Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillor B. Kumar.

To invite Councillors to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary interests or Other Disclosable Interests they may have in items on the agenda, and to confirm the nature of those interests.

A declaration of interest was made by Councillor D.J. Nicholl, advising that he was a member of Whistleblowers UK.  No whipping arrangements were declared.

The minutes of the meeting for 8^th June 2026 were considered by the Committee.

A Member proposed that wording should be added that there had been discussions regarding potential future items for the risk register, including the sign-off of the accounts and economic challenges in the town centre, which was noted. 

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Audit, Standards and Governance Committee held on 8^th June 2026 be approved as a correct record.

The Committee considered the Monitoring Officers’ report by the Deputy Monitoring Officer and advised that since previous reporting the following complaints had been received and dealt with:

• Five member-to-member complaints, all resolved and all assessed as not conduct matters.
• One public complaint against a Member, which had been resolved.
• One complaint against a parish councillor, which had been resolved.
• One complaint by a parish council against a Member, which had been assessed and found not to be a conduct matter.
• A further complaint from a member of the public against a parish councillor had recently been received and was being assessed, most likely with a view to informal resolution.

It was also explained that there was a new section in the quarterly report concerning whistleblowing. Although no whistleblowing complaints had been received, it was advised that such matters would be reported quarterly and also monitored through the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) governance arrangements.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer also updated Members on the Constitution Review Working Group which had met on 10th July 2026.  Members noted that any recommendations would go to the Council meeting held on 15^th July 2026.

The Committee were also advised that the Member Development Steering Group had discussed the following:

• Social media training which had been identified as useful and was incorporated into the Code of Conduct training.
• Possible future regional social media training via the Local Government Association.
• Completion by all Members of cyber security training.
• Forthcoming AI training.

During Member’s consideration of the item, the following key points were discussed:

• How were staff made aware that the whistleblowing policy existed? – In response the Deputy Monitoring Officer explained that there had recently been a session at a management meeting where managers were reminded of the whistleblowing policy and those managers were expected to remind members of their team.
• A Member expressed the view that the level of complaints appeared high within the report, showing 15 member-to-member complaints in roughly 15 months amongst 31 members. It was questioned whether this was a good use of officer time and suggested Members should reflect on whether standards of behaviour could be improved.  The Chairman agreed and commented that group leaders should discuss behaviour with their party groups and consider how Members might be “kinder to one another”, indicating that this might appropriately form a recommendation.
• The Portfolio Holder for Finance requested clarity on the complaint statistics and expressed the view that the data wasn’t very clear. – In response the Deputy Monitoring Officer explained that she intended to hold a meeting with the relevant portfolio holder to discuss how best to present the data, without disclosing confidential complaint details. 
• Members discussed the report’s mention of Artificial Intelligence (AI) training and asked whether the Council had future plans to use AI when preparing committee reports.  It was also noted that Members had received a very large agenda pack and questioning whether such large packs were still necessary.  The Chairman added that Members could make better  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17/26

The Committee considered the Localism Act 2011 – Standards Regime – General and Individual Dispensations for the municipal year 2026/27.

It was explained that dispensations fell into four categories:

• General dispensations
• Council tax arrears
• Individual member dispensations
• Outside body appointment dispensations

The statutory grounds for a dispensation were set out in the report and

the table in the report listed dispensations previously granted which, if re-approved, would continue until the first meeting of the Committee in 2027/28.

It was also advised that there was one update since publication of the agenda in which Councillor Colella was no longer employed by South Staffordshire Water and therefore no longer required the relevant dispensation. Additional requested dispensations were also set out in the report for consideration.

Following the presentation the Chairman requested that Legal Officers discussed the practical application of dispensations and make the position clearer, particularly where councillors were appointed as trustees or outside body representatives but still needed to scrutinise those organisations. -  In response the Deputy Monitoring Officer replied that she was happy to provide further advice on the matter outside of the meeting.

