Agenda item

To inform Members of the Internal Audit activity progress in relation to the approved Internal Audit Plan 2021/22.

The Head of Audit Risk Assurance (ARA) introduced report and explained that it consisted of 3 activities and further explained each activity. 

With regards the Green Homes Grant it was confirmed that the grant conditions had been complied with and there had been one recommendation for corporate guidance to be created The assurance and consultation activities were both based around the planning department; Planning Enforcement and Planning Applications. The Head of ARA drew the Committees attention to the length of time that was put into these two pieces of work, which resulted in a change to the Internal audit plan found on page 35 of the document pack. He also drew the Committees attention to the large amount of consultation work undertaken within the planning enforcement report and, as a result of this work, they had drafted a business improvement plan with clear actions and deadlines.

Councillor Kay commended Internal Audit for producing two high quality audit reports.

In response to a question from Councillor Kay, the Head of ARA explained that the planning team were already aware of many of the issues prior to the audit such as IT issues and Staffing levels. The piece of work completed was a challenge in itself due to the volume of work required but the resulting action plan identified all of the issues and if accepted would help to resolve them.

Councillor Davies asked questions and received the following answers:

• The service had required additional temporary agency staff that year to support with the work load and although there had been no formal decisions or proposals with regards the budget at that time. The Strategic Director of Resources confirmed that where there was an urgent need for resources additional support would always be provided.
• The Head of ARA agreed to respond outside of the meeting to Councillor Davies with the specific figures surrounding the details of the Parish and Town Councils’ complaints.  
• Page 52 referenced training to be provided to Councillors and Town and Parish Councils.
• It was confirmed that the Head of Development Management met with the Chair of the Development Control Committee (DCC) on a weekly basis.
• The KPI’s were agreed to be circulated to the DCC bi-annually, the most recent taking place at the October 2021 meeting. It is then circulated as part of the weekly update sent to all Members.

Councillor Davies raised a concern that the report did not contain enough information. He requested further information surrounding communication with Parish Councils including; figures surrounding Parish Council complaints, which ones where acknowledged, acted upon or action taken against. 

Councillor Pearson raised concerns over the reticence of the Council to follow through with enforcement action and questioned if this was apparent in the feedback from the consultation. The Principal Auditor confirmed that there was reference to that in the consultation.

In Response to questions the Head of Development Management gave the following answers:

• Enforcement Officers were not qualified planners as it was not essential for the role, not many qualified planners went into enforcement.
• It was difficult to recruit for the enforcement team which was a common theme among other councils.
• There was a priority system in place for enforcement as well as a triage system. One of the proposals of the business plan is to strengthen those systems.
• SDC had purchased a new case management system which would enable officers to see the cases as they made their way through the process.
• During an investigation, as the case progressed into its final stages, it would be viewed by qualified planners.
• Once a case is closed the complainant should receive a formal notification. This had previously been a problem area and would be looked at as part of the business improvement plan. There would be a new process set up which would be aided by the case management system, to provide tailored responses to the complainants. 
• The enforcement process was not a straightforward process and required all other attempts to resolve before enforcement action was taken.

Councillor Pearson questioned whether there was a difference between breaching an approved planning consent with conditions and building without planning consent, to which the Head of Development Management explained there was not a difference with regards to enforcement. She further explained that in order to take enforcement action they needed to prove material harm. She then informed the Committee that the Government had identified this issue in the white paper and were planning to strengthen the process and provide Councils with greater powers.

In response to further questions, the Head of Development Management and Development Team Manager confirmed:

·         There were plans in place to provide Parish and Town councils with the current enforcement process so they knew what to expect.

·         The report which was taken to DCC in October contained enforcement figures which included how often notices were served.

·         When enforcement action was undertaken, it was not widely publicised however, it was published on the planning register which is publicly available.

In response to concerns raised by Councillor Davies, the Head of Development Management confirmed the following:

• An agreement with the applicant/agent was required for every extension of time.
• Most extensions were a result of outstanding responses from third party consultees such as Gloucester County Council (GCC) Highways and The Environment Agency.
• It was their intention to use the results from the Audit Report to approach the third parties to raise the issue further.

The Chair questioned whether they could extract data to show if SDC was at fault for a time extension or whether it was due to third parties correspondence to which, the Head of Development Management confirmed that could be done.

Councillor Pearcy questioned whether there were plans to reinstate the Parish and Town Council Forum. The Strategic Director of Resources confirmed that this was the case and they were working on re-establishing that forum.

The Chair proposed to accept the report with the caveat that additional work be undertaken with regards to the communication with Parish Councils and the determination with what happens with enforcement as requested by Councillor Davies earlier in the meeting.

Councillor Davies seconded. 

Councillor Kay debated whether it should be a recommendation to the DCC.

Councillor Davies proposed the amendment to add in a time scale to bring the additional information back by the April Committee.

The Head of ARA informed the committee of the time constraints that the additional work would put on the Internal Audit Plan and asked the Committee to consider the benefits.

The strategic Director of Resources informed the Committee he would liaise with the Head of ARA to arrange for a date for the additional information to be provided. In the meantime, he asked the Committee to consider accepting the report in order to progress the action plan for the Planning department.

Councillor Davies amended his original amendment to request that a report was brought back to committee within an agreed timescale as opposed to the April Committee. The amendment was confirmed by the Committee and the Strategic Director of Resources informed the committee he would confirm the date at the next Committee meeting.

After being put to a vote, the amendment was carried.

Councillor Davies proposed and Councillor Kay seconded.

After being put to a vote, the Motion was carried.