Meeting documents

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 October, 2016, attached as an appendix.

RESOLVED –

That the Minutes of 11 October, 2016, be approved as a correct record.

Councillor Mrs Macpherson

Cabinet Member for Leisure, Communities and Civic Amenities

To consider the attached report.

Contact Officer:  Will Rysdale (01296) 585561

(a)          Decision(s)

That, having noted the position concerning "Play around the Parishes" and the purple flag scheme, the Chief Executive, after consultation with the Cabinet Member for Communities, Leisure and Civic Amenities, be authorised to implement the proposals set out in the Appendix attached to the Cabinet report.

(b)          Reason(s) for Decision(s)

To accord with the Council’s decision to operate in a commercial manner, mitigating the significant reductions in Central Government support by a combination of efficiency savings, income generation and new ways of delivering services which do not require direct Council resource input.

(c)        Alternative Options Considered

To continue to provide services in the traditional manner, but this is not an option in the current and likely continuing severe financial climate and the Council needs to explore all the options for on-going service delivery.

(d)       Relevant Scrutiny Committee

Environment and Living.  That Committee has already had an opportunity to consider this matter and was supportive of the proposals.  However, the Committee asked that Equality Impact Assessments be carried out in respect of the services in question.  These had subsequently been carried out and the outcome was summarised in the Cabinet report.  Cabinet noted that it had been concluded that AVDC should continue to offer the "Play Around the Parishes" scheme, although continue to examine alternative means of funding, and the "Purple Flag" accreditation.

(e)        Conflicts of Interest / Dispensation(s)

None.

The Council was seeking ways to mitigate continuing reductions in Government funding support and had embarked upon a major transformational programme designed to maximise income generation and efficiencies to ensure continued delivery of those services most valued by customers.  The changes would enable the Council to operate in a more commercial way.  As part of the commercial AVDC programme a review of the Communities Team had been undertaken and details of the outcome of the review formed an Appendix to the Cabinet report.

The current Communities Team sat within the Community Fulfilment Sector and comprised various sub teams including Community Safety, Community Engagement, Grants and Projects Support and the Communities Delivery Team.  The role of these teams varied dramatically, with each providing a range of both statutory and discretionary services.  There was however little doubt that the work of the Team as a whole provided major benefits to the community in line with the Council’s mission to ensure the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of the Vale.

The review report had been considered by the Environment and Living Scrutiny Committee which was largely supportive of the proposals.  However the Committee had asked for equality impact assessments to be undertaken in relation to those services that were at risk.

Cabinet was advised that subsequently Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) had been completed for the 16 projects that were either recommended for cessation or where it was proposed to examine alternative ways of delivery.  The aim for the majority of the projects was to find a new provider, but for the purposes of the EIAs it had been assumed that all the projects would stop if AVDC ceased funding them.  The EIAs had looked at whether there would be a detrimental impact on any of the nine protected characteristics if cessation were to be pursued.

Of the 16 assessments, 5 projects were ones which the Council supported, but which were run by other organisations.  The impact of stopping Council support was minimal as the projects would continue to operate without AVDC’s support.  In examples such as the Funding Fair, the remaining partners might choose to hold the event in the south of the county which could mean that it was more difficult for Aylesbury Vale residents to attend, but this would not have a detrimental effect.  The "Purple Flag" submission also fell into this category because even if the Council ceased applying for the accreditation, community safety work would continue to ensure a safe night time economy.

Seven of the projects could be categorised as being one off or an annual programme of events which were promoted broadly to all sectors of the community, but not specifically to any one.  These projects had different attendees year on year depending on the location, date of the event and type of performance offered, for example, in the case of the "Theatre in Villages" and "Music in quiet Places".  For these reasons, there might be an expectation within community groups that a project would take place  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

Councillor Mordue

Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Compliance

To consider the attached report.

Contact Officer:  Andrew Small (01296) 585507

(a)          Decision(s)

That the approach proposed in the Cabinet report for developing the 2017/2018 budget and the Medium Term Financial Plan be approved.

(b)          Reason(s) for Decision(s)

The Council is required to set a budget for the forthcoming financial year.  The decisions will feed into the Medium Term Financial Plan within the context of planning future years’ expenditure.

(c)        Alternative Options Considered

None as such.  There will be a range of options going forward as more detailed information becomes available in relation to key invariables.

(d)       Relevant Scrutiny Committee

Finance and Services.  This is the first stage in the development of the budget for 2017/2018 and gives a high level overview of the key factors that will affect the final proposals, which will in due course be subject to scrutiny by the Committee.

(e)        Conflicts of Interest / Dispensation(s)

None.

Cabinet received a high level report setting out the issues facing the Council in developing budget proposals for 2017/2018 within the context of the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP).

The current MTFP for 2017/2018 had been agreed by Council in February, 2016.  This had predicted the need to identify £1.6 million of savings in order to balance the budget for 2017/2018, based upon the information available at that time and a set of assumptions around key variables within the budget.  These key assumptions would be revisited and reviewed as part of the budget planning process for 2017/2018 and for the four years thereafter, which made up the MTFP period.