RESOLVED that

1)         (Any Individual Member Dispensations (IMDs) and Outside

Body Appointments dispensations requested by Members up

to the point of the meeting, and as advised by the Monitoring

Officer at the meeting, was granted under section 33 (2) of the

Localism Act 2011, to allow those Member(s) to participate in

and vote at Council and Committee meetings in the individual circumstances detailed;

2)        The Audit, Standards and Governance Committee granted a

dispensation under Section 33 (2) of the Localism Act 2011 to allow Members to address Council and Committees in

circumstances where a member of the public may elect to

speak;

3)        Subject to the caveat set out in paragraph 4.9 of this report in

relation to setting the Council’s Budget, the Audit, Standards

and Governance Committee granted dispensations under

Section 33 (2) of the Localism Act 2011 to allow all Members to participate in and vote at Council and Committee meetings when considering the setting of:

a) the Budget;

b) Council Tax;

c) Members' Allowances; and

d) Non-Domestic Rates – Discretionary Rate Relief Policy and Guidance affecting properties within the District;

4)        It was noted that all dispensations granted by the Committee

take effect on receipt of a written request from Members for

such a dispensation and where Members may have a

Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in the matter under

consideration, which would otherwise preclude such

participation and voting; and

5)        It was noted that the dispensations referred to at resolutions

(1), (2) and (3) would remain valid until the first meeting of the Audit, Standards and Governance Committee in the 2027/28 municipal year unless amended by the Committee prior to that date.

After the presentation, Members discussed the following:

• Members drew attention to a figure in the 2023/24 accounts concerning additional housing benefit costs relating to bed and breakfast accommodation.  It was asked whether there had since been an increase in the number of people needing those services. –The Section 151 Officer replied that housing benefits claims, temporary accommodation and homelessness remained  with issues nationally and locally and would show in future reporting.  However, the detailed scrutiny of that matter would fall more naturally within Overview and Scrutiny than the Audit Committee.
• Wording in the accounts was queried, referring to six key priorities/strategic purposes, noting that there only appeared to be five shown within the report. - The Section 151 Officer acknowledged that they appeared to be a typographical error and would be corrected.

RESOLVED that the Audit, Standards and Governance Committee approved the Final Statement of Accounts for 2023/24 and 2024/25.

The Risk Champion, Councillor S.R. Colella firstly thanked the Section 151 Officer for his time and assistance with the role.  </AI13>It was reported that they had reviewed the risk register and discussed the development of:

• Target risk linked to risk appetite.
• The role of opportunities within risk management.
• Clarity over risk owners.
• Concerns around the limitations of the current approach, which he felt could be overly simplistic.
• The importance of better live updating and of allowing Members to put forward risks that they saw emerging.
• Two additional potential risks had been put forward by Members and were under consideration by Officers. 

The Risk Champion expressed the view that the development of the new risk process was likely to be a significant and ongoing piece of work.

A Member raised a query in relation to cyber security and whether feedback had been received following the recent hack and what lessons had been learned. – In response the Risk Champion acknowledged this as an issue that might be better picked up in a quarter one update.

The Chairman also thanked the Risk Champion for his involvement and noted that he was being more directly involved in the redesign of the risk process.

RESOLVED that following consideration the Committee were assured in respect of the Risk Champion’s verbalupdate.

The Committee then considered the wider corporate risk register and risk management process, including a detailed discussion of the planning performance and special measures risk. The Chairman had invited the Chairman of the Planning Committee and Assistant Director for Planning, Leisure and Culture Services to assist the Committee’s understanding of the issue.

The Chairman of Planning explained how Central Government currently measured local planning authority performance using four metrics:

• Speed of decision-making for major applications
• Quality of decision-making for major applications
• Speed of decision-making for minor applications
• Quality of decision-making for minor applications.

Members noted that quality was the more relevant concern for Bromsgrove District Council (BDC). The performance measure was based on a rolling two-year period of planning decisions, together with a time lag allowing appeals to conclude. The key threshold was that if more than 10% of relevant decisions were overturned at appeal, the authority could be designated as a poor performing planning authority.  It was explained that because BDC determined relatively small numbers of major applications, only a small number of appeal losses could significantly affect its percentage.  The Council had been at 6.7%, was currently at 7.1% and based on decisions already known, would inevitably exceed the 10% threshold.

It was explained that if the Council was designated as a poor performing authority, developers could apply directly to the Planning Inspectorate and bypass the local planning authority.  Nine authorities, including neighbouring authorities, had recently been placed in that position.  The
Chairman of the Planning Committee stressed that whilst designation was ultimately a ministerial decision the Council had in his view lost control of whether the threshold itself would be breached. 

The Assistant Director for Planning, Leisure and Culture Services explained in detail the data sheet which had been provided as follows:

• How the rolling two-year window was constructed.
• How an appeal decision was attributed back to the quarter in which the application had originally been determined.
• How the Council could therefore see some changes coming before they appeared in central government’s published data.

It was emphasised that the Council’s low number of major decisions meant the Council often lived on a “knife edge” because two or three appeal losses could tip the authority over the threshold.  It was also explained that government tended to review designation annually rather than every quarter, often by reference to end-of-March statistics, which meant that an authority might move above and below the threshold before government actually acted. It was also stressed that while the risk was real, the issue was finely balanced and should not be overstated; the Council might be above 10% briefly and then naturally fall back as the rolling period moved on.

It was further noted that a “major” application in this context could include what Officers sometimes referred to internally as “minor majors, not just very large strategic developments. It was therefore cautioned against assuming that a new Local Plan alone would remove the risk, because such appeal losses could arise even with an up-to-date  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21/26

The Section 151 Officer introduced the Financial Outturn Report and explained that this was not the outturn report itself but rather an overview describing the purpose and role of the outturn report. 

It was explained that the report sat between routine in year monitoring and the Statement of Accounts and was intended to help Members understand the end-of-year position rather than scrutinise performance in detail.

RESOLVED that the Audit, Standards and Governance Committee considered, with appropriate comment, the purpose of the Financial Outturn Report and relationship to the Draft Statement of Accounts elsewhere on this agenda, and the proposed future-year closedown timetable and reporting arrangements.

The Internal Audit Annual Report and Audit Opinion for 2025/26 was reported to Members.  It was explained that the report was required under the Global Internal Audit Standards and provided the following:

• An annual opinion on the adequacy of internal control, governance and risk management.
• A summary of the work undertaken and the basis for that opinion.
• Commentary on compliance with internal audit standards.

Members were advised that the organisation had been in flux during the year, including a new Chief Executive, numerous Section 151 Officers over a 12-month period and the recent appointment of a permanent Section 151 Officer. 

However, despite this, a number of positive governance developments had taken place including:

• Management proactively inviting internal audit to review areas of concern.
• The creation of a monthly governance focused SLT meeting which he had attended.
• Quarterly compliance reports for Heads of Service.
• Reinstatement of the Strategic Risk Management Group.
• Work on a new risk management strategy and refreshed service risk registers.

Members were informed that the Internal Audit’s overall opinion for 2025/26 was Reasonable assurance for governance but Limited assurance for internal control and risk management.

It was emphasised that while the results showed weaknesses, this also reflected a more open and transparent willingness by management to identify and address problem areas. It was also confirmed that overall internal audit was satisfied that the service had met its performance targets.

In response Members raised the following queries:

• A typographical error was highlighted in the report which detailed the incorrect portfolio holder.
• Members remarked that the report sounded quite damning in places and that the number of limited assurance audits appeared to be increasing over time, which suggested a deteriorating trend. It was queried whether the Committee could expect the position to improve by the next year. – The Head of Internal Audit responded that he did not in fact believe the situation was getting worse.  It was explained matters that had existed but not necessarily been fully exposed before were now being looked at openly and transparently, which were considered a positive.  Members noted that internal audit could not guarantee in advance that scores would improve but all of the limited assurance areas had been included again in the draft audit plan for a follow up review.
• A suggestion that reporting such as “things are getting better” would be more useful if supported by specific comparative information, such as figures showing the reduction in a backlog or delay. – The Head of Internal Audit accepted the suggestion and agreed to review this for future reporting.
• Some Members considered the report to be reassuring, noting in the report that the Chief Executive had established a new dedicated Governance SLT and invited the Head of Internal Audit to the meetings.
• The Chairman queried whether Internal Audit’s involvement in the new governance arrangements was reviewing areas such as the general ledger where progress had been made but reconciliations remained outstanding. – In response the Committee were advised that Internal Audit reviewed all  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23/26

The Section 151 Officer presented the Draft Statement of Accounts for 2025/26, explaining that together with the Annual Governance Statement it was one of the key statutory documents that was required to be produced and published by 30th June 2026. He praised to the Finance Team, achieving the deadline for a second consecutive year, despite previous concerns and recommendations around delays in producing the accounts. The Section 151 Officer also introduced the new Chief Accountant, who was in attendance to assist with technical questions.

