Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: This is a virtual meeting.
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
No. | Item | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: No apologies were received. |
|||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||||||||
Public Questions Minutes: There were no public questions. |
|||||||||||||
Greater Cambridge Joint Planning Committee PDF 456 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The County
Council resolved in May 2020 to withdraw from the Joint Development Control
Committee (JDCC) after July 2020. The effect of their resolution was that the
current JDCC would no longer be quorate.
The report
of the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development was first
considered by the Planning and Transport
Scrutiny Committee on 30 June 2020 for comments on the establishment of a new
Committee (suggested name was the Greater Cambridge Joint Planning Committee
GCJPC) and set out the proposed terms for the new Joint Committee to come into
effect from 1 August 2020. The Joint
Director for Planning and Economic Development updated the Committee on
amendments to the original proposed Terms of Reference by both the Planning and
Transport Scrutiny Committee and the South Cambridgeshire District Council’s
Civic Affairs Committee (which met on 1 July 2020). The amendments were: i.
Amend the membership of the new committee
so there would be six Cambridge City Council (CCC) members and 6 South
Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) members rather than three members each. ii.
Retain the name of the Committee as the
Joint Development Control Committee rather than the Greater Cambridge Joint
Planning Committee and reflect this throughout the terms of reference document. Confirm
that the Chair and Vice-Chair positions rotate between Cambridge City Council
and South Cambridgeshire District Council each municipal year. Provide for County
Council members to address the new Committee. In response
to questions from the Committee, the Joint Director for Planning and Economic
Development said the following:
i.
The
current membership of JDCC comprised: six CCC members, six SCDC members and
four Cambridgeshire County Council members. It was originally proposed that the
new committee should have three members from CCC and SCDC but both local authority’s
scrutiny committees resolved to increase this back to six members each. Members
felt that three members from each authority was not enough to consider
strategic planning applications.
ii.
Confirmed
that Cambridgeshire County Council would be included in the updated Terms of
Reference, 14.1 Attendance at the Committee by other members of the Councils
when presented to the full Council meetings for approval.
iii.
Under
the scheme of delegation to officers the current arrangements provided for a
threshold of 100 dwellings and officers had not proposed to change this. If the
committee proposed a scheme of officer delegation for 10 units and below only,
then almost every application would be brought forward for scrutiny’s
committee’s consideration as this equated to the threshold for “major
applications” which was the Committees focus.
iv.
Following
legal advice, and in the interests of clarity, it was proposed to amend the
“Functions of the Committee” as defined in the report to make clear the power
of the Committee to amend and modify Standing Orders and to consider previous
applications of the former JDCC
v.
The
Standing Orders before the meeting provided for County Council members to “call
in” applications to the Committee and officers therefore proposed to amend
these prior to Full Council to remove this provision. Resolved (unanimously)
to recommend to Council: i.
On the withdrawal of Cambridgeshire County
Council to dissolve the JDCC between Cambridge City Council and South
Cambridgeshire District Council as surviving members, pursuant to section 101
(5) Local Government Act 1972 and cease all delegations to the same with effect
from 31 July 2020; and ii.
To establish a new joint planning committee
between Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council (to be
called the Joint Development Control Committee) with the Terms of Reference as
set in Appendix A and to delegate functions to the joint committee and officers
as set out therein, pursuant to section 101 (5) and section 102 Local Government
Act 1972 with effect from 1 August 2020 iii.
To agree that any ongoing planning matters or
any other continuing action relating to development covered by the terms of
reference in appendix A which would otherwise fall to be determined by the
previous Committee will, after 31 July 2020, transfer to the newly formed Joint
Development Control Committee for determination iv.
To authorise the Joint Director of Planning and
Economic Development, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the
Committee, to decide whether to refer any development control matters for
determination by the Joint Development Control Committee where the boundary of
the site concerned overlaps or is adjacent to the boundary between Cambridge
City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council v.
