Gosport Borough Council Policy and Organisation Board Meeting

There were none.

There were none.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on the 3^rd July 2024 be signed as a true and correct record.

There was none.

There was none.

Consideration was given to a report of the Manager of Planning Policy briefing Members regarding the content of the Government’s consultation document ‘Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and other changes to the planning system’ and set out key matters to form the basis of the Council’s formal response to the Government.

The Board was advised that this was the latest proposed reform and that the proposed response was set out in appendix 1. The Board was advised that the Government had permitted an extension to the deadline for response from 24 September to 30 September and that the response would be sent on the conclusion of that item.

Members commended the report of the Manager of Planning Policy and recognised that it was excellent and comprehensive.

It was highlighted to Members that the Green Belt, which had been introduced as part of post war legislation differed to the strategic gaps designated by local authorities as part of the local plan and it was acknowledged that the nearest Green Belt to the Borough was actually in the New Forest.

It was suggested that there could be an inclusion of a request to make the protection of strategic gaps, or strategic settlement gaps, more prominent in being protected, along the lines of the Green Belt, particularly as this was essential for areas such as Newgate Lane.

Members reiterated their concern that the gaps should be protected as they were critically important to Boroughs like Gosport. It was recognised that this could be achieved, and had been through designation of the Alver Valley Country Park but more needed to be protected as the Gap would come under significant pressure due to increased housing requirements in Fareham.

Members were advised that there would be a nervousness around a comparative of the Green Belt to the Strategic Gap as there was a new grey belt legislation that if the same designation was given it could place additional risk on to the strategic gap.

Members felt as a result that there should be the inclusion of a statement highlighting the importance of strategic gaps and their protection.

Some Members felt that the response to Question 20, which states ‘the Council has always taken a positive approach to developing brownfield sites,’  could be seen as one that was contradictory as the Council more recently was not taking full opportunity of developing brownfield sites such as the Bus Station site It would be hard to defend, particularly as legislation sought that the Borough should be facilitating the construction of 460 dwellings per annum.

Other Members welcomed the response to Question 20, acknowledging that options to build were limited and that it was inevitable in other areas that building would be upwards. By retaining the waterfront the views and the Borough’s gateway would be protected.

Members recognised that housing, particularly affordable housing would be required and wanted reassurance that any provided would not only be structurally sound, but have flood protection considered.

Members also recognised that there was currently an issue with viability and developers willingness to construct in the Borough.

Members also welcomed that more healthy options for food and takeaways were now beginning to open.

Members requested that investigation be made as to whether there was any flexibility in reducing planning permission fees for developments that were in greater need such as units to support disabilities and it was advised that this would be referred to the Development Manager.

RESOLVED:

That the Board agreed the responses to the Government’s consultation questions as set out in Appendix 1 of the report including the additional comments identified.

Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Commercial Property setting out the background and proposals following discussions with Vivid Homes, for their purchase of the freehold interest of the site which is currently leased to them by the Council.

Members were advised that it was a very straightforward report for ¾ of an acre site with the existing lease dated from 1996. The 10 bedsits had not been in use for sometime and the intention was that an additional 7 affordable homes would be created with bidding rights.

The Board was advised that the sum of £325,000 was towards the top of the valuation, and each additional unit secured would generate another £10000 for the Council.

Members recognised that this was a positive story and would provide much needed affordable homes and that was bringing back in to use part of a building that had been emptied for a number of years. The price had been agreed on the basis of a long lease being in place.

It was recognised that the Head of Housing, the Head of Commercial Property had worked significantly on the project to allow it to come to fruition.

Members hoped that empty properties would continue to be brought back into use to provide much needed homes.

A Member advised that they were mindful that the guarantee of £10000 extra to the Council per property should not compromise the planning process.

RESOLVED:

That the Board approve:

i)      The surrender of the current Lease to Vivid (with 72 years remaining)

ii)     The disposal of the freehold interest of the demised land and buildings to Vivid Homes on the terms set out below. 

iii)   Grant delegated authority to the Borough Solicitor & Monitoring Officer and in conjunction with the Head of Commercial Property, Gosport to conclude negotiations and complete the disposal.

Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Environmental Health and Corporate Safety Officer introducing a revised and updated Health and Safety Policy for Comment and approval.

The Board was advised that the Policy had not been reviewed since 2021 and that organisational changes meant that it was important that it was revisited and this had been done in conjunction with the corporate Health and Safety Officer and CMT.

Members questioned whether it being listed that the as being continued to be developed was accurate and were advised that development of the Prime software was still on going and suggested it be amended to further developed and maintained.

Members welcomed the new system and were grateful for the work that had been undertaken by the Chief Executive and Officers to reach this point.