The main points were outlined below:

• The accounts were currently in draft form; however, Members could raise questions, typographical issues or errors at this stage.
• There remained time before the auditors, Ernst and Young, would begin the bulk of their work later in the year, expected around October 2026 onwards.
• The final audited accounts and completion report would likely return to Committee in January 2027 for approval.
• It remained likely that the auditors would again issue a disclaimed opinion until confidence in the full historic series of accounts had been rebuilt.

Following the review of the item, Members raised questions as detailed below:

·         An explanation of the business rates appeals provision, referring to figures in the accounts and to wording indicating that Worcestershire County Council had taken the lead in this area. - The Section 151 Officer explained that the Council had to build a provision into the collection fund to reflect the risk of businesses successfully appealing their rateable values.  It was explained further that because appeals could be made years after the original valuation and then apply retrospectively, there could be a significant one off impact on the collection fund in the year the appeal was settled.

·         A Member asked whether the historic VAT issue had been resolved. – It was noted that the historic issue had been dealt with and there were no further planned error correction notices. However, VAT returns continued monthly and would be reported accordingly.

·         The Chairman welcomed and thanked the new Chief Accountant for attending.

RESOLVED that the Audit, Standards and Governance Committee considered with appropriate comment and acknowledged the Draft Statement of Accounts 2025/26 that were produced and published by the statutory deadline of 30th June 2026.

The Section 151 Officer introduced the Annual Governance Statement (AGS) for 2025/26. He explained that the document had been structured in three broad sections:

1. The governance framework and examples of good governance already in place.
2. Significant governance issues identified, including issues previously raised by Ernst and Young.
3. An AGS Action Plan setting out milestones, deadlines and responsible officers.

It was explained that some items in the action plan were colour coded according to whether they had originally been raised by the external auditor as red or amber governance matters, while several further issues shown in blue had been identified internally by the Council itself. The intention was that the Committee would receive regular progress updates against that action plan at future meetings.

The following questions by Members were carried out:

• Whether the further internal issues identified by Officers had been communicated with the external auditors? – In response Members were advised that Ernst and Young were aware of these further issues and would be reviewed accordingly.

RESOLVED that

1)    The Audit, Standards and Governance Committee considered and approved with appropriate comment the AGS for 2025/26 as attached at Appendix 1;

2)    Considered the significant governance issues identified within the AGS and endorsed with appropriate comment the AGS Action Plan attached as Appendix 1 to the AGS; and

3)    Agreed to regular update reports to demonstrate delivery of the AGS Action Plan.

RESOLVED that

1)    The Audit, Standards and Governance Committee acknowledged the Treasury Management outturn position for 2025/26; and

2)    Acknowledged that treasury management activities were undertaken in accordance with the approved Treasury Management Strategy and Prudential Indicators.

The Head of Internal Audit presented the new Internal Audit Strategy, Charter and Mandate and explained that these documents were required under the Global Internal Audit Standards and were summarised as follows:

• The Strategy described how Internal Audit operated and how the service intended to continue improving.
• The Charter sets out internal audit’s purpose, scope, independence, rights of access, planning and reporting arrangements and professional standards.
• The Mandate formalised internal audit’s right, where necessary, to access records, information and officers in accordance with the Accounts and Audit Regulations.

Members noted audit testing would become more sharply focused on significant risk rather than blanket coverage and recommendations would also become more focused on material issues, with less time spent reporting low level matters.

The service’s investment in officer professional development was also discussed, noting that multiple staff were undertaking qualifications and that “golden handcuff” arrangements helped with retention by requiring repayment of study support costs if staff left the Authority.  It was noted that no member of the team had left for over 18 months.

