Agenda and draft minutes

Any substitute members should declare their substitution.

Members and officers must declare any disclosable pecuniary interests in relation to any business on the agenda.  Declarations should also be made at any stage such an interest becomes apparent during the meeting. 

If in doubt contact the Legal or Democratic Services representative for this meeting.

There were no declarations of interest made

To approve the minutes of the Joint Audit and Governance Committee meeting held on 29th January 2025, copies of which have been previously circulated.

The minutes of the meeting of the 29th January 2025 were approved as a correct record and be signed by the Chairman.

So as to provide the best opportunity for the Committee to provide the public with the fullest answer, questions from the public should be submitted by 12.00 noon on Thursday 6th March 2025

Where relevant notice of a question has not been given, the person presiding may either choose to give a response at the meeting or respond by undertaking to provide a written response within three working days.

Questions should be submitted to Democratic Services democratic.services@adur-worthing.gov.uk 

(Note: Public Question Time will operate for a maximum of 30 minutes.)

There were no public questions

Councillors who are not members of this committee can ask questions under CPR 12  Questions should be relevant to the committee where the question is being asked and also relevant to an item on the agenda. Please contact Democratic Services for more information

Members question time is 30 minutes and questions should be submitted no later than 12.00 noon on Thursday 6th March 2025.

Questions should be submitted to Democratic Services democratic.services@adur-worthing.gov.uk 

(Note: Members’ Question Time will operate for a maximum of 30 minutes.)

There were no questions from Members

To consider any items the Chairman of the meeting considers to be urgent.

There were no urgent items

To consider a report by Mazars copy attached as item 7

Members asked about the approach for medium and low priority actions, high priority actions that had not been finalised, the impact of devolution on audit work, the progress being made on housing complaints against timescales, how many times the auditors would attempt to contact officers regarding particular elements of evidence and were the plans for future audits achievable.

Members were informed that the approach discussed would continue to focus on a 100% completion rate for high priority actions first, with focus then moving to medium and low priority depending on completion rates; that the report represented a snapshot and that many of the high priority recommendations were closed but just hadn’t been updated; that any devolution discussion or work would have a minimal effect on audits and while mindful of it, staffing capacity and overall resource was the most common feature across authorities for delays in audit work; that while sufficient progress was not being made on the housing complaints audit, challenges were considered and that work was being done with an upcoming audit which would give a fresh position; that at most the auditors would attempt to contact officers four times; that plans for the 25/26 audit plan were considered achievable but it would remain under review with auditors conscious of staffing capacity and areas for improvement from the previous year and that the organisation would not be facing some of the same issues it faced during the recent reorganisation.

Members discussed how the report had been presented, with assurances given but no direct evidence to enforce them and that officers needed to be responding to auditors in a timely manner. Members also discussed the issue of devolution, the potential impact on audit and how previous audits would feed into a new authority.

Members resolved that they wished the Chief Executive be made aware, that the committee had noted the number of outstanding recommendations (pages 10-16 of the agenda pack) due to lack of responses from officers and their desire to see them resolved by the time of the next meeting of the committee.

To consider a report by Mazars, copy attached as item 8

The Committee had a report before it attached as item 8, which had been circulated to all Members, a copy of which is attached to a signed copy of these minutes. 

Members debated the number of audits recommended by the auditors and how achievable this was, that as a live document, they should be aware of the capacity of officers. Members observed that previous audits had faced similar issues with work being left incomplete and that as a non-executive committee, they would wait to see what progress had been made by the next meeting.

Resolved: 

The Joint Audit and Governance Committee noted the report.

To consider a report by the Director for Sustainability and Resources copy attached as item 9

The Committee had a report before it attached as item 9 which had been circulated to all Members, a copy of which is attached to a signed copy of these minutes. 

Members asked why the Strategic Property Investment Fund (SPIF) risk had worsened, for a clearer understanding of the references on page 53 of the report to Legal and Democratic Services, why the flood defence risk referenced on page 66 had worsened, for an elaboration of the financial risk on the redevelopment of the Worthing Civic Centre car park, 

Members were informed that due to a tenant ending their tenancy it had worsened the overall risk of the SPIF; that the changes which had presented challenges were previously unknown, but as they were now a known entity it resulted in the change from high risk to medium risk; that the worsening of the flood risk was due to the consultation by West Sussex County Council over the relocation of a legal right of way and that a report was being brought to the next Joint Strategic Committee meeting that should answer questions about the Worthing Civic Centre carp park.

Members debated the inclusion of devolution and local government restructure in the report, the potential impacts on the councils, officers and capacity that it would have, the contrast of housing supply as a major risk and the impact of building new houses on Chatsmore Farm and made comment on the improved changes of how the report was presented. 

Resolved:

The Joint Audit and Governance Committee:

• Noted the progress in managing the Risks and Opportunities;
• Reviewed the comments from the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee (JOSC) relating to how the risks and opportunities information was published and considered if any changes should be made; and
• Agreed to receive a further progress report in September 2025.

To consider a report by the Director for Housing and Communities copy attached as item 10

The Committee had a report before it attached as item 10, which had been circulated to all Members, a copy of which is attached to a signed copy of these minutes. 

Members asked about work being done to tackle damp and mould issues, breakdowns of data sets, how issues can be picked up and reported, the 16% of properties that have not been surveyed and tenant engagement meetings.

Members were informed that the Council had a dedicated surveyor for damp and mould and that if it was reported by a tenant the property was placed on a survey list; that the overall number of homes classed as indecent was 107 and the wider data set had various criteria they were broken down into; that currently services were not well joined up and that the assistant director was keen to begin a project whereby when a property could be accessed for a particular survey, other issues were looked for and reported as well and that in the engagement meetings, 64 residents had attended along with 5 ward councillors and themes from these meetings included repair and maintenance, communication access issues, social behaviour, supported housing and financial support

Resolved: 

The Joint Audit and Governance Committee noted the progress of the work being undertaken to ensure that Adur Homes became fully compliant with regulatory standards and the wider programme of transformation to create safe, secure and sustainable homes for residents.

To consider a report by the Assistant Director for Regeneration Development copy attached as item 11

The Committee had a report before it, attached as item 11, which had been circulated to all Members, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of these minutes.

Members asked for detail on the background behind certain timeline decision points. Members were told that information in the report was based on existing records, a lot of conversations occurred outside of documented decision making and that a lot of the new decision making infrastructure being introduced, had not existed 18 months previously.

Members discussed the role of cabinet members during the process and their involvement and what a referral of the issue may achieve.

Resolved:

The Joint Audit and Governance Committee:

·         Noted that project governance, which includes Budget Management Group, Mission Boards and Major Programmes Boards, had been introduced to the Councils’ ways of working. These boards were designed to provide a more diligent and robust control and monitoring of all phases of projects and programmes.

·         Noted that all projects would be initiated by a Project Initiation Document that was supported and reviewed by a Core Services Group, before and during Approval Stages, prior to becoming a live project for delivery. Closer monitoring and control would be applied to projects through their life-cycle via Mission Boards and the Major Programme Board to ensure it remained compliant to Decision Governance, Financial controls and delivery timelines.

·         Noted that through the new governance mechanisms, the control and monitoring of projects would also include the tracking of capital costs and revenue impact of the project, with improved alignment between them - this should also consider ‘rising tide’ situations where relatively small iterative decisions collectively cause issues.

·         Noted that all staff supporting the delivery of projects would receive regular training on their duties and the Decision Governance process, to ensure awareness and the actions required, to ensure approvals to spend, place contracts and delivery outcomes were known.

·         Recommended that the role of elected members during the Buckingham car park refurbishment process was referred to the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee