Agenda item - Public Involvement

To consider the following matters raised by members of the public:

(a)         Petitions: to receive any petitions presented to the full council or at the meeting itself;

(b)         Written Questions: to receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 8 January 2020;

(c)       Deputations: to receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 8 January 2020.

(B)     WRITTEN QUESTIONS

(i)           Procedural and Financial Governance Failures on Valley Gardens Project

37.1      Rob Shepherd put the following question:

“Given the issues on Page 65, agenda item 40, we're sure the committee will welcome this timely contribution.

Valley Gardens Phase 3 falls far short of the Benefits-to-Costs-Ratio threshold needed to secure public funds, but by erroneously inflating benefits more than 100%, secured substantial funds.

Two pertinent errors were communicated to Council Leader, CEO and CFO in November. No doubt you're investigating how council procedures permitted this gross failure in Financial Governance and the steps being taken to correct the problem quickly and manage reputational risk.

Given lack of feedback, we wonder what else we should do to expedite matters?”

37.2      The Chair provided the following reply:

“Thank you for your question, Mr. Shepherd. You have written numerous emails to Members and Officers, stating your various technical concerns about the content of the Valley Gardens Phase 3 Business Case. This has led to you alleging that the said business case is seriously flawed.

You have, in the past, received responses to these concerns and this allegation, which have, in turn, prompted you to suggest that the matter has not been managed appropriately or diligently by officers.   

In my role as Chair of the Council’s Audit and Standards Committee, may I assure you, other members of the general public, my fellow Committee members, and all other Brighton & Hove City Councillors, that each and every one of your concerns and accusations have been rigorously examined.

The result of those examinations is that officers advise me that there are no technical errors within the Business Case, affecting the calculations which informed the assessment of the scheme. 

There are thus no associated implications for the Local Enterprise Partnership’s decisions to provide the £6 million pounds of funding, allocated in principle to the council. 

This is perhaps of no surprise given that the Business Case document was: -

·         produced by expert consultants with significant experience in this field;

·         prepared in accordance with the Local Enterprise Partnership’s requirements; and

·         independently audited for the Local Enterprise Partnership and its advisors. 

I hope you agree that, on this basis, your concerns have been allayed.  

I can appreciate your concerns regarding the time that it has taken to reach these conclusions. However, given their seriousness, it was essential that all the points you raised were comprehensively reviewed, in order for a conclusion to be reached. 

In addition to my assurances here and now, you will receive a full written response to all your technical queries from officers later this week.”

37.3      Rob Shepherd asked the following supplementary question:

“Were you aware of the fact that the consultant was advised that the business case counted items within the scheme, things in support when actually, they should be against. Will you please expose all documentation relating to this matter as it is clearly incorrect?”

37.4      The Chair provided the following reply:

“As I have said, you will receive further information from officers. Whilst I cannot say that all documents can be provided, greater detail can possibly be given, and I will ask officers to provide that”.

(ii)          Valley Gardens Audit

37.5      Daniel Nathan put the following question:

"The audit report attached to Agenda item 40 is disappointing in the way it lacks the forensic rigour with which one can assess the validity of the numerous assertions it makes. Given that this document has taken six months to produce, I’m puzzled that there is so little supporting data.  Would the Chair confirm that this committee will require the internal audit team to remedy this situation - by producing an appendix containing the evidence they used to make each assertion?" 

37.6      The Chair provided the following reply:

“Thank you for your letter, Mr. Nathan. It’s good to see you again.

I am sorry you found the report to be disappointing.

In answer to your question, ‘no’, I shall not issue any such confirmation.

The Internal Audit report has met the requirements of the desktop review commissioned by the Audit & Standards Committee. The report was written is accordance with professional standards and was properly reviewed before being published.

It is not normal practice for Internal Audit to make its working papers available. Ultimately such a policy might constrain their ability to deliver an effective and efficient service. Where such detailed working papers have been put into the public domain, this has been in response to a Freedom of Information request. Such a process allows for proper consideration of whether there is any personal or commercial information that needs to be redacted in accordance with the Data Protection Act.”