Members were advised that the policy would be reviewed when required or if legislation changed and that this could more frequently than annually.

RESOLVED: That the Board approves the Health and Safety Policy and delegates authority to the Chief Executive to make any minor amendments.

Consideration was given to the report of the Chief Internal Auditor seeking approval for the Annual Governance Statement 2022/23.

The Board was reminded of the current position in that there was a backlog in submitting the final accounts but that there was an end date for final accounts in the next few months.

A Member highlighted some typographical tweaks with regard to the context of the of the report and advised that the there was an error in the proportionality listing in the report in that the percentages did not match the figures. The changes as a result of the Boundary commission’s work had also been completed at that point.

As a result some Members felt they could not support the signing of the document as it was not accurate.

RESOLVED: That the Policy and Organisation Board approve the Annual Governance Statement 2022/23.

Consideration was given to a report of the Chief Internal Auditor detailing the final Annual Governance Statement (AGS) 2023/24 having been recommended by the Standards and Audit Sub Board.

A Member highlighted the same discrepancy in proportionality as the previous report.

The Board was advised that the reporting would be in line with the amendments from the guidance listed as a result of the delay in the audit reporting process. This related to the issuing of assurance and it was that there would be a return to the issuing of an unqualified opinion in 2026/27.

RESOLVED: That the Board approve the Annual Governance Statement 2023/24.

Consideration was given to a report of the External Auditor summarising the status of our 2023/24 audit. An update will be made to the Board on further progress to that date and explain the remaining steps to the issue of our final opinion.

Members welcomed the report and were advised that the paper now identified a significant risk within the valuation of property and plant equipment and assets around valuations and depreciation based on previous valuations but this had now been resolved.

The capacity in some departments had been identified as a risk and that systems and processes were being updated to reduce the issues. Reliance on an individual for work and information had the potential to create a bottle neck. The Value for Money work on the pensions had not yet been completed which had also been raised.

The Board was advised that recruitment had been undertaken and that back up options were being considered but that the issues identified were not uncommon for smaller authorities and that it could be potentially mitigated as a result of the partnership with Portsmouth City Council.

Some skill sets, particularly involving the preparation of statements and accounts were increasingly difficult to recruit to.

Members recognised the potential consequences of IFRS16 and the impact this could have on the financial statement.

A small number of typographic errors were identified and amended and Members sought clarification as to why the fees for external audit had significantly increased.

The Board was advised that there was an increase of work as a result of the identified backlog and that there was a national framework that the majority of Authorities and External Auditors were part of. The pricing was within that framework and the Council benefited from economies of scale. The work was packaged into lots which were bid on by the External Auditor and the fees charged were consistent with national fees and not GBC specific.

The Board was advised that the identified point of valuation had no bearing on the Council’s financial position.

RESOLVED: That the Board notes the report. 

Consideration was given to a report of the Borough Treasurer summarising the outturn position for the 2023/24 financial year and recommending the approval of the Statement of Accounts for 2023/24.

The Board was advised that the issue relating to EY’s work on pensions remained and that this would be amended upon conclusion.

Members sought some clarification on wording and this was typographically amended. The Board was advised that the Letter of Representation would follow separately and that it could be signed and as a result would be deleted from the recommendation.

Members had clarification on slippage as provided within the document.

RESOLVED:

i)   The Board note the outturn position summarised in the report and the Narrative Report contained in the Statement of Accounts (Appendix A)

ii)   The Board approves the Statement of Accounts for 2023/24 at

  Appendix A (subject to point iv)

iii)  The Board delegate to the Borough Treasurer in consultation with        the Chairman of the Policy & Organisation Board the decision to      agree any final changes to the financial statement arising from the completion of the audit.

Consideration was given to a report of the Borough Treasurer detailing the Annual Treasury Report as a requirement of the Council’s reporting procedures and it covers the treasury activity for 2023/24 together with an in year review 2024/25. The report also includes the Prudential Indicators for 2023/24 in accordance with the requirements of the Prudential Code.

RESOLVED:

The Board notes

·         The Treasury Management outturn report 2023/24 as identified in 2.2

·         The Treasury Management position for 2024/25 at the end of August 2024 as identified in 2.3

·         The Prudential Indicators outturn report 2023/24 as identified in 2.4

·         The Prudential Indicators update 2024/25 as identified in 2.5

The Board was advised that there was a verbal update on an item that would be detailed to Members in exempt session.

RESOLVED: That in relation to the following items the public and press should be excluded from the meeting, as it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during this item there would be disclosure to them of exempt information within Paragraph 1 and 3 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, and further that in all circumstances of the cases the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information, for the reasons set out in the reports.

RESOLVED: That the Board give consideration to a cross party panel to review the performance of Statutory Officers.