To outsource this work to Chiltern District Council

To agree that the fees and charges for development control pre-application fees be amended as per the attached spread sheet.

Approved

The committee received a report of the Head of Finance (shared services) setting out the Committee’s proposed work programme for 2017/18.

It was noted that the regular reports about Freedom of Information requests had not been included in the list. The work programme would be updated to ensure they were included in June and December.  It was also necessary to add the external auditor’s plan to the list of items for March 2018.

The committee was informed that it would not be required to sign off the draft statement of accounts in June; however it would be presented to the committee for information.  The draft statement of accounts had to be delivered to the external auditor by 30 June.

The Chair stated that he would discuss a suitable training topic for the next meeting with officers.

RESOLVED –

that the updated work programme be agreed and amended as discussed.

The committee received a report of the Shared Internal Audit Service setting out the latest progress made in implementing audit recommendations.

The Audit Manager provided an update on some of the statistics included in the report.  It was noted that 87% of audit plan days had been delivered compared to 83% in the report.  A further two audits had been completed; ‘Budget Monitoring’ had no recommendations and ‘Creditors’ had received a ‘substantial’ assurance level with one medium priority recommendation. 

In response to a member request, the Audit Manager agreed to circulate the final report for the ‘section 106 agreements’ audit.

Following a question from Councillor Khan, the Head of Finance (Shared Services) informed the committee that the audit plan, which was agreed by the committee, was produced following discussions between internal audit and services.  Service managers and heads of services indicated any audits they wanted to be carried out.  They suggested subjects that could help them to develop improved practices.  The Shared Internal Audit Service’s knowledge of other local authorities also helped with identifying potential subjects.  Leadership Team was provided with the information and could also identify areas it considered would be useful to audit.  The Audit Committee had the opportunity to review the plan and make suggestions councillors thought would be suitable for inclusion. 

Councillor Williams could recall that on a previous occasion the committee had requested that internal audit should divert some audit days to review Charter Place.  This had been carried out.

Following Councillor Williams’s comment about the lack of an update on a recommendation for an audit on Benefits carried out in 2014/15, the Chair stated that he also had concerns about the lack of updates in some cases.  He asked the Head of Finance (Shared Services) to ensure that all recommendations had an update at the next meeting.  If an update was still not provided officers would then be directed that they would need to attend the following meeting and provide an explanation to the committee. 

The Head of Finance (Shared Services) agreed that he would report this information to all services and ensure they were aware of the committee’s requirements.

RESOLVED –

1.      that the Internal Audit Progress Report for the period to 24 February 2017 and updated at the committee be noted.

2.      that amendments to the Audit Plan as at 24 February be approved.

3.      that the removal of the implemented recommendations (shown as Appendix C to the report) be agreed.

4.      that the changes to the implementation date for 9 recommendations (paragraph 2.5.1 of the report) for the reasons set out in Appendix C to the report be agreed.

5.      that the committee’s comments about the recommendations with no updates be noted and actioned as necessary

The committee received a report of the Head of Finance (shared services) and Shared Internal Audit Service setting out the proposed 2017/18 Internal Audit Plans for Watford Borough Council and the Watford and Three Rivers shared services.

RESOLVED –

that the Watford Borough Council and Watford and Three Rivers Shared Services Internal Audit Plans for 2017/18 be approved.

The committee received a report of the Head of Democracy and Governance which included the latest version of the council’s corporate risk register.  It was noted that there was one addition to the register since last year.  This was the ‘Accommodation Review’, which included the redevelopment of the amenities area.

Councillor Khan noted that the stability issues with Academy and Anite was included.  The risk rating appeared to have increased even though there were control measures mentioned in the register.

The Head of Democracy and Governance advised that she had asked the Head of Revenues and Benefits if she had wanted to revise the risk rating.  However the head of service had stated that she wanted to retain the current rating as she did not yet feel confident in the security of the technology. 

The Head of Finance (Shared Services) added that the Director of Finance was conscious of the possible issues with the technology and the potential exposure to the software being down.  He commented that for the impact to be ‘catastrophic’ would depend on how long the programme was down.  The software was in the process on being moved to a more stable platform.  This would help to mitigate the risk by providing a higher level of stability.  He would ask for the latest update on the situation to be circulated to the committee.

Following a further comment by Councillor Khan, the Head of Democracy and Governance stated that the ‘16’ risk rating purely related to the end of year work and as the new bills were being processed. 

Andrew Brittain, EY, noted the comments and said that if the controls were in place the risk rating would be expected to go down.  He asked if the council considered targets for objectives, capturing the risk appetite of the council.  Some authorities showed a net risk and then a target to aim towards.

