Interactive webcast player

Audit and Governance Committee
Wednesday, 9th September 2026 at 6:00pm

 

Welcome to Folkestone and Hythe District Council's Webcast Player.

 

UPDATE - PLEASE NOTE, MEETINGS OF THE JOINT TRANSPORTATION BOARD AND FOLKESTONE AND HYTHE DISTRICT AND PARISH COUNCILS' JOINT COMMITTEE WILL BE STREAMED LIVE TO YOUTUBE AT: bit.ly/YouTubeMeetings. 


The webcast should start automatically for you, and you can jump to specific points of interest within the meeting by selecting the agenda point or the speaker that you are interested in, simply by clicking the tabs above this message. You can also view any presentations used in the meeting by clicking the presentations tab. We hope you find the webcast interesting and informative.

 

Please note, although officers can be heard when they are speaking at meetings, they will not be filmed.

 

At the conclusion of a meeting, the webcast can take time to 'archive'.  You will not be able to view the webcast until the archiving process is complete.  This is usually within 24 hours of the meeting.

Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Liz McShane
Share this agenda point
  1. Microphone A
  2. Cllr Liz McShane
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  2. Cllr Liz McShane
  3. Cllr Belinda Walker
  4. Cllr Liz McShane
  5. Cllr David Godfrey
  6. Cllr Liz McShane
  7. Cllr Liz McShane
Share this agenda point
  1. Llywelyn Lloyd
  2. Cllr Liz McShane
  3. Cllr Liz McShane
  4. Cllr Liz McShane
  5. Cllr Liz McShane
  6. Cllr David Godfrey
  7. Llywelyn Lloyd
  8. Cllr David Godfrey
  9. Cllr Liz McShane
  10. Cllr Belinda Walker
  11. Llywelyn Lloyd
  12. Cllr Liz McShane
  13. Cllr Tim Prater
  14. Cllr Liz McShane
  15. Llywelyn Lloyd
  16. Cllr Liz McShane
  17. Cllr Liz McShane
  18. Llywelyn Lloyd
  19. Cllr Liz McShane
  20. Cllr David Godfrey
  21. Cllr Liz McShane
  22. Webcast Finished

Thank you.
Thank you.
Cllr Liz McShane - 0:00:06
Good evening, everyone.
Welcome to
tonight's audit and governance committee
meeting.
This meeting will be webcast live to the
internet.
For those who do not wish to be recorded or
filmed,
you will need to leave the chamber.
For members, officers and others speaking at
the meeting,
it is important that the microphones are used
so viewers on the webcast
and others in the room
Would anyone with a mobile phone please switch it to silent mode as they can be distracting.
I would like to remind members that although we all have strong opinions on matters under consideration,
it is important to treat members, officers and public speakers with respect.
Thank you.

1 Apologies for Absence

Right, item one, apologies for that, I think we've got some, haven't we Alex?
Microphone A - 0:00:50
Thank you, Chair. Yes, we have apologies from Councillors Holgate, Thomas, Wing and the independent member.

2 Declarations of Interest

Cllr Liz McShane - 0:00:55
Thank you. Any declarations of interest from the two members or three members? No? That's

3 Minutes

good. Item three minutes. We've got minutes from the 7th of July meeting and we're going
to see the 29th of July meeting. Are we happy to approve the minutes of those two meetings?
Good. So, are you happy to propose that? Seconder, thank you. Right. Moving on to item four,