Local government and most of the public sector had been managing the consequences of the Government’s balancing of the public sector funding equation over the last 6 years, whilst at the same time managing the expectations of Vale residents.  With the recent change in Prime Minister and the European Referendum result, there were indications that the Government might soften its stance on austerity.  However, it was currently considered unlikely that this would have any material impact on the targets local government had already been set for the period up to 2019/2020.

Whilst the Government worked to determine its position on Brexit and the implications for austerity longer term, there was likely to be a hiatus.  Some clarity was however expected to materialise in the new Chancellor’s Autumn Statement, due to be made on 23 November.  It was nevertheless expected that the need to reduce Government borrowing was unlikely to diminish significantly in the short term and so it seemed unlikely that the Government would deviate from the 4 year spending settlement previously announced.

The tone of the report now before Cabinet was therefore still primarily focussed around the delivery of savings and new income generating targets identified last year.  Members were informed that the budget planning process would follow broadly the same as in previous years and a timetable was submitted.

The on-going work of officers and Cabinet Members under the commercialisation programme to deliver efficiencies, savings and new income again should mean that the process could be condensed.  This was achievable because any strategic choices relating to the level or means of service delivery had already been debated and scrutinised throughout the year and therefore, were not required to be agreed as part of the budget planning process.

The commercialisation programme was being delivered as a 4 year programme of co-ordinated works and services reviews and not as 4 separate annual decision making rounds which presented Members with multiple, equally unpalatable choices around service cuts.  This minimised the amount of decision making required as part of this annual refresh and update of the MTFP.

Members recalled that last year the Government had offered a multi year financial settlement to those councils who wanted it.  Along with the majority of councils across the country, AVDC had opted to accept the offer because of the certainty this afforded.  The Council was awaiting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Councillor Mordue

Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Compliance

To consider the attached report.

Contact Officer:  Andrew Small (01296) 585507

(a)          Decision(s)

That Council be recommended to opt in to the Appointing Person arrangements made by the Public Sector Audit Appointments (PSAA) for the appointment of external auditors.

(b)          Reason(s) for Decision(s)

A sector wide procurement conducted by the PSAA is likely to produce better outcomes for the Council than any procurement exercise undertaken by the Council itself.  Use of the PSAA will also be less resource intensive than establishing an auditor panel and the Council conducting  its own procurement.

(c)        Alternative Options Considered

To establish an auditor appointment panel with the Council conducting its own procurement.  However as mentioned above this would be much more resource intensive, and without the bulk buying power of the sector led procurement process, would be likely to result in a more costly service.

(d)       Relevant Scrutiny Committee

Finance and Services.  However, as the recommendation will be submitted to full Council, it is not subject to call-in.  (A report has also been prepared for the Audit Committee)

(e)        Conflicts of Interest / Dispensation(s)

None.

As part of closing the Audit Commission, the Government had novated external audit contracts to Public Sector Audit Appointments (PSAA) on 1 April, 2015.  The audit appointments were due to expire following the conclusion of the audit of the 2017/2018 accounts, but could be extended for a period of up to three years by PSAA, subject to approval from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG).

In October, 2015, the Secretary of State had confirmed that the transitional provisions would be amended to allow an extension of the contracts for a period of one year.  This meant that for the audit of the 2018/2019 accounts, it would be necessary for authorities to either undertake their own procurements or to opt in to the Appointed Person regime.

There had been a degree of uncertainty around the Appointed Person regime until July this year when PSAA had been specified by the Secretary of State as an Appointing Person under Regulation 3 of the Local Audit (Appointing Person) Regulations 2015.  The Appointing Person was sometimes referred to as the sector led body and PSAA had wide support across most of local government.  PSAA had originally been established to operate the transitional arrangements following the closure of the Audit Commission and was a company owned by the Local Government Association’s Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA).

The date by authorities needed to opt in to the Appointing Person arrangements had not yet been finalised.  However it was anticipated that invitations to opt in would be issued in December, 2016 and a response might  be required before the Council meeting in February.  There was no Council meeting in January and it was therefore important to deal with this issue at the December Council meeting.

Members were advised of the main advantages of using the PSAA, as set out in their prospectus, attached to the Cabinet report. However, the key points were:-

·         Ensuring timely auditor appointments.

·         Managing independence of auditors.

·         Securing highly competitive prices.

·         Saving on procurement costs.

·         Savings in time and effort on auditor panels.

·         Enabling focus on audit quality.

·         PSAA operated on a not for profit basis and distributed any surplus funds to scheme members.

The Council could establish an auditor appointment panel and conduct its own procurement but this would be a resource intensive process, and without the bulk buying power of the sector led procurement route, would be likely to result in a more costly service.  Members felt that a sector wide appointment would produce a better outcome for the Council and accordingly, it was,

RESOLVED –

That Council be recommended to agree that AVDC should opt in to the Appointing Person arrangements made by Public Sector Appointments (PSAA) for the appointment of external auditors.