RESOLVED that the Audit, Standards and Governance Committee approved the Internal Audit Strategy, Charter and Mandate.

The Internal Audit Plan for 2026/27 was presented to Members.

The following key points were outlined:

·         It remained a risk-based plan assessing the adequacy of internal control, governance and risk management.

·         It had been prepared by reviewing all auditable areas, recent coverage and emerging risk.

·         The Section 151 Officer and SLT had been consulted and had endorsed the plan.

·         All areas receiving limited assurance in 2025/26 would be revisited and re-graded.

·         The plan included a significant new element relating to Local Government Reorganisation (LGR), with 50 audit days allocated.

The LGR allocation reflected two requirements, to support for the LGR data hub and validation work and assurance work on programme governance, risk management and record management.  The proposed resource allocation totalled 295 days, which was 45 days more than the previous year, this partly reflected the additional LGR work and partly reflected the fact that SLT actively wanted Internal Audit to carry out more audits than had been carried out historically.  Members were reminded that the plan was not fixed in stone and that significant changes (defined as a change of more than five audit days) would be brought back to the Committee for approval.

RESOLVED that the Audit, Standards and Governance Committee approved the 2026/27 Internal Audit Plan subject to any agreed amendments.

Members considered the Whistleblowing and Anti-Fraud, Bribery and Corruption Policy Update by the Director of Finance including the Whistleblowing Policy, Anti-Fraud, Bribery and Corruption Policy and Anti-Money Laundering Statement.

Key points were discussed as follows:

• The whistleblowing policy already existed but had been reviewed and updated.
• Specific improvements included ensuring there was a clear confidential reporting route/hotline.
• The authority previously had a bribery policy but no clear, articulated overarching anti-fraud or anti-corruption framework.
• Following internal audit work and legal advice, a broader anti-fraud, bribery and corruption policy had been drafted which set out roles of managers, members and officers, escalation procedures, the approach to investigation and practical guidance.
• An anti-money laundering statement had also been drafted, not because it was a statutory local authority requirement but because it was considered good governance to define expectations and warning signs clearly.

It was also explained that the documents collectively formed a consistent policy package, with a flow chart to demonstrate reporting and escalation routes. Members were also advised that the purpose of bringing the report to the Committee at this stage was to enable Members to comment before the finalised policies were embedded and communicated across the organisation through training and publicity, with some details, such as contact information, still requiring finalisation.

Councillor questions and comments were as follows:

• The Chairman queried the status of the documents, noting that one part of the whistleblowing report stated the policy had been implemented, adopted by the Council and had been discussed with trade unions, whilst Officers had also referred to it as still requiring finalisation. – It was clarified that the whistleblowing policy was an existing, live document that had been updated and discussed with trade unions, however, it remained open to further revision and that the anti-fraud, bribery and corruption policy and anti-money laundering statement were still in draft form.
• Some Members observed that, despite whistleblowing being within the Committee’s remit, had been unable previously to locate the policy on the Council’s website. It was suggested that the policy should be better advertised to locate for Council use.
• Councillor D.J. Nicholl explained his involvement in Whistleblowers UK and recent attendance at an event in Parliament during Whistleblower Awareness Month and extended his offer of assistance in reviewing the policy.  – The Section 151 Officer welcomed the offer of assistance.
• Members noted that the policy wording for confidentiality and support indicating the Council would try to protect identity but might need to reveal the individual as part of an investigation with Members expressed the view that the wording might discourage potential whistleblowers. - Officers responded that it was important to keep reporting routes open so that the Council heard concerns. It was also explained that future reports would be reviewed by a group, including the Section 151 Officer, Head of Internal Audit and Monitoring Officer, who would assess anonymous concerns objectively.  The Committee noted that anonymous reports would still be taken seriously, although named concerns often allowed a stronger follow up.  The Chairman also  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29/26

The Audit, Standards and Governance Committee Work Programme was considered by Members.

A Member suggested that the agenda for 15^th October 2026 meeting should include an item on the Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) concerning the implications for Audit, Standards and Governance Committee depending on the model announced.

RESOLVED that the contents of the Committee’s work programme, as reported, be noted.

There was no urgent business on this occasion.