Agenda item

Consideration was given to a report presented by the Policy Officer, Commissioning, Policy and Performance which outlined the specific provisions of the Localism Act, 2011, the ways in which these had been implemented and the risks arising to the Council. 

The Policy Officer informed the Audit Committee that a number of these risks had been well embedded into the Directorate Risk Registers.  There remained some risks that could not be quantified, for example, risks relating to community interests would only become ‘risks’ following expressions of interest.

The risks to the Council under the provisions of the Localism Act, 2011 included: -

• Council Tax – ‘excessive’ proposed increases would be subject to a referendum.  This included the setting of the precept by a ‘major precepting authority’ (Fire or Police) and a ‘local precepting authority’ (parish Council).  As the billing authority, Councils would have responsibility for arranging referendums. 
  • The Council would need to be aware of the trigger percentage for a referendum set by the Government when setting the annual Council tax level. 

• Community Right to Challenge: - The Commissioning and Procurement Team had been preparing a Forward Plan/Contracts Register that demonstrated all existing contracted services, the nature of the commissioned/procured business and the expiry date of the contract.  This formed part of the key data set that would allow potential suppliers/providers to express interest in delivering future services for the Council.

• Development of Neighbourhood Plans: -  The Local Authority may wish, or be required, to support the financing of Neighbourhood Plans.  Pilots had demonstrated that the cost of producing an Order to be at least £20k, which would be met through existing budgets as local authorities could not bid for Central Government funding. 

• Community Right to Build: - Under this provision, certain community organisations, along with a developer, had the right to bring forward small scale developments on specific sites without the need for planning permission.  Local referendums would establish whether members of defined neighbourhoods supported the Community Right to Build Order.  If more than 50% were in favour, the Planning Authority must grant permission.  Where there were designated business areas covered by the proposed Neighbourhood Plan or Community Right to Build Order, an additional business rate referendum would take place. 

• Housing: -  A thirty-year investment strategy was required and had been put into place by the Local Authority.  The Local Authority was also undertaking consultation in relation to the Housing Allocation and Tenure Reform policies. 

• Assets of Community Value: -  The Local Authority was charged with maintaining a list of assets of community value, which could include buildings or land.  Parish Councils and community and voluntary organisations could nominate assets to be included on the list.  Assets may be removed from the list after a period of five years.  There was a risk that this provision may become confused with local policies relating to asset transfer.  Risks relating to this provision would be commensurate with the number of nominations to the list, together with the number and complexity of appeals from the nominated asset’s owner and the number of assets that were offered for sale that community organisations would have the right to buy before the asset was placed on the open market.   

Discussion ensued and the following issues were raised by members of the Audit Committee: -

·        Arrangements for appeals to be heard;

·        Liability of the Local Authority in relation to compensation claims arising under through the assets of community value list.   

Resolved: - (1)  That the report be received and its content noted. 

(2)  That the Council’s risk management approach to certain provisions of the Localism Act, 2011, be noted.