Minutes:
Members were reminded that following the presentation of the Chief Internal Auditor on the SO24 quarterly report reviewing Cabinet/CM urgent decisions quarter 4 (January to March 2018) in May 2018, the Audit Committee had agreed to call in the Head of Regeneration, Investment and Housing.
Three urgent reports were submitted:-
1. Living Levels Landscape Partnership Heritage Lottery Fund Offer – Partnership Agreement – 2 February 2018
2. Michaelstone y Fedw Village Hall – 22 March 2018
3. Town Centre Repayable Scheme – 28 March 2018
The Chief Internal Auditor comments on all three reports were that there was no clear justification for the urgency of the decisions recorded in the papers presented.
The Head of Regeneration, Investment and Housing informed the Committee that the Living Levels Landscape Partnership Heritage Lottery Fund Offer did not fall under his remit but sat with the Head of Law and Regulation and Tourism.
With regards the Michaelstone y Fedw Village Hall the Chief Internal Auditor had commented that there was no clear justification for the urgency of the decision recorded in the papers. The Head of Regeneration, Investment and Housing reported that his Department had undertaken the work in connection with the lease but not the installation of the high speed broadband which was undertaken by IT. He agreed to investigate and report back to the next meeting of Audit Committee on 20 September 2018.
A discussion took place on the urgent decision in relation to the Town Centre Repayable Scheme:-
· The Chief Internal Auditor had commented that there was no clear justification for the urgency of the decision recorded in the papers presented. Although comments including ‘pressure on timescales to allocate the limited funding available’, ‘due to the restricted timescale, the first cycle’, the funding is available for a limited window, had been stated within the supporting papers, no actual dates or timelines had been included stating when communications were had or decisions taken within the process.
· The Team Manager, Regeneration explained to Committee that the decision needed to be taken urgently because of a condition of the fund. The fund was allocated to unlock problem, derelict urban buildings in order to redevelop properties. The original request for funding was for £1.5m but when the award was made the set allocation was £750k meaning it was not possible to proceed with two indicative projects. With the first project the Council became aware the developer failed on conditions and the second project needed key data which could not be supplied in time. The Welsh Government was flexible allowing the Council to find a similar project rather than lose the investment. A new development was found but it was late in the financial year and the conditions were clear that the funding had to be allocated or returned.
· The Committee noted it was ultimately it was down to timelines. The comments seemed to be indicating a tight time scale but there was no evidence to support that in the report.
· The report was presented on 28 March 2018 just before the year end. Why wasn’t it presented earlier? When did the Council receive the approach from the new developer? – The Team Leader, Regeneration explained that the Cabinet Member was approached but had to take advice from the Head of Law and Regulation whether there was a conflict of interests and so it was decided to pass to the Leader. Issue after issue was encountered resulting in it slipping towards the end of the year.
· It was necessary to put that information into the report to say why the decision was taken urgently. If it had been necessary to go outside the usual call-in procedure the Audit Committee needed to know why. It was about documenting the decision rather than a particular basis for the decision. Evidence needed to be contained within the report to explain the timeline with regards the urgency.
· If there was no documentary evidence to say the Cabinet Member had been briefed it was not in accordance with Standing Orders. It was vital to keep minutes of briefings with Cabinet Members and the minutes clearly shown. If internal audit was saying there wasn’t an accurate audit trail there would be concern around that - The Head of Regeneration, Investment and Housing replied that the Department did them very irregularly. Regeneration was a moving feast and there would be new schemes coming on board, developing new individuals. By its nature there would be scheme falling away and new ones being taken on board. It was not detailed but due to the fact that they were done so irregularly.
Agreed
1. The Head of Regeneration, Investment and Housing to attend the Audit Committee meeting on 20 September 2018 to discuss the Michaelstone y Fedw Village Hall urgent Report
2. Head of Finance to raise awareness with Heads of Service in relation to the
necessary guidance with regards criteria for urgent reports and decisions