM 10 urgent business Councillor Whitbread, Eliza item, yeah, I wanted to bring something to the attention of the Committee because we've been talking about the rhetoric about the constitution and I've been, I've been talking to a number of parish councils in the rural areas not be interested. We've got some parish councillors here as well, one of the one of the issues that we've we've worked through issues that have run up against, and I think the constant we could change the constitution could help us, and I'd like to see him, send our recommendation back to the constitutional review committee to go through. This is one is revoked
comes around Collins, I mean, I think most of you understand how the call-in process works, basically we get five weeks from the day that the
the the the application for planning application goes in and you get five weeks at that point now, depending on holidays, Christmas elections, there are times when parish councils get the get the end through, but don't have the time to the meetings to turn round and actually ask their councillors or directly to call in the application.
my proposal is that we could send it back to the constitutional RE committee and suggest that the minimum of six weeks, because that will get round the Christmas Easter period and, more most importantly, election periods when we go into a certain per day so one of that's one of the things I'd like to thrust as an audit group to send back to them and they I think they should review it and I think from a democratic perspective it gives it gives everybody an opportunity then to act properly because I've certainly been in the position where,
Parish Council, one of my parish councils that I reckon that I a wry that I represent, have been in a situation where that's happened and it's happened twice, and I've only been doing this for two years. Parish councillors chairs, so they might have a different view, but I'll be interested. The second one is which I think is just equally, better, equally, as important is that as a parish council, when your planning application comes in as outline planning.
we per parish councillor can say that's fine outline pain looks great no problem at all if that person, if that applicant, then decides to route, to review his outline planning and not putting in a new application, but just change the outline planning. There is no opportunity, regardless of whatever that applicant puts in there is now. There is an opportunity for the Parish Council or us as Councillors, to call in that that detailed review or detailed application, because it goes from outline which has been approved to a detailed application, the detailed application could look dreadful, could be absolutely nothing in reflection of the village, but we as Councillors and don't have the opportunity to call the application in because it's not a new application and has already been passed again. I think the constitution review committee group should look at that because I don't think that's fair and equitable to the especially rural, what we are seeing the application, although it can only talk about my admit my things that happened to the parish council, where I work, but I'm pretty sure in all the rural areas and even in in in central Tunbridge Wells, that situation could occur, and I think that maybe we should change the constitution to Richard to represent those two situations. I'll be interested to hear what other Members think, and certainly for the parish councillors have got anything to say
any comments from on your
yeah
not many of the applications that we look at in Rusholme, where I
the ParishCouncillor of very contentious
I don't think in 10 years we've ever called Caldwell in.
so hours are a pretty straightforward, but
yes, I agree that.
we are sort of constricted with the time limit, and that would be a good thing to address, to try and get an extension on that, but I mean we we've found that if we did want extra time, we get back to the planning department and just ask if we can have another week or so.
and it's normally granted, but we don't normally have a massive problem with planning applications in Russell.
we were very good like that.
Councillor Lister,
I am, in principle, supportive.
I think I have been in situations where members of the public not become aware of a planning application until close to that window of call in, and by which point they very have a very tight turnaround in which to let us know as Councillors and then for us to call in.
I think the the only minor slight concern would be if straightforward planning applications are prevented from being put through because by an additional week, if this period needs to be waited on, so I think it would be good to get advice on it as to whether that have likely that is to happen, but yeah, it's certainly in principle I'm in favour and I have to say I wasn't aware of the situation whereby outline planning permission can be submitted and then detailed planning permission comes in this very different and the call-in timeclock has already ticked past that the the the the limit. So if that is the case and I'm definitely keen to to to look at that as well, because I think this is, this is something that even in
Even in the unparished areas is is, is, it has has happened in my ward, and it is a concern of residents.
any other comments, because what and in principle, like I can see the issues and agree, but I just worry that it's already quite slowly planning outpatient process, so I think we just need to have a bit of a checks and balances that we don't just slow things down because of a few problems when actually the vast majority of the time it goes through OK, but I guess that's something for discussion at a later date but just to note that,
good eye elsewhere, and the fact is that, obviously, if it is not contentious planning application, it goes through anyway. So the only the only time that anything would get the labourers with beef is a contentious one because most planning applications don't get don't get approved. Obviously, we score simple ones. Don't get approved until late weeks anyway, so the process would go through. What I'm saying is that on the occasional, whether it is contentious where there is ruled that there is real concern within the, certainly within the two parish councils that I work forward to, it certainly happened on it on a number of occasions already
I just wanted to be in a situation where I can help the parish councils to do what I think they're they have to do and represent their their concerns in a fair way, and I don't think five weeks to allow a quick enough turnaround, given the given issues, I've already seen and certainly outline planning issues, something that I have a real problem with because that's basically gaming the system as far as I'm concerned and that shouldn't be allowed to happen.
Councillor Cohen, thank you as Chair of the Area Committee, I think I can speak for virtual parachute, a nice restaurant and who represent themselves on the first item, which is the five weeks I don't think we can change that because I believe that is determined on high but I will take officers advice on that.
in practice, what happens is, as Councillor Edwards has just said, that.
quite often, the planners will give us an extra week.
I think also you have to remember that parishes have the ability to call an extraordinary meeting to be able to consider a planning application, particularly if it is a major one that I don't see this as much too much of a problem, obviously the more time notice you have it is is better but then I know that the planning authorities are under constraints by,
the applicants to be able to determine things in a certain period of time.
so it is fairly fascinated that one, the second one though on outline and getting around the system Councillor has suggested is very much a serious one and does need close examination.
Councillor Edwards, thank you Chairman, just the sort of comments.
I've been involved with a planet well as a borough councillor, back in 2008, I was on the Western Area Planning Committee, so from then up until now, I've been involved with planning, but from a parish point of view,
we are obviously asked to give our recommendations as a statutory consultee, but it is very sad that the council takes very little notice of recommendations that we make, bearing in mind that we are the
as it is of the the local wards or parishes, but they very rarely take much notice of what we say, it's just a comment.
Councillor Sankey.
thank you Chair.
I find it interesting what Councillor Edwards has said and then kind of repeat it, because literally next door and spell test, actually we have had quite a number of contentious planning issues, literally a stone's throw away, there are claims that are not.
I think our Paris has struggled in the time in in in Speldhurst and Langton to respond within the five weeks because of the sheer volume of them, so it's clear to me that different parishes have different wards, have very different planning needs and if we were looking at changing it by a week and it's not going to change the ultimate outcome,
I can't see that being an issue, but it's important to make sure that everyone is happy, not just a minority, I think is worth pointing out, Councillor McMillan 70 some details about this prior to this one, and I kind of helped.
raise this up the kind of officer level a little bit and, and it's worth noting that on the the particular issue of an outline proposal, then kind of totally avoiding any call-in, that Carlos himself eventually then called it, in which to me says there is a problem with the system if he hadn't had to call here he was the only one that could then call it in.
so if he didn't see, if there wasn't a problem with the system, he wouldn't have done that, so that's enough evidence for me to completely agree with you and that this does need to be looked at properly,
OK, so I think we are in agreement with Councillor M and M suggestion that we recommend the working group to review we agreed.

11 Date of Next Meeting 12 March 2024

thank you, thank you, okay, so item 11 dates for the next meeting since the publication of the agenda, an extraordinary meeting of the audit and governance committee has been set with Tuesday, the 13th of February 2024 in order to consider the governance review following that meeting as a scheduled meeting to take place on Tuesday, 12th of March 2024, the meeting is now closed and not thank you for your attendance, thank you Chair, thank you again.