To
authorise the Monitoring Officer to make any consequential amendments to the
Council’s constitution arising from the above decisions vi.
Appoint 6
members (and substitutes) from Cambridge City Council to serve upon the new
Joint Development Control Committee from August. vii.
To amend
the “Functions of the Committee” to insert two additional provisions: The following points were noted: The review, change, amendment, or modification of the
Standing Orders of the Committee. Any matter related to an application previously determined
by the Joint Development Control Committee for Cambridge Fringes and which
would continue to form a part of this Committees functions. To amend part e of the scheme of delegation to exclude
County Council members from the capacity to “call in” applications under the
scheme |
|||||||||||||
Ernst & Young Audit Plan 2019/20 PDF 104 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Before this item was
presented the Chair advised the minutes of 4 June (published on the website)
required an amendment for item 20/22/Civ under the recommendation iii
(additional text underlined, deleted text iii.
Delegate to the Chair of the meeting and in consultation with the Opposition Spokes to approve any amendments
to the Statement of Accounts arising from remaining audit procedures, provided
that these do not have a material impact on the Council’s reserves or result in
any changes to the Auditor’s Resolved
unanimously to note the
change. The committee
received a report from the external auditor which summarised their approach to
the audit of the financial statements and value for money (VFM) conclusion for
2019/20. The plan also highlighted what EY considered to be the most
significant audit risks. In response to
Members’ and the Independent Person’s questions, the Head of Finance, Head of
Shared Internal Audit Service and Deputy Head of Finance said the following:
i.
Investment
properties made up a large proportion of the balance sheet and was an area of
risk highlighted by the auditors. Due to
the effects of Covid-19 it will be difficult to give the normal level of
assurance on the valuations regarding the investment properties.
ii.
The
review of the valuations of properties had shown that COVID-19 had not had the
same impact on dwellings as it had on retail; therefore, the valuation
methodology on the dwellings side had not seen significant changes.
iii.
There
had been a further decrease in the valuation on dwellings based on the national
house price index which had been used by the valuers to base their opinions,
therefore there would be a small decrease similar to that of 2018/19.
iv.
Discussions
had taken place with the valuers to ensure that the same audit issues did not
occur as last year; checks were in place to make sure the relevant documents were
up to date to support their judgements.
v.
The
valuations of investment property are more volatile with valuers typically
forming their opinion on values based on the capitalisation of future income
streams. Therefore, the valuers had formed their opinion on the impact that
COVID-19 had by reducing the rental income expectations, by between three to
six month lost rent.
vi.
There
would be no impact on the council’s useable reserves because of the decreases. vii.
More
confident this year there was enough resources in the finance team to manage
the budget and the audit simultaneously, although there was concern there was
not much room between the two deadlines. viii.
Currently
the finance team were on course to meet the July deadline but were doing so
using all the hours available. The Associate
Partner of Ernst and Young and the Manager of the audit said the following:
i.
EY had
recognised the need for continuity within their audit team for the council
which was part of the reason for a split visit in August and then in October /
November. Two members of staff had been
retained from the 2018/19 audit to work on the 2019/20 audit. There would also
be the same Associate Partner and Manager of the audit.
ii.
Confirmed
only one assessment of performance materiality level was permitted.
iii.
EY uses
2% of gross revenue expenditure on the provision of services for the council as
the benchmark for materiality.
iv.
The fee
negotiation had been discussed with officers to seek agreement but the PSAA
(Public Sector Audit Appointments) made the final decision.
v.
The last
EY tender was in 2017, since that time one audit had been completed. The bases for the increased fees was due to
an escalation in audit quality expectations, such as the rise in workloads on
the testing of valuations which was significantly different to that in 2016/17.
Resolved
(unanimously) to: Note the contents of
the external audit plan 2019/20. |
|||||||||||||
Annual Head of Internal Audit Opinion PDF 445 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee received a report from the Head of the Shared
Internal Audit Service regarding his opinion on the overall adequacy and
effectiveness of the organisation’s internal control environment, governance,
and the risk management framework. The Head of Shared Internal Audit Service said the following
in response to Members’ questions and questions from the Independent Person: i.