4 Internal Audit Quarterly Update Report from the Head of East Kent Audit Partnership

The internal audit quarterly update report from the head of East Kent Audit Partnership
plus pages 19 to 34 in the pack. Over to you, Chris.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:01:32
Thank you, Chair. Yes, the report before you on page 19 is the regular internal audit update
report showing the work that's been completed since the last committee. On page 23, this
shows the main reports that have been completed and this time there's only one which was Right
to buy, which has come out as substantial, so there's no particular issues for the committee
there. The reason there's only one report is because it's not been long since the last
committee we had, so some of the other reports are now at draught stage and we'll be coming
forward to the December meeting. Next. Then moving on to page 24, this shows the follow -ups
have been completed in the period. There were three in total, two coming out at substantial,
one coming out at reasonable, which is a fraud assurance. And on the fraud assurance, then
on page 27, this just shows there are a couple of recommendations which have just been pushed
back slightly to allow the completion. These involve operational risks and updating the
policies and also reporting for the transparency code.
So they're the main reasons for those ones that are just being still worked on at the moment.
Then page 31 shows the completed audit plan to date to the end of June.
And then bringing any figures up to date to the end of August.
The plan completion ratio is 35%, so we're still slightly behind.
As we're coming out of holiday season now for various people, we think that that will be starting to be caught up over the next few months.
Those are the main highlighted areas of the report and we'd be pleased to take any questions you may have. Thank you.
Cllr Liz McShane - 0:03:43
Thank you for that. It's a pretty straightforward catch up report. Any comments or questions
from the two members?
Cllr Belinda Walker - 0:03:52
No questions. There's a comment really. I did have some questions. They were all answered
and I think they were answered in the report. So thanks very much for doing this. Thank
you.
Councillor Godfrey?
Cllr Liz McShane - 0:04:02
Cllr David Godfrey - 0:04:05
I'll just say, what a lovely audit. I wish we could have them every time. There's very
it wrong, things are going well, so I'm very happy to propose those.
Cllr Liz McShane - 0:04:17
Okay. Well, I was just going to go... Yeah, I've got no questions either, so that's...
And does any of the members in the chamber have questions or comments? No? Just checking.
In that case, Council de Godfrey, are you happy to propose the recommendations?
And Council de Godfrey did second them.
And the recommendations are to receive and note the report and to note the results of
the work carried out by the East Kent Audit Partnership.
So thank you very much.
Cllr Liz McShane - 0:04:54
Moving on to the last item, item five.

5 National Scheme of Delegation - Planning Functions

Probably one we are going to have more discussion and questions, I think, given the nature of
it.
So who would like to introduce this?
Over to you, Llewellyn.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Good evening, councillors.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:05:09
I think before introducing, just a couple of points it's important to make.
The national scheme of delegation is not a change that has been designed by officers,
nor the change that the Council has chosen to introduce locally.
It's a statutory national change arising from the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025
and the associated 2026 regulations.
It comes into force on 31st October 2026, come what may, and the Council must therefore
ensure that its constitution and decision -making processes comply with the national framework
and that they're consistent with each other
to not amend the constitution,
potentially puts two different legal processes
at conflict with each other,
which could lead to legal risk and on between challenge.
Officers have sought in preparing the process notes
that you've read in the report, hopefully,
to provide a practical and legally robust
implementation approach.
It's fair to say as officers,
we have some reservations about the national approach.
It does move away from a very clear cut approach
and places a lot of pressure potentially on officers.
But that is something we'll have to work with
and no doubt look to all members
for support in implementing.
In particular, officers have some concerns
around the operational impact
and the possibility that the requirement
might require a wider range of schedule two
as it's noted in the reports,
type applications to be triaged, considered, and the bureaucratic burdens that might come
from that and place burdens on the development management process. However, at this moment
in time, we don't have enough evidence to know what that will be, so we're proposing
a cautious approach of let's run with it for the first six months, see how it works, and
then take a view on whether it needs to be changed going forward once it's bedded in.
The purpose of tonight's report is therefore not necessary to debate the national scheme of delegation or otherwise,
because I don't have much power to change that, unfortunately.
It's just to make sure that we're approaching in a way that's consistent and that the public and members can understand and work with.
And I think it's probably fair to say, given the nature of the conversations that might take place and that took place in previous briefings,
I'm aware that members may have concerns
around the democratic accountability,
the removal of local calling arrangements,
the transparency of the gateway process,
resource implications and the arrangements
for review following implementation.
We have got some questions that came in advance
from A &G's independent advisor.
So I shall run through some,
what those questions are and what they are,
because that might help brief the conversation this evening.
And then we'll move on to questions from the floor,
if that's all right with members.
Super.
One of the first questions raised
by your independent advice was whether
the implementation timetable is realistic.
The short answer to that is we don't have much of a choice,
but yes, we do believe it's realistic.
We have spent the first month or two that we had.
We haven't had long to work out how it might actually work
and discuss with colleagues across the county
as to how they might work it through,
and then prepared tonight's paper in advance
of taking this to full council for a decision.
We have enough time, we believe, to do a member briefing.
We've had a chance to have a brief sort of
introductory briefing with the planning committee
on this a couple of months ago,
but there will be time for member briefings,
parish council briefings,
and time to prepare frequently asked questions
and sign posting on the website.
No doubt we'll be looking towards members
to help officers with assisting members of the public
in understanding this is not a local decision.
and this is how it is, and that's the way it goes.
So we believe that the timetable is proportionate.
Has sufficient information,
consideration given to the public perception
around reduced democratic oversight?
Yes, we have, we've given that considerable thought.
There's an element of how much can we change,
hence we will put something on the website
and we will rely on members,
and hopefully we can explain the changes
is through public facing media going forward.
But we'll do it on the loan as we go.
So if we feel that there's more to be said,
happy to take that on board
and see if we can improve that going forward.
But ultimately, it's crucial to remain
that democratic accountability will remain
through the members of this council,
and also through parish councils.
Although there is no longer a call -in mechanism,
there is still that opportunity
for members and parish councils to put forward things to be considered for why something
should go to Planning Committee. It enhances the role but it focuses it onto planning matters,
which is where the government is trying to go.
Another question was raised is, is the gateway process sufficiently transparent? As officers,
we would say it's about as transparent as we can possibly get to. The crucial bit to
remember is that the gateway process will be a decision of the council. We will record
those decisions with appropriate levels of information.
But to protect members and officers, it's crucial that we all remember its decision of the Council, not individuals.
I fear for both yourselves and our officers about the potential for lobbying and pressurisation
to elevate things to Planning Committee.
And one needs to be careful about the potential for judicial review and legal risk
if we make inconsistent decisions outside of planning tests.
What assessment has been made of likely resource implications?
We can't really do much of one yet.
