To consider the internal audit work undertaken and the assurance given on the adequacy of internal controls operating in the systems audited.  

27.1          The report of the Chief Audit Executive (Director: Corporate Resources), circulated at Pages No. 190-207, provided an overview of the internal audit work completed during the period.  Members were asked to consider the work undertaken and the assurance given on the adequacy of the internal controls operating in the systems audited.

27.2          The Head of Service: Audit and Governance advised that, since the last report to Committee, audits had been carried out in relation to the garden waste service, focusing on the renewal process; Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs); and the High Street Heritage Action Zone, with particular focus on the shop front funding element of the grant scheme.  In terms of corporate improvement work, an audit had been undertaken in relation to the UK Shared Prosperity Fund 2024/25.  There was at least a reasonable level of control in all cases and no significant areas of concern; a handful of recommendations had been made to further improve systems.  Appendix 2 to the report detailed the outstanding audit recommendations which had been followed-up two of which had been partially implemented and one had been mitigated.  Feasible timescales had been agreed with management for implementation of the remainder of these recommendations and, where these dates were not met, they would be brought back to the Committee where there would be an opportunity for Members to call in the relevant Officers.

27.3          In response to a query regarding the role of internal audit, the Head of Service: Audit and Governance explained that it was a function within the Council and its work and audit plan was determined by the risks facing the authority.  As demonstrated by the papers, this extended beyond financial activities.  Whilst it was a function of the Council, internal audit maintained its independence and its purpose was to add value and give objective assurance that the Council was operating effectively.  In addition to the assurance role, there was a consulting and advisory element and there was an opportunity to utilise the skills of the Internal Audit team across the authority. 

27.4          With regard to the audit of DFGs, a Member indicated that he was concerned with the limited take-up, which had been the case for a number of years, and he asked whether it could be better promoted and if there was any merit in engaging the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to identify eligible candidates.  The Head of Service: Environmental Health explained it was not a service which the Council actively administered and it was necessary to be assessed by an Occupational Therapist from Gloucestershire County Council in order to apply for a grant, therefore, there was an assumption that those residents who needed to know about the scheme were aware of it.  He advised that more work was starting to be done in terms of community DFGs, for example, adaptations to village halls etc. which was being co-ordinated by the Gloucestershire DFG Forum.  With regard to the High Street Heritage Action Zone, a Member noted that £87,447.41 grants had been paid under the scheme with £42,487.50 paid on shop fronts and facades which she understood was the original focus.  The Director: Corporate Resources explained that was the case at the time of the audit; however, it was now around double the amount originally allocated and work was well underway in terms of implementation.  A Member understood the funding was intended to have a public realm focus and the Director: Corporate Resources advised that the original plan was to spend a significant proportion of the money on public realm enhancements.  A Member pointed out there was an exhibition at the Town Hall the following day which would provide more information.

27.5          It was

RESOLVED           That the internal audit monitoring report be NOTED.