Agenda item

Three public questions had been received from two questioners, one of whom was present to ask a supplementary question.  The published questions and responses were taken as read:

1.     Question from Trevor Witton-Bourke to Cabinet Member for Housing and Customer Services, Councillor Flo Clucas 

Cheltenham Borough Council has confirmed that it has expressed an interest in participating in the Home Office Asylum Dispersal Pilots scheme. Under what governance route was this expression of interest authorised (for example Cabinet decision, individual Cabinet Member decision, or delegated officer authority), and were elected members formally informed prior to submission? 

Member response

Thank you for your question.   

The expression of interest in the Home Office pilot scheme was submitted by officers in line with the council’s scheme of delegation.  As Cabinet Member for Housing and Customer Services, I am proud that Cheltenham is a Town of Sanctuary and that we continue to welcome refugees and migrants.  I therefore fully support the decision taken by officers.  

It is important to emphasise that submitting an expression of interest does not commit the council to participating in the scheme, even if Cheltenham were to be selected.  Any decision to proceed would be subject to further consideration.  

2.     Question from Trevor Witton-Bourke to Cabinet Member for Housing and Customer Services, Councillor Flo Clucas 

If Cheltenham is accepted into the pilot, will participation be brought to Cabinet or Full Council for formal consideration before implementation, and what arrangements will be put in place to ensure transparency and public reporting as further information becomes available? 

Member response

Thank you for your question. 

If Cheltenham is invited to take part in the Home Office pilot, any decision to participate would be brought through the appropriate democratic route in line with the council’s constitution. At this stage, we do not have any detail of the pilot and therefore it is not possible to confirm what that route will be.  

We are committed to ensuring openness and transparency throughout this process. Should the pilot progress, we will establish clear arrangements for sharing information with elected members and the public. 

3.   Question from Emma Nelson to Cabinet Member for Finance and Assets, Councillor Peter Jeffries 

The recent Audit report from Bishop Fleming raises many concerns including, but not limited to: 

·       Reference to disclaimed audit opinion by previous auditors over the 2022/23 statement of accounts

·       Unable to complete work due to delay in finalising financial statements and quality of said statements 

·       Anticipate issuing disclaimed audit opinion due to lack of assurances over opening balances  

·       Unable to complete work on valuation of land and buildings (and Council dwellings), investment properties, and heritage assets 

Given these concerns, particularly with regards to valuations of assets and of both opening and current balances, how confident is the council of the asset values in the 2026/2027 budget, and how much has been allowed within the budget should any re-statement of asset values or opening balances be required once the audit is completed? This is considered particularly key given the importance of secure financial status as we head into any unitary arrangements. 

Member response

Thank you for your question. 

It is widely recognised that the local government audit process has been under considerable pressure over the last few years which has resulted in a backlog of audits and seen the introduction of the statutory audit backstop date of the end of February. The position we find ourselves in is not ideal. Bishop Fleming have stated that they plan to build back assurance in 2025/26 by testing the 31 March 2026 year-end balance on all of the assets. We have now carried out the full revaluation of our assets and are expecting a markedly improved position for 2025/26 external audit. 

Supplementary question

Thank you to the Cabinet Member for his comments, although I would refer to my original question – “How much has been allowed in the budget should any re-statement of asset values or opening balances be required once the audit is completed?" This is not covered by his comments made in response.

It seems as though you are explaining the current external audit problems in Cheltenham as due to the government audit process, but not to worry, Cheltenham will be okay because they will sort it out when they do the end of March '26 Audit. 

So - given Bishop Fleming will not report on the 25/26 audit until early 2027, 

 what mitigation measures have been put in place to make sure there is robust internal auditing and accounting?  And, given the Cabinet Member’s comment “We have now carried out the full revaluation of our assets”can he say whether that includes the Airport and, if so, is this the reason why the sale of the airport is still very uncertain with many deadlines missed?

Cabinet Member response

There is no allowance in the budget for the airport.  This is a paperwork and communication issue, not a cost issue, arising from the situation all over the country with auditors and organisations like ourselves. 

Regarding robustness, the audit committee is better placed to answer that question – maybe the questioner should ask questions at that committee, where full examination of the process take place.