Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr S Penfold.

None.

To receive public questions, if any.

None received.

To determine any items of business which the Chairman decides should be considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

None received.

Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any of the following items on the agenda. The code of conduct for Members requires that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest.

None declared.

To approve as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Governance, Risk & Audit Committee held on 29^th September 2020.

Minutes of the meeting held on 29^th September were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW

(Papers relied on to write the report, which do not contain exempt information and which are not published elsewhere)

Contact Officer, telephone number and email: Alison Sayer, Resilience Manager, 01263 516269, alison.sayer@north-norfolk.gov.uk.

The RM introduced the report and noted that it had been an exceptionally busy year for the Team with multiple incidents, in addition to the continued response to Covid-19. It was reported that the Council remained an active member of the Norfolk Resilience Forum (NRF), with annual contributions paid to facilitate the Council’s response to incidents as a category one first responder, under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. The RM noted that the Council’s annual contribution remained at £2386, in addition to a £1200 contribution made to the British Red Cross (BRC), which allowed reserve staff to be called upon when required. She added that there had been a recent amendment to the BRC memorandum of understanding, known as the Emergency Response Cooperation Agreement, though this had not impacted the Council’s contribution.

The RM reported that there had been a reinvigoration of the Sea Palling Flood Warden Liaison Group, and also that the Environment Agency (EA) had recently confirmed that information provided by the river and coastal Senior Flood Wardens had been valuable. It was noted that the EA would be reviewing their alert thresholds in Bacton and Walcott as a result of the impact of the Sandscaping Scheme.

In relation to the EU exit transition, it was reported that the Council had appointed the Head of Economic and Community Development as lead officer. On Covid-19 the RM noted that Gold and Silver command meetings continued, with information provided to and from the NRF. In addition to these key issues, there had been a significant increase in severe weather incidents, in a trend that could be set to continue as a result of the effects of climate change. It was noted that the EA had reduced its flood alerts on Norfolk rivers as a response to the increased demands of Covid-19, though these had now been reinstated at the request of the Council.

On business continuity plans, the RM reported that the Council had 28 in total, of which 14 were for teams undertaking NNDC critical activities, with a recovery time objective of 48 hours or less. It was noted that these plans were considered current, if they had been reviewed within the last 12 months. The RM stated that GRAC had agreed a target for at least 85% of these plans be up to date, though it was noteworthy that 100% of the critical plans had been reviewed within the last 12 months. It was reported that there was no target for non-critical plans, but 79% of plans were up to date overall, and it was expected that reviews following completion of the management restructure would increase this percentage.

In conclusion, the RM stated that Covid-19, the transition of exiting the EU and increased severe weather events would continue to test the Council resources, but the Team continued to work hard to meet demands.

Questions and Discussion

   i.          Cllr C Cushing asked whether there had been any specific lessons learnt from the events of the year, to which the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

The AD introduced the report and informed Members that the internal auditors had delivered 57 days of work equating to 53% of the plan, which was in-line with most of the work taking place across quarters three and four. It was noted that audit work had continued to run smoothly despite people working remotely, with the required information being delivered on time. The AD reported that some audits had required office visits due to the nature by which data was held, but this had been completed without issue. It was noted that resource was in place and had already been allocated for the completion of the annual audit.

RESOLVED

To note the report.

The AD introduced the report and informed Members that a number of recommendations remained outstanding from previous years, though it was noted that several had been delayed by the impact of Covid-19. It was reported that 33 recommendations remained outstanding, of which 22 were priority 2, with none at priority 1. It was suggested that the reasons for some of the outstanding recommendations alluded to issues such as Section 106 agreements, which were dependent on the introduction of a new planning system that was currently in the process of implementation.

Questions and Discussion

   i.          Cllr P Butikofer referred to the new Uniform planning system and asked what the implications would be if the project were to be delayed further. The AD replied that it would have an detrimental impact, and suggested that a more detailed response could be given by the relevant head of service. Cllr P Butikofer then referred to the recommendation on appointing a monitoring role for Section 106 agreements, and asked whether it would be possible to have a reserve officer in place. The CE replied to the first question and noted that the planning system had been closed down for approximately two weeks to allow for a significant data transfer, which had gone well. He added that the new system should provide a number of advantages, such as improvements to the monitoring of Section 106 agreements as highlighted in the recommendations. It was noted that the Head of Planning was also looking to improve the process of monitoring planning conditions, and it was expected that the outstanding recommendations would be addressed in the near future.

  ii.          Cllr C Cushing referred to the recommendation on implementing a new procurement strategy and noted the reason for delay, then asked whether there was a deputy for this position. The CE replied that this was a specialist role and whilst there was not a deputy in place at present, it could be considered in the future.

iii.          Cllr P Butikofer referred the recommendation on updating the licensing register, and noted that after considerable work with officers, they had completed a taxi handbook. He added that there were issues with taxi licenses not being added to the NNDC website, which he hoped could be addressed as part of the recommendation, to ensure public safety.

iv.          The Chairman raised concerns that a number of recommendations had been outstanding for a number of years, and asked whether the Committee would be supportive of calling-in heads of service to explain delays of two years or more. The CE replied that he would be supportive of such proposals to improve accountability, and noted that under the new management structure this would become an assistant director’s responsibility.

 v.          In response to a question from Cllr N Dixon, it was confirmed that the percentage of outstanding recommendations was 12%, as opposed to the 24% listed. Cllr N Dixon then referred to long overdue recommendations and asked whether the Committee had a clear understanding of the reasons for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

To review and comment on the new project governance and management framework.