We've put in place as simple a process as possible.
We'll have to take a view over the next six months to see if the triage process,
the gateway process is working and isn't adding too much.
and how much of a burden is it adding to planning offices
in producing their delegated reports.
They're designed to be internally facing short and sharp
for the need to get them through the process quickly.
We will take that on board and keep that under review
for the next six to eight months.
As I said, there's a question
about independent review arrangements.
We will continue to review how it's working.
There aren't any independent reviews
of the decisions that are made by the chair and myself.
Members will, of course, and the public could ask the monitoring officer for advice
and the legal team for advice whether the process was followed correctly.
We had considered whether we put in place a monitoring officer review where member and officers could not agree
should there be a sort of arbitration third party intervening.
That wouldn't be legally sound looking at the regulations because they require the decision
to be taken by two individuals.
Now, I'm not, I have my reservations about that, should I say, because ultimately it
places a lot of pressure on individuals rather than on there being a sort of a tiebreaker,
but that is where we are on that one.
One of the other questions was how will disagreements be managed?
managed, they'll be recorded,
as in the council has made a decision.
There is a question mark that whether we record
whether there is a disagreement or otherwise,
because that might be an internal paper
and a public facing one which talks about
the decision of the council is to proceed with X.
In the same way as a decision notice
for a planning application doesn't list everybody,
it just says the council's decision is this.
In the background, there is supporting documentation.
There's two final questions, then I'll open the floor.
Should Orton governance receive a post implementation survey or review?
I think that's exactly what we will do after the sort of, we've had chance to run it for
a while just to see if what we've put in place is working, how do members feel about it and
how do we feel about it and take that forward.
And the final question, which was raised about the finance and sort of operational impacts
being quantified and a concern from your advisor about how much pressure this might put on
development management service and having another layer of something to do, which previously
it didn't have. I don't have an answer yet, and we'll know more in six to eight months.
Thank you, Chair. Anything else to add?
Cllr Liz McShane - 0:13:37
Cllr Liz McShane - 0:13:41
Thank you, Alan. A lot to get through and take on board for everyone, I think. Just
in our regular briefing meetings, which we have on the Monday before the committee meeting,
One of the things that came up was the impact of LGR,
but obviously that may not be such a big issue.
Now, let's see.
Any questions from the members?
Some?
Cllr Liz McShane - 0:14:02
Cllr Liz McShane - 0:14:10
Mr. Godfrey, do you wanna kick off?
Not so much questions.
As you rightly point out,
Cllr David Godfrey - 0:14:14
this has been imposed on us anyway.
No one would be surprised if I'm not at a great level of the government.
However, this has been imposed on us and I have to admit, I think the planning system
has needed an overhaul for some time.
That's a personal feeling.
There are too many things that slow everything down and we need to speed things up.
What this clearly does, it can give fears of diluting councillors and parish and town
councils' ability to influence what's going on.
And what we're trying to say is that, okay, if you're not happy with that, let's try the
I don't think we're going to be able to change it, but I'm very worried that that will cause
some problems.
However, I was just wondering, at the last meeting we were talking about national infrastructure
discussions, and we asked that ward members on those specific cases should be involved,
and I'm just wondering whether in this case, when it comes to the discussion between the
chair of planning and yourself, that the ward members should be involved because they're
being well aware of the local issues.
Thank you, Councillor Godfrey.
As part of the discussion, the simple answer to that is no.
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:15:26
However, to qualify that,
to go through the gateway process,
a ward councillor or any councillor for that matter,
or the parish council, or member of the public for that matter,
needs to have written to the authority
within the consultation period,
setting out the planning reasons with reference to the tests
that are set out in the government guidance
as to why they believe it is significant enough
to be elevated to planning committee.
At which point we will then review those
in the discussion making process.
And what will tend to happen is the planning officer
will take those comments,
review it against the development plan,
and then we will sit down and go through with that.
I think the purpose of that is to make sure that we're aware of the planning issues and
the local feeling on these matters, but to move it away from the potential for additional
lobbying and additional pressure on the decision makers, because it's not going to be a fun
moment for anybody in the first place.
But it will become a crucial impact that ward councillors do make representation in writing
in advance.
and the reason for the writing piece is,
let's say we elevate something to planning committee
because we feel it's a good idea,
and the applicant has their application refused.
They could judicially review the council's decision aid
to send it to planning committee,
but potentially judicially review the council's decision
to approve or refuse that application
because it should never have been in that forum
in the first place.
So the decision making process needs to be consistent
and fair across the board.
