To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received by Councillors Lilly Evans and Lisa Targowska.

To receive any declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of interest received.

To approve the Part I minutes of the meeting held on 8 September 2015.

The Part I minutes of the meeting held on 8 September 2015 were approved as a true and correct record subject to the following amendments:

·         17/15 Statement of Account 2014-15 Following Audit.  Add to the recommendation that the Finance Department be commended for their work.

·         Add Cllr Rankin as in attendance.

·         Change Cllr ‘Carrol’ to Cllr Carroll.

The Chairman requested that the requests / updates made at the meeting be circulated to Members.

To consider the Annual Audit Letter 2014/15.

Duncan Laird introduced the Annual Audit Letter 2014/15 that summarised the key findings of KPMG’s audit of RBWM’s financial statement and VFM conclusion.  The report brought together identified risk elements, summarised the outputs from their financial audits of the borough including those of the Pension Fund and it was the last document brought to the Panel before they closed the 2015/15 audit.  They had now seen the Pension funds Annual Report and were in the process of drafting a response to a public objection to the accounts.

The Chairman asked for clarification if the inquiry to the accounts from a resident had turned into an objection and was informed that the resident had confirmed that they wanted their inquiry to become an objection and this related to process and thus did not change the over all conclusion.

Cllr Carroll questioned the benchmark for the audit fee and was informed that the audit fee was set by the public sector audit body (previously the Audit Commission) and would benchmark against similar sized organisations.   The Chairman informed that over the last couple of years there had been a reduction in fees because of this benchmarking.

Cllr Rankin pointed out that the report showed that the authority was maintaining an efficient use of resources whilst maintaining service delivery to residents.

To consider the report.

The Chairman informed that he had asked for this to come to Panel as there had been a long journey since the ICT Strategy had been adopted, we had new Members and we did  not have in any one place the journey the authority had undertaken; it was often forgotten where we started from to where we are today. 

There had been a lot of successes behind us and it was a good time to review the journey.  RBWM started with a strategy document in 2010; that was not very good and thus was updated in 2012. Rocco Labellarte  joined the authority and took on this challenge.

Rocco Labellarte informed that the report before the Panel gave an indication of the journey they had been on with regards to implementing the ICT strategy and its subsequent updates.  There had been a lack of investment in ICT so the strategy was starting from a low base, however in 2012 there was a shift from traditional working methods towards investment into ‘the cloud’ and the smarter working project.  The report showed 17 key achievements and if you looked back to 2012 this showed the challenges faced by the authority; it was a useful reflection of what we didn’t have at that time.

Today we have a new website, joined up procurement and asset management, remote working was now embedded as was the use of Wi-Fi and mobile technology.  We now have a reasonable decent infrastructure with better enablement of technology.  A better resilient and defended environment had been introduced with frequent security checks showing year on year improvements.   The authority was now about two thirds along the journey.   We have moved form a capital intensive strategy to a hosted basis and the vast majority of business applications were now up to date.

Moving forward the authority was working towards a digital 24/7 council with the new website being refined. The introduction of a ‘residents account’ would form the foundation of bringing together services for residents and businesses as part of the digital transformation of our offer.

Cllr Jones asked if wireless networking was going to be introduced to York House, Windsor, and was informed that yes York House would be wireless enabled.  With regards to a question about how the ‘Paris’ system was utilised differently by Adult Services and Children’s service the panel were informed that Paris was one of the case management systems that the authority used that needed rationalisation.  There was a general consensus that we need to move away from Paris to another solution, it was a complex move that would take at least two to three years to achieve the business and efficiency needs.

Cllr Rankin questioned the current position of the CRM replacement system and was informed that the aim was to have a single contact point for the resident that then went through the system to follow the journey of the contact.  There had been one procurement process that hadn’t delivered a workable solution so they  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To consider the use of Council reserves.

Richard Bunn presented the paper that analysed the use of ‘Usable’ and ‘Unusable’ reserves held by the authority.  The Panel were informed that there were 6 main usable categories:

·         The General Fund, which was the main revenue from which the costs of service is met.

·         Capital Reserves used for funding capital expenditure on short life assets.

·         Insurance Reserves an internal insurance provision to cover the policy excesses met by the Council under its insurance arrangements for claims for damage to its own assets and its financial exposure to legal liability claims from third parties and employees.

