Agenda and minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, District Offices, College Heath Road, Mildenhall, Suffolk, IP28 7EY
Contact: Christine Brain: Democratic Services Officer (Scrutiny)
Email: christine.brain@westsuffolk.gov.uk
Items
No. |
Item |
23. |
Substitutes
Any Member who is substituting for another
Member should so indicate, together with the name of the relevant
absent Member.
Minutes:
The following substitution was declared:
Councillor Pat Hanlon substituting for
Councillor Cliff Waterman.
|
24. |
Apologies for Absence
Minutes:
Apologies for absence were received from
Councillor Cliff Waterman.
|
25. |
Minutes PDF 120 KB
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on
25 July 2019 (copy attached).
Minutes:
The minutes of the meeting held on 25 July
2019 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the
Chair.
|
26. |
Public Participation
Members of the public who live or work in the
District are welcome to speak and may ask one question or make a
statement of not more than three minutes duration relating to items
to be discussed in Part 1 of the agenda only. If a question is asked and answered within three
minutes, the person who asked the question may ask a supplementary
question that arises from the reply.
A person who wishes to speak must register at
least 15 minutes before the time the meeting is scheduled to
start.
There is an overall limit of 15 minutes for
public speaking, which may be extended at the Chair’s
discretion.
Minutes:
There were no members of the public in
attendance on this occasion.
|
27. |
Ernst and Young - Annual Audit Letters 2018-2019 PDF 103 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Committee received Report No:
PAS/WS/19/012, which updated members on the outcome of the annual
external audit of the 2018-2019 financial statements by Ernst and
Young, the councils external auditors as detailed in their Annual
Audit Letters for the year ended 31 March 2019, attached as
Appendix A (Forest Heath) and Appendix B (St
Edmundsbury).
The letters were for information and confirmed
the completion of the audits of the 2018-2019 financial statements
for the former Forest Heath District Council and St Edmundsbury
Borough Council.
The final audit fees for the 2018-2019 Code
work, as contained in the appendices were summarised as
follows:
Audit Fee -
Code Work
|
Planned Fee
2018/2019
£
|
Final Fee
2018/2019
£
|
Forest Heath DC
|
36,253
|
TBC
|
St
Edmundsbury BC
|
33,701
|
TBC
|
The final fee would be discussed and agreed
with the Chief Finance Officer before gaining formal approval from
Public Sector Audit Appointments Limited, and would be reported in
a separate fee letter, if required.
The fees for the certification work relating
to the 2018-2019 Housing Benefit Subsidy Claim, as contained in the
appendices, were summarised as follows:
Audit Fee -
Grant Claims
|
Planned Fee
2018/2019
£
|
Final Fee
2018/2019
£
|
Forest Heath DC
|
14,960
|
TBC
|
St
Edmundsbury BC
|
14,960
|
TBC
|
Work on the certification of the Housing
Benefit Subsidy returns was not yet completed, and the results of
this work, along with the final fees would be reported in the
Annual Certification Reports.
The Committee was informed that the audit of
the final statement of accounts was completed by EY on 16 August
2019. Furthermore, the information
contained within the attached appendices was the same as was
presented to the Committee in July 2019 by EY, except for one
change which had been made to the value of the council’s
asset base.
Members considered the report and did not
raise any issues.
There being no decision required, the
Committee noted the contents of the report.
|
28. |
Local Government Ombudsman - Annual Report PDF 124 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Committee received Report No:
PAS/WS/19/013, presented by the Cabinet Member for Resources and
Performance, which set out the recommended approach
in reporting Ombudsman complaints as contained in Section 4 of the
report.
The report set out the
background and context; number of complaints for Forest Heath
District Council and St Edmundsbury Borough Council; outcome of
complaints considered by the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO);
considering LGO outcomes in future and conclusions.
The LGO issues an annual report
on its activity, which maps the volume and nature of complaints
received across the Country. Each
Council was also issued with its own performance
report. The report presented to the
Performance and Audit Scrutiny Committee informed members on the
outcome of the final annual performance reports for Forest Heath
and St Edmundsbury Councils, in comparison to national performance
measures.
Two
cases were upheld at Forest Heath Council. One case was reported to the former Forest Heath
Performance and Audit Scrutiny Committee in October 2018, and
details of the second case was attached as Appendix 1 to the
report. With regards to the second
case, the LGO felt the Council had already taken all necessary
action to resolve the complaint.
However, whilst it was disappointing that two cases had been
upheld, this represented just 12.5% of the complaints the LGO
considered in the year.
Historically, officers reported to the Forest Heath and St
Edmundsbury Performance and Audit Committees where there was a
finding of fault on the part of the Council, and the Council was
required to pay compensation. This
reporting was confirming to the Committee what had already
occurred, as the Council was often given limited time to remedy
such findings. With this in mind, officers suggest that in future,
where the Ombudsman finds fault but the remedy suggested was less
than £1,000, such cases would be included in the LGO annual
report. Where the remedy suggested was more than £1,000, or
in the rare event the officers considered the Council should reject
the findings of the Ombudsman, such cases would be reported to the
next meeting of the Performance and Audit Committee.
The Committee considered the
report and asked questions, to which responses were
provided.