And if you have a ward member who can't attend or take an opportunity to have a meeting with
the chair of planning committee and the chair of the head of planning, in the current instance,
it could be seen as unfair to the process.
But I would definitely implore and continued communication between the ward members and
planning team within that first four weeks as to what your feelings are and we're still
available to give advice on planning matters.
Cllr David Godfrey - 0:17:36
Okay. I think we're just going to have to make sure when you're giving the briefings
to people they really understand that because most people would be very frightened that
it's taken away a lot of ability to challenge and we have to make sure that that challengeability
is still there and there's just a different way of doing it.
Councillor Walker.
Cllr Liz McShane - 0:17:57
Cllr Belinda Walker - 0:17:59
I very much agree with the challenge and the involvement of Tannen Parish and the ward
councillors and knowing that they still have a voice.
Just one thing on this, is that a bit concerned about the implication for the addition workload
to officers?
Do we have enough officers and could we recruit more as a budget for doing that and are there
suitably trained people out there wanting jobs?
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:18:26
At the moment, there's no way of understanding what the implications of this might be on
the team.
And there are potentially other mechanisms for addressing the burdens on the bureaucratic
team, of the team of processing this.
So it might be that we change our processes internally.
Officers had before this meeting considered alternative options, but they decided against
them.
One of them would be to take certain application types out of schedule two sets out everything that should be delegated.
But members of the council should go through a triage in a gateway process if need be.
We had considered there were numerous items of work which currently never come to this chamber.
And whether we could just streamline the process then, but because we don't know what the burden will actually be over the time of processing.
at this moment in time, we're not proposing we take matters like retrospective fences
out of that process, which it could be. However, we can explore that as time moves on. We believe
at this moment in time we have enough staff to do the job we have, but we, as ever, with
the fluctuations in the planning world, have to take it as it comes.
Thank you.
Cllr Liz McShane - 0:19:37
I think I saw Councillor Pietrangelo expressing an interest in asking a question.
Thank you.
Cllr Tim Prater - 0:19:53
Just briefly, because my name's on the paper and because I worked through it with Rob before
it came here.
Amber, when it has played out utterly correctly, everything within there, but when it came
to me originally, as Llewellyn said, there were a number of options there which could
have potentially streamlined it a bit further, made it a bit less. And by streamlining it
a bit further, that meant that there was beyond that which is already mandatorily done by
government in terms of reducing the input of ward councillors and could have been extended
a bit further. The way of streamlining it is to remove a bit more say by ward councillors
by having a more direct route to decision that involves less of us.
The position that we come to and the position of the paper that you've got in front of here
is this is what you are required to do. This is the mandatory stuff, but it's not necessarily
the quickest way of doing these things.
But what we want to, what I suggested was the good approach to bring forward is the
things that we have to do and things that we can turn around and say, look, this is
what the government has required us to do in terms of changing this process is what
is in here. And we will do that from 31 October. We will suck it and see a bit and see if that
leaves us with a process which is manageable, whether the starting works for that, whether
there are issues at that stage, whether there are further things that Llewellyn is going
to turn around and say, genuinely, can we shortcut this process by doing this thing
and this thing and this thing, which are then in our gift as councillors, decide whether
and we should add that additional streamlining
on top of it or not.
But that streamlining means there is some less say
for some less people in terms of questioning
the process through that.
And we didn't want to add that voluntary stage into this
and complicate this process.
This is what we have to do.
If in six months time, we look at then
the way that the system is working
and think it is too slow or it is too difficult to operate
and we have got to go further,
then we're having a discussion about things
that we are choosing to do and could choose to go further.
Hopefully, I'd like to hope that we'll look at it and go,
actually the system works okay.
And on the whole, nobody has called in
a retrospective application for a fence
and therefore it didn't matter.
On the other hand, I am definitely looking
for retrospective applications on fences.
and going to break Gary's life as much as humanely possible.
But I thought that that was the reason why the paper
looks the way it does at the moment.
It's a little shorter than what was originally brought to me
is we have gone for exactly that approach.
This is what is legally required.
If we don't do this by the 31st of October,
we are in a difficult position,
but we have gone no further than the legal minimum.
So there's no one who's can turn around to you and say,
or somewhere else, you can challenge this thing.
This leaves as much open to call in,
it's not quite call in anymore,
but as much to that member engagement,
as much to that parent engagement as you can still do,
we then can decide in six months time or so,
we can review what the resourcing looks like,
review what the speeds look like,
review if your welling is going bald
at the amount of work, at a greater rate,
Welcome to my world.
But then we can review that separately.