·         Corporate Development Fund that is utilised to pump-prime savings generating initiatives and general infrastructure support around the Borough.

·         Capital Grants Unapplied.  This reserve holds capital grants when all conditions of the grant have been met. The grant is recognised in the Comprehensive Income & Expenditure Statement and reversed out to the reserve via the Movement in Reserves

·         School Revenue Balances & DSG Reserve.  Schools receive delegated funding (known as the Individual Schools Budget (ISB)) each year to support expenditure on pupils.

Cllr Rankin questioned if the £3 million target under the Legacy Bridge Fund was achievable and if not should the £25k reserve be allocated elsewhere.  The Chairman asked if the £25k could be used by the legacy group to help fund initiatives to raise the £3 million.   The Panel were informed that it was part of the Participatory Budget but the campaign group had not raised the funding.

Cllr Jones questioned why the Capital Reserves allocation had decreased this year and was informed that funding to capital projects had not decreased it was a change in the way they were funded.  MRP had been used to help fund capital projects and thus reduce the need for loan repayments; this was being reduced as there was increased income from capital gains due to planned redevelopment projects.

It was also noted that the Thames Path Missing Link Fund still had expenditure outstanding and that each line of the document were separate accounts.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY:  That the Panel note the update.

To consider the presentation.

Mark Lampard circulated five years of data for the income generated by fines for:

·         Litter

·         Parking (off street)

·         Parking (on street)

·         School non-attendance

·         Library Fines

In 2010/11 the total amount of fines collected was £1,467,580 and the projected figure for 2016/16 was £832,361; officers felt that this reduction was down to better compliance.

Cllr E Wilson raised concern that residents often felt that there was a lack of enforcement and used the example of volunteers collecting rubbish in their local area often collect sacks of rubbish with no sign of enforcement.  Cllr E Wilson went on to ask if in this area resources had been decreased by 50% or if resilience had increased by 50%.  The Panel were informed that resources had not been reduced but there were only 18 wardens who have the power to issue fines regarding litter, officers were reviewing alternative ways of empowering other officers to be able to issue fines.

It was noted that the level of fines issued for dog fouling was significantly less then for litter as the public were more compliant when they see wardens in the vicinity. 

The Panel requested that if it was possible to see the fines issued at a ward level and it was suggested that heat mapping could be used to identify problematic areas.

The Chairman mentioned that he had raised concern about the temporary suspension of parking bays and the level of fines that were generated as it was not clear that parking had been suspended.  He recommended that if a bay / bays needed to be suspended then this should be for a limited period of time whilst work was being undertaken and that the organisation requesting the suspension should corner off the bays so there was no confusion.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Panel note the update.

To consider the presentation.

Simon Fletcher informed that a report was due to go to the Highways, Transport & Environment Overview & Scrutiny Panel so it had not been presented to this panel.  The Chairman said that this Panel wished to examine the effective use of resources in this area and asked Cllr Wilson to email his questions to officers with a report being scheduled for a future meeting in the New Year.

To consider the Operations Directorate Plan.

Simon Fletcher presented the Operations Directorate Business Plan 2015/16 – 2018/19.  The Panel were informed that the directorate plan set out the key outputs for the directorate and was supported by services plans detailing how these key outputs would be achieved.   It was proposed that the Audit and Performance Review Panel review the directorate plan on a regular basis to review progress against their objectives. Simon Fletcher went through the different sections of the plan and informed that it would be published on the RBWM website.

The chairman informed the Panel that he had asked for the plan to be monitored to asses performance and that it was good to see that the document contained mainly data rather then unnecessary words.  It was recommended that the name be changed to ‘service objectives’ rather then business plan.

In response to questions the Panel were informed that targets would have baseline data added to them where possible, that certain targets would be retained (even though they had consistent high performance) so they could  be monitored as we shift to more self service and that the directorate had been reduced from 8 heads of service to 7. 

It was noted that they could not target increased Penalty Charge Notices’ however as it was costing more to issue tickets then collected they were aiming to reach a break even point.   With regards to landfill a reduced target remained as only about 90% of waste could be recycled.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Panel note the plan and add a review to their work programme.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting whilst discussion takes place on following items on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1-7 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.

To consider the Part II minutes of the meeting held on 8 September 2015.