The CE introduced the report and informed Members that it outlined a revised plan for the Council’s project management and governance arrangements. He added that it came as a response to the audit recommendations of audit report NN2001 project management framework. It was reported that the new management structure sought to increase and strengthen project governance and management arrangements to provide greater clarity of project objectives, improve project delivery and closure/learning. The CE stated that the proposals included establishing a Corporate Delivery Unit that would promote and support strong project governance at both a Member and officer level. A new project governance framework and guide were included in draft form for review, which combined with the proposed Scrutiny Panels and a major projects Cabinet Working Party, were intended to improve ownership and scrutiny of projects.

Questions and Discussion

   i.          Cllr C Cushing stated that he had extensive experience as a project manager in the private sector, and had a number of comments on the proposals that he had shared with officers prior to the meeting. The first point referred to project proposals being written by the project manager, which Cllr C Cushing suggested should be written by the project owner or sponsor. He added that a project manager wouldn’t normally be appointed until the project was agreed. The CE replied that with respect to the Councillors experience, local government had considerable differences to the private sector. As a result corporate priorities were defined by the administration, and there was a separation of roles between the Cabinet Member as project sponsor, and officers, as the former would not be responsible for delivering the project themselves. The CE therefore suggested that in local government, the project manager would be appointed at an earlier stage to develop the project proposal, prior to its approval.

  ii.          Cllr C Cushing suggested that GDPR issues should be given consideration early in the development of projects, to which the CE replied that this would be the case for projects that made specific use of or reference to personal data.

iii.          Cllr C Cushing referred to the development of a business case for projects, and suggested that this should again be part of the initial stages of the project management process. The CE replied that as the Council often had to respond to time sensitive bidding processes, this required a two stage sign-off on projects which began with a political proposal seeking approval in principal, prior to the preparation of a business case. The PPPM added that the purpose of projects going to business planning meetings was to consider which projects should proceed, as opposed to approving projects, acting as a filter or sieve to avoid expending unnecessary officer resource.

iv.          Cllr C Cushing referred to comments within the report that suggested that full project costs needed to be known upfront, and suggested that this could be very difficult. The CE accepted these concerns and noted that with previous projects issues of potential optimism bias had been raised,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

To review and note the Corporate Risk Register.

The CTA introduced the item and noted that updated elements of the register had been highlighted in green. The first such change related to the sales fees and chargers compensation scheme run by MHCLG, and it was noted that the first tranche of funding had rebalanced the in-year budget and eliminated the forecasted deficit. The CTA added that the Council continued to update Central Government in relation to the future funding tranches. The next change was the inclusion of the income generation and savings workshop, which had generated several proposals that were now under consideration by the Finance Team, and would be reported back the OSC in the months ahead. The CTA noted that the impact of the Central Government spending review was also being modelled and the outcome would be included in the MTFS and 2021/22 budget. It was noted that the anticipated multi-year spending review would likely lower the financial risks to the Council, once the outcome was known.

On operational risks, the CTA noted that the only change was that references to the digital transformation programme, which had been replaced by digital service improvement, that would be led by the Council’s requirements. The remaining updates related the to business grants scheme, for which the delivery dates had been delayed as a result of the ongoing impact of Covid-19.

RESOLVED

To review and note the Corporate Risk Register.

To monitor progress on items requiring action from the previous meeting, including progress on implementation of audit recommendations.

The DS&GOS informed Members that there were no outstanding actions from the previous meeting, and noted that the Project Governance and Management Framework was in-part the result of a recommendation made by the Committee at the June meeting.

To review the Governance, Risk & Audit Committee Work Programme.

The DS&GOS informed Members that the EY Annual Audit Letter and Final Statement of Accounts for 2019/20 had been expected at the December meeting, though these had been delayed due to ongoing issues with the external auditors. The CTA stated that there were two outstanding issues with EY which related to the sign-off of the 2018/19 and 2019/20 accounts. It was reported that the 2018/19 accounts sign-off was imminent, and that the remaining issues had been resolved, which meant that the annual audit letter could be expected at the March meeting. On the 2019/20 accounts, the CTA stated that they should have been signed-off in November, which whilst later than normal, had still not been met due to resourcing issues with the external auditor. It was noted that up to 55% of Councils had missed this deadline, and the audit for the 2020/21 year was not scheduled to begin until the end of February 2021, which meant that the audit would not be completed in time for sign-off at the March meeting. This would create a clash of signing-off the 2019/20 accounts with the start of the 2021/22 accounts, though this was preferable to a conflict with the budget setting process that required greater resource.

Questions and Discussion

   i.          The Chairman noted that the issues raised were not unique to EY and expected that there would be justified reasons for the delays, but asked whether there was any break clause in the contract with the external auditor. The CTA replied that PSAA held the Council’s external audit contract and did so for 97% of Council’s, which was intended to secure economy of scale. She added that to her knowledge there was not a break-clause in the contract, and she understood that PSAA would not take action on delayed audits, so long as the quality of audit’s was maintained. It was noted that in future, external audit procurement through the PSAA was opt-in, though the current contract term was for five years.

  ii.          Cllr H Blathwayt stated that he was a representative of NNDC at a different authority, and whilst EY had completed the 2018/19 external audit, it was suggested that a prohibitive price increase had been presented for future audits. He asked whether it was possible that similar circumstances could be presented to the Council. The CTA replied that she had not yet seen the offer for future years, though as a general rule it was apparent that prices were rising above the expected threshold. She added that ultimately the quality of the audit was paramount, and if this meant an increase in audit costs then it would likely be considered acceptable.

iii.          Cllr P Butikofer asked whether the accounts remaining unsigned would have any negative impacts or drawbacks for the Council. The CTA replied that whilst this had been expected, it did not appear to be the case and there was no evident detriment to the Council at present.

iv.          The Chairman suggested that it could be useful  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

To pass the following resolution, if necessary:

“That under section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in part 1 of schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”