So that's what we've tried to do here,
is this is what we have to do.
And in six months time or so,
if then there is a Llewellyn begging
that we then go further,
then we will do that as a separate thing.
And we can see how grey he is at that stage.
Mr. O 'Rourke.
Cllr Liz McShane - 0:23:41
Listen back.
Just one, I agree with everything
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:23:44
Councillor Praester has said.
I think it is a bit of a sucky -dismay.
I think officers put the options out
on the basis that we just want to keep things almost
the status quo as humanly possible,
whilst realising that it's not status quo.
One thing I'd just reassure you all with
is even a ward member call in today
in our current constitution requires ward councillors
to set out planning reasons.
If you set out no planning reasons,
it wouldn't go anywhere near planning committee.
So the shift, there is a slight shift, but there's just more focus on the evidence base rather than headlines.
And when we get into training in, I think, the middle of September, but they'll definitely be training before the 31st, we'll call members in and discuss that.
It will go over sort of the typical threshold questions and the issues we could be looking at.
And as I say, offices will remain on hand to ward counsellors, applicants, parish councils,
initially on this is where I am, where do you think this is landing on those.
And as Councillor Placz was rightly said, you know, what are the chances really
that a retrospective fence is ever going to pass the significant planning matter test?
In most cases, it's probably highly unlikely, so shouldn't prove too much bureaucratic burden
on anybody.
But we just, I suppose for planning, it's the unknown and the citizenism of others could
be a nightmare, but we'll work through it.
And with your support, we will get there.
But hopefully that reassures you that actually the biggest change I think is for parish councils,
as opposed to ward members where they have to be planning reasons in the first instance.
Cllr Liz McShane - 0:25:29
Cllr Liz McShane - 0:25:32
Obviously there is a general consensus, isn't there, that the planning process needed some
reform.
Obviously this is quite a big step change.
Can I ask you, compared to the previous, existing previous process, what would you say are the
key pros and cons, benefits?
Llywelyn Lloyd - 0:25:53
I suppose the pros and cons will depend on your perspective on the day.
I think we did some early work on what the impact
on planning committees would have been historically.
We've run this, we think it would have been about 30 %
less applications, mainly the applications
for one to nine dwellings rather than the really big things
because we've looked at the constitutions
and the delegated powers across other authorities.
And some have very fluid, some have very restrictive.
And I was kind of sitting in a happy medium of,
we didn't actually have a lot that was mandatorily
to go into planning committee ever.
I think the government's desire is to make committees faster
and they're bringing this in.
But that's probably because of,
I'll be aware that I'm on public stream right now,
other councils in other parts of the country
who aren't moving through the work
or who are using planning decisions
rather than at a sort of a district level.
They're not shifting the things, they're burdening the system.
So I think there's probably a bit more certainty
on the smaller things.
the householder applications, that will definitely allow us to move those through.
They are the bulk of our workload.
The smaller housing applications which could help delivery of houses.
And I think it will, in the longer term, focus the mind to the strategic matters.
This is a bit I'm particularly in support of for members of this council.
Your time is valuable and focusing on the big ticket items
is probably where you should be investing your time.
as district councillors to consider whether we approve 500 homes here or a new massive road there or even less than 100 megawatts solar farm.
Those are the things that have significant impact on our district.
Some of the smaller things are potentially, I understand why they arrive at planning committee,
but they're probably not a valuable use of time depending on where you're sitting.
But I realise there's a difficulty there.
I think there are some pros, some cons.
The biggest change, as I say,
I think is for the parish council
and the, not to say the caveats that were built in,
their ability to directly call something into committee.
There could be some speed
and hopefully it becomes committees,
potentially fewer committees, focused on bigger items.
Cllr Liz McShane - 0:28:21
That is really helpful, thank you. Any other follow -up questions from anyone? No? OK. In
that case, can I ask Councillor Walker if she would like to propose the recommendations?
And then Councillor Godfrey to second them. There are five recommendations. To receive
and note the report, the Audit and Governance Committee recommends to full council that
proposed amendments to section 8 of the constitution set out at appendix A to be approved, that
the council's scheme of delegation for planning functions complies with the national scheme
of delegation. Three, that the proposed amendments for the planning code and associated triage
and gateway process set out at appendix B be approved. Four, that the chief officer,
planning and building control in consultation with the monitoring officer be authorised
to make any minor amendments required to ensure legal accuracy, consistency and operational
effectiveness before implementation. And five, that member training, communications with
town and parish councils and publication of public facing guidance be completed before
the national scheme of delegation comes into force. Are we happy to approve those? Thank
Cllr David Godfrey - 0:29:35
Cllr Liz McShane - 0:29:35
you. So that's the end of the meeting for tonight. Short and sweet, hopefully. So thank
Thank you everyone for your input.