The use of spreadsheets when carrying out gas
safety checks had been highlighted as a risk from the audit report; this had been
addressed by the introduction of a management system which was part of Orchard
Asset Management software that is planned to go live around December 2020. ii.
Currently the spreadsheets were still being
updated manually but were now being done daily. iii.
Acknowledged that not being able to inspect
properties due to COVID-19 was a hazard. Those properties did have future
appointments in place. iv.
Safeguarding was looked at on a regular basis,
working with external agencies did have an increased risk and would be recognised
in the auditplan going forward. v.
Would take forward the matter of water usage as
part of the overall risk appraisal. vi.
Was not aware of any projects funded by disabled
facility grants which had been delayed due to COVID-19. vii.
An annual review was undertaken to provide
assurance that grant funding (allocated as part of the Better Care Fund) had
been spent in accordance with the scheme conditions. A sample of applications
were checked from the annual funding allocation. The Chief Executive, the council’s safeguarding champion and
chair of the corporate safeguarding group, wanted to give the reassurance that
significant work had been done in the past with volunteers as emphasised in
previous audits. The mutual aid groups were slightly different as they were in
a hybrid territory being their own entities. The council’s relationship was an
enabling one rather than managing; going forward the council needed to explore
how safeguarding would be brought into those relationships. Resolved (unanimously) to: Note the contents of the Annual Head of Internal Audit Opinion. |
|||||||||||||
Annual Report on Counter Fraud and Corruption PDF 379 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee received a report from the Head of Shared
Internal Audit Service regarding the annual review of the Councils
counter fraud arrangements. The report also referred to summary of fraud /
whistle-blowing activity for the period 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020. Councillor Dalzell welcomed the investigations into council
housing fraud and freeing up homes for those who legitimately required them.
Queried if there were any additional investigations regarding corruption in
other areas of the council’s operations. The Head of Internal Audit replied during 2019 / 2020
Internal Audit conducted six investigations which could have included corruption.
In all cases, if appropriate, actions were agreed with management to improve
controls which could mitigate risks of fraud and error Resolved (unanimously) to: Note the contents of the annual report on prevention of
fraud and corruption policy. |
|||||||||||||
Virtual Council Meetings-conventions-1 month review PDF 261 KB Minutes: The Committee
received a report from the Democratic Services Manager
which reviewed after one month the local conventions on how council
meetings were run in a virtual way arising from the provisions in the Coronavirus
Act 2020 and associated Regulations. The Democratic
Services Manager informed the Committee of an amendment to the
recommendation i (deleted text struck
through).
The Committee noted
the deletion. The Committee was advised that a member had requested that the
Chair when taking the vote went first to the spokes (rather than alphabetical)
and that this change had happened. Chairs had operated the conventions
pragmatically and there had been no concerns expressed. Following a
discussion on the increased time that virtual meetings seemed to take the
Democratic Services Manager and Chief Executive said the following:
i.
Indicated
that it would be appropriate for Members to reflect on contributions made
at meetings. With meetings being recorded, behaviour and contributions
can be easily reviewed.
i.
Stressed
the importance of regular breaks.
ii.
Conversations
regarding timings for full council meetings had been held with the Mayor and
group leaders.
iii.
Would investigate personal development opportunities
on working in a virtual meeting environment.
ii.
Noted
the concerns raised regarding voting at full council; there needed to be a
clear view on how members had voted on each item of business and this was being
discussed with the Mayor to ensure that a procedure would be in
place. Resolved
(unanimously) to:
i.
Note
that the officers recommend no change to the conventions at this
stage.
ii.
Consider
any changes to the conventions Members have suggested in light of experience
at meetings held so far.
iii.
Note
that a longer term review of the use of virtual meetings will be
undertaken as the national experience matures and in line with the council’s
own transformative agenda. |