The Head of Democracy and Governance informed the committee that the strategy set out the council’s processes.  A ‘risk appetite’ had not been set.  Officers looked at individual projects and considered any potential risk and how they could be resolved.

It was agreed that the Head of Democracy and Governance would report back on this aspect to the Managing Director and Leadership Team for reflection on the suggestion.

In response to a question from Councillor Khan, the Head of Democracy and Governance confirmed that it was likely the risk rating for the Metropolitan Line Extension would change.  She reminded the committee that this project was not managed by the council.  There was a risk to the town but the council was only able to lobby the relevant organisations to ensure the project would proceed.

Following a question from Councillor Mauthoor, the Head of Democracy and Governance explained that an initial risk assessment was carried out of an objective and a risk rating was generated, however following controls being identified the risk rating could then be reduced accordingly.

In response to a question about the accommodation review, the Head of Democracy and Governance advised that this related to the proposed new building which would replace the current amenities area.  Currently the risk register did not show any risks as the project had not started.  It had been added as there was a potential for risks as the project progressed.  Risks would be considered once the business case had been completed. 

The Chair asked officers to reflect on the committee’s comments.

RESOLVED –

that the committee’s comments be noted.

Approved

RESOLVED

That under Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business as it is likely, in the view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during consideration of the item there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in Section 100(1) Schedule 12A of the Act for the reasons stated in the report.

A report was received from the Committee and Scrutiny Support Officer following a meeting of a working group set up by Cabinet which was made up of the Mayor, Councillor Collett and the Head of Democracy and Governance, together with the chair of the Neighbourhood Forum Task Group, Councillor Cavinder.

The Mayor introduced the report and commented on the recommendations.  She described how the working group had tried to avoid any situation when a councillor in a ward was isolated if they were the only party member in that ward, therefore it was recommended that all three councillors signed off on the funding.  The Mayor also commented that it was not a fund for supporting big charities it was meant to help ward councillors to do little things in their ward for small local groups.

Councillor Collett highlighted that currently funding was given to organisations but the council did not get any feedback from the groups.  Under the new proposals the councillors would be doing an assessment about how the money was spent and whether it was well received.  There would be more advertising on the council’s website to direct residents’ enquiries to ward councillors. The original task group had done a good piece of work; the working group had just tightened up on the guidelines and protocols. 

Cabinet discussed the issue of members’ interests in applications and the Committee and Scrutiny Support Officer confirmed that if a councillor had an interest in a group which would receive funding then it would be acceptable for only two councillors within the ward to sign the application. 

The Mayor thanked Councillor Cavinder for chairing the original scrutiny task group on neighbourhood forums.

RESOLVED

Cabinet approves the Neighbourhood Forum Task Group’s recommendations as amended by the working group:

General

1.        Continue Neighbourhood Forum funds and increase the amount to £3,000 per ward with effect from May 2018.

2.        Focus future funding on local organisations and charities promoting grass roots groups and activities, rather than larger national charities with other funding streams at their disposal.

3.        Rename “Neighbourhood Forums”, “Neighbourhood Locality Funds”.

4.        Relaunch the funds using the Council’s communications team, providing links to all relevant information on the Council’s website including contact details for the appropriate ward councillors.

Guidelines

1.      To approve the revised guidelines and protocol attached as appendices 3 and  4 clarifying:

o       how often recipients can receive funding (normally not more than once a year, however the type of project, rather than the organisation, should be the guide)

o       proportionality criteria (including guidance stating that funds should not be used to subsidise the activities of larger, formal charities, nor for individuals)

o       declaration of members’ interests

o       expenditure during the purdah period

o       rules regarding donations to groups organising treats and outings

o       retrospective expenditure.

Process

1.      Require all three ward councillors to formally agree funding proposals before being submitted to the Head of Democracy and Governance for approval (unless one on them has a conflict of interest when a minimum of two must agree.)

2.      Officers to investigate the possibility of allowing Neighbourhood Forum funds to be carried over to the next financial year.  Projects would need to be justified on a case by case basis.

Value for money

1.      Encourage wards to minimise their administration costs for meetings in order to seek the most cost effective means e.g., utilising the Council’s communications team and social media options, particularly in regard to advertising meetings.

2.      Require recipients to complete a feedback questionnaire on their completed projects.  Any funds not used for the specific purpose granted should be returned to Watford Borough Council.  Any questionnaire should include an assessment by ward councillors about whether such events or organisations should be considered again in the future.

Cabinet received a report of the Managing Director which presented the revised Corporate Plan 2020.  This followed a comprehensive review of the council’s corporate framework in 2016 including the vision, priorities and values. 