The Committee discussed the five housing
complaints in relation to St Edmundsbury and the one for Forest
heath last year, and questioned why St Edmundsbury was
higher. In response officers explained
that the LGO did not uphold any of those complaints. The two authorities had used the same officers and
processes, therefore there should not have be an issue. At the time there was a difference in housing
allocation between the two former Councils, which was resolved when
we became West Suffolk Council, and it might be a statistical
anomaly or St Edmundsbury residents had a higher tendency to
register complaints. However, officers
agreed to provide a written response.
The Committee also discussed the one case
where the Council had not issued a letter to the resident when a
couple of properties were built beside them, and ...
view the full minutes text for item 28.
|
29. |
Treasury Investment Limits 2019-2020 PDF 111 KB
Minutes:
The Committee received Report No:
PAS/WS/19/014, which informed members of a delegated
decision made on 19 August 2019 to revise investment limits for
un-rated building societies by £1m to a maximum of £2m
per institution giving a maximum exposure of £12m in this
class of investment.
The
Council currently held significant invested funds, representing
income received in advance of expenditure plus balances and
reserves held. In 2018/2019, West
Suffolk Council’s investment balance ranged between
£52.4m and £66.3m. During 2019/2020 and in future
years, due to the Authority’s Capital Programme, these levels
were expected to fall dramatically. In
the first months of this year the cash available for investment had
exceeded our forecast by £4m due to changes in profile of our
capital programme and increased business rate retention
receipts.
Following consultation with the
councils Treasury advisors Arlingclose, it was identified that the
best opportunity available to the council in terms of security,
portfolio balances and returns would be to increase its investments
with building societies.
Under the delegated authority, as per the Treasury Management
Strategy, of the Portfolio Holder for Resources and Performance and
the S151 Officer the investment limits for building societies had
been changed from £1m to a maximum of £2m for
institutions that had no credit rating (this was normal for
Building Societies). These institutions were still required to have
an asset base of £1bn and the council would only deal with
the top 15 institutions that met that criteria.
The
total potential exposure to the sector would increase in turn from
£6m to £12m. The increase
in limits enabled the Council to place £1m each at
Principality, Nottingham, National Counties and Newcastle
Building Societies at reasonable rates (0.75%-0.81%) and remain
within the revised Treasury Management Strategy limits.
The Committee considered the
report and did not raise any specific issues.
There being no decision
required, the Committee noted the contents of the
report.
|
30. |
Approach to Delivering a Sustainable West Suffolk Council Budget: 2020-2021 and Medium Term Financial Strategy 2020-2024 PDF 115 KB
Minutes:
The Committee received Report
No: PAS/WS/19/015, which informed Members on the approach and
timescales for the 2020-2021 budget setting process and medium term
plans to 2024. The report included information on the background
and context; future budget pressure and challenges; key
assumptions; proposed approach for securing a balanced budget
2020-2024; timescales and next steps.
The 2020-2021 budget and medium
term financial plans and approach would continue to follow the
current West Suffolk Council Strategic Framework (three priorities
– Growth, Housing and Families and Communities) and Medium
Term Financial Strategy (six themes) below, until such time as a
new set of priorities and themes emerge.
1.
aligning resources to both West Suffolk
councils’ strategic plan and essential services;
2.
continuation of the shared service agenda and
transformation of service delivery;
3.
behaving more commercially;
4.
considering new funding models (e.g. acting as an
investor);
5.
encouraging the use of digital forms for customer
access; and
6.
taking advantage of new forms of local government
finance (e.g. business rate retention).
The 2020-2021 budget and medium term financial plans
assumed the seven year (now six year) council tax
harmonisation plan as set out in the Budget and Council Tax setting
report to Shadow Council in February 2019. As was the case each
year, the formal setting of council tax would be subject to the
annual democratic process through to February Council in
2020.
There were limitations on the
degree to which West Suffolk could identify all of the potential
changes within its medium term financial projections. It was also
important to remember that these financial models had been produced
within a financial environment that was constantly changing and
would be subject to significant change over time.
The starting position in the
councils budget approach was from the existing approved medium term
financial plan which at February 2019 was balanced for
2020/2021 followed by a budget gap of
£2.7m in 2021/2022 and £3.9m (cumulative from
2021/2022) in 2022/2023. This had enabled the
methodology for revising this outlook to be focussed on three
areas:
1
Challenging the pre-existing assumptions and
updating these to reflect new knowledge and information.
2
Collating new items or making changes to existing
plans to reflect the outcome of the development of the West Suffolk
2020-2024 Strategic Framework and MTFS.
3 Reflect any changes in
the wider macro environment which require a change in
approach.
Members considered the report
in detail, the approach and timescales for the 2020-2021 budget
setting process and the medium term financial strategy. Members asked a number of questions to which
comprehensive responses were provided.
In particular, discussions were
held on the Treasury Management Strategy and the priority of
securing money in a safe place –v- maximising our yield;
future investments in solar farms and the potential for being the
land owner; investing in commercial properties within West Suffolk
and the social and economic value; the emerging Asset Management
Strategy; and how the Council monitored its extensive range of
assets held, to which comprehensive responses were ...
view the full minutes text for item 30.
|
31. |
Work Programme 2019-2020 PDF 92 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Committee received Report No:
PAS/WS/19/016, which updated Members on the current status of its
rolling work programme of items for scrutiny during 2019-2020
(Appendix 1).
The Committee considered the report, and there
being no decision required, the Committee noted the
update.
|
|
In this section
|