The Managing Director explained how the corporate plan would cover the period to 2020 in the context of a significantly reduced budget from the government with the council losing the Revenue Support Grant by the end of 2020.  However, the council retained its ambition to be bold and progressive.  The population during this period was expected to reach 100,000 in the town.  There were five major priorities in the plan:

1.         Identify ways to manage the borough’s housing need

2.         Champion smart growth and economic prosperity

3.         Provide for our vulnerable and disadvantaged communities

4.         Deliver a digital Watford

5.         Secure our own financial future.

The Managing Director continued that the Medium Term Financial Strategy as set out in the corporate plan demonstrated that the council’s financial position was stable and sound.  He described Watford 2020 which was an overarching plan to achieve a number of key objectives such as digital Watford, where the council was looking at service innovations to deliver services more efficiently and effectively.  The council would adopt a more commercial approach and ensure it was maximising accommodation effectively by deploying property assets and reviewing the utilisation of the Town Hall.  The council would also ensure that the IT and HR strategies were fit for purpose to deliver the council’s ambitions.  The proposals within the corporate plan were measurable and would be accountable at Cabinet and at Portfolio Holder meetings.

The Mayor thanked the Managing Director for the work on the corporate plan.  She commented that as she was almost in her last year of office the corporate plan would ensure there was a firm foundation for whoever was Mayor in 2018. 

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

1.      notes the revised draft Corporate Plan 2020 and recommends it to Council

2.      notes that the corporate work programme within the plan will underpin service plans and staff’s individual work programmes as set out in their annual performance development reviews.

3.      notes the corporate work programme set out in the plan will be monitored through the year.

A report was received from the Interim Head of Transformation regarding the installation of equipment in order to facilitate projects which supported the council’s priorities to deliver a digital Watford to empower our community and champion smart growth and economic prosperity.

Councillor Watkin introduced the report and described how it meant installing little transmitters on the council’s buildings.  The council would receive support from the government as it was a leading authority and early adopter of the technology.  The council would be working with software companies within Watford on using the technology. 

RESOLVED

That Cabinet agrees that the Deputy Managing Director and the Head of Service Transformation be given delegated authority to authorise the installation of telecommunications equipment on council owned property.

A report was received from the Deputy Managing Director which set out the site allocations and detailed development management policies to support the delivery of the vision and strategy set out in Local Plan Part 1 Core Strategy which was adopted in 2013.

Councillor Sharpe introduced the report and explained that it had to also be approved by Council.  This was the second part of the local plan which included the development management plan and site allocations.  The council had to justify its decisions through a sound evidence base which would be examined externally.  However, the evidence base was constantly changing which had been problematic for all councils.  It was important that the council had a plan as without one it would be far more vulnerable to developers.  The changing evidence base meant that the council would have to review the plan at an early stage.  However, the rewards were greater than the risks to have the site allocations and development management policies in place. 

The Deputy Managing Director drew Cabinet’s attention to the risks outlined in the report.  There was an outstanding objection from Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) regarding transportation and the council would be working with them on a memorandum of understanding.  Also regarding the metropolitan line extension if a decision was made which was not favourable then the council would have to consider the impact on the plan.  Hopefully the council would know about both risks shortly before submitting the plan to the planning inspectorate.

Councillor Bell commented on the objection from HCC and the Mayor responded that the council agreed with HCC that the housing numbers could not be increased to the detriment of those travelling around Watford.  The council wanted a sound transport plan and had asked HCC for a major review

Councillor Bell welcomed the taller building policies and that there was clarification on special policy areas e.g., western gateway, Clarendon Road, Ascot Road.  This was an issue which would come up in future Development Management applications.

The Mayor responded with regards to tall buildings that the council could not refuse every application it received as it would go to appeal.  With the government’s housing white paper, urban density had been specifically mentioned.  It was for the council to challenge the quality of the buildings which would be proposed. It was further commented by Cabinet that the government’s strengthening of the greenbelt was forcing further development within urban areas and similar councils to Watford were also looking at tall buildings policies.

Councillor Bell commented on the traveller site on Tolpits Lane and stated that this should be accepted as a settled area.  The Mayor commented that there was not a great need within Watford for sites and some of the traveller community had settled within the area.

RESOLVED

That Cabinet:

1.        agrees that Local Plan Part 2 should be reported to Council on 21 March with a recommendation that the Plan be submitted for independent examination in line with Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.  This recommendation remains subject to agreement with Hertfordshire County Council on an acceptable way forward in respect of transport modelling.

2.        agrees that the Deputy Managing Director is delegated authority to agree, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder, any late minor changes/documents needed to accompany the submission such as the agreement with Hertfordshire County Council and the updated Infrastructure Delivery Plan.