Contact your Parish Council

 

Service:                     Environmental and Regulatory Services

 

Audit title:                 Cemetery and Crematorium

 

Report Issued:         April 2011

 

Audit Objectives:

·         To establish whether all income due is received and banked

·         To establish whether there are adequate controls in place to control expenditure

·         To establish whether burials and cremations are completed in accordance with relevant legislation and agreed procedures e.g. health and safety and security.

 

Key Findings:           The audit identified that improvements are needed to the storage of cremation and burial paperwork to ensure key documentation is fully accounted for. The reporting functionality of BACAS needs to be improved to ensure the reports extracted are reliable and complete.  A routine reconciliation between Agresso and BACAS needs to be introduced to ensure all income is fully accounted for. Some of the buildings at the Cemetery are in need of significant repair / maintenance.

 

Level of Assurance at the time of the audit:     Limited

 

Management Response Summary:

All of the recommendations have been agreed in principle and will be implemented where practical to do so.  The actions are due to be fully implemented by the end of August 2011, with the exception of the migration of old memorials onto BACAS, which is due to be completed by the end of December 2011.However, the recommendation relating to the reconciliation between BACAS and Agresso cannot be implemented until the reporting functionality within BACAS has been improved.  In the meantime a manual reconciliation process, using the information which is currently available, will be introduced to ensure all memorial income (new and renewals) due has been received.

 

The management response is considered to be adequate.

 

Proposed Date for Follow-up:      October 2011

 

Follow-up Assessment:                  Substantial

 

 

 

Service:                     Regeneration and Community Services

 

Audit title:                 Community Halls

 

Report Issued:         May 2011

 

Audit Objectives:     The audit review set out to establish the controls in place over three of the Council’s Community Halls; Fant Hall, Beechwood Hall and Heather House.  The Assistant Director of Regeneration and Cultural Services had requested the audit to be undertaken in order to establish the current position with regard to: adherence to the terms of the lease agreements by the tenant; rental payments due to the Council; the recharging of utilities associated with the community halls; maintenance of the buildings and fees and charges associated with the hire of the halls.

 

Key Findings:         The audit established that there was a need to improve procedures. The main findings from the audit are:-

·         There is no one officer who has overall responsibility to oversee the operational management of the community halls.

·         A current lease agreement is only in place for one of three community halls reviewed

·         Recharges for utilities used by the occupiers of the halls are not made on a timely basis.

·         NNDR business rates paid by the Council had not been recharged to all tenants.

·         Evidence of third party liability insurance has not been obtained from one tenant.

·         Income due from Heather House was not being paid to the Council in accordance with the terms of the service level agreement.  This requires that 70% of hire income received by Heather House is paid to the council on a monthly basis.

 

Level of Assurance at the time of the audit:     Limited

 

Management Response Summary:

A comprehensive response has been received with all recommendations accepted, and realistic dates have been set. Therefore the management response is considered to be adequate

 

Proposed Date for Follow-up:      November 2011

 

Follow-up Assessment:                  Not available

 

 

 

 

 

 

Service:                     Environment and Regulatory Services

Audit title:                 Maidstone Leisure Centre

Report Issued:         June 2011

Audit Objectives:     The audit set out to establish whether the Leisure Centre refurbishment programme was being effectively managed, whether the refurbishment programme was being delivered as agreed, whether the payments made to Serco PAISA were authorised and accurate and whether all of the Council’s assets and equipment are adequately maintained and fully accounted for.

Key Findings:

·         (At the time of the audit) The Building Control completion certificate had not been issued in respect of the major refurbishment works which were completed in May 2010

·         There had been no formal follow up to the building condition survey which was completed by the Council’s Principal Building Surveyor in October 2009

·         The records held in relation to the delivery of the programme and substituted items were in need of improvement

·         The information being recorded on the payment certificates was inconsistent and did not always include the full value of the items delivered. 

·         The asset register did not provide adequate details for each asset

 

Level of Assurance at the time of the audit:     Limited

Management Response Summary:                                                                                 

  All of the recommendations are accepted.  The majority of the recommendations are due to be implemented by 31 October 2011, with the exception of one recommendation which is due to be implemented by 31 December 2011, at the end of the next draw down period. The management response is considered to be adequate.

Proposed Date for Follow-up:      November 2011

Follow-up Assessment:                  Not available

 

Service:                     Regeneration and Community Services

 

Audit title:                 Museum – Security of Artefacts

 

Report Issued:         July 2011

 

Audit Objectives:     The audit set out to examine and evaluate the security for the new East Wing extension and more generally for staff security at the Museum. The review also considered the arrangement for the return of artefacts from storage to the Museum.

 

Key Findings:           The audit identified a need to ensure that staff working within the new Visitor Economy Business Unit based at the Museum, are fully aware of the security process and procedures in place.

 

The Museum East Wing building contract incorporates an Electronic Security Specification/Scope of Works. The specification required the security contractor to take ‘ownership’ of all existing systems on commencement of works until the security systems are ‘signed off’ by the nominated agent. There was a need to ensure that, following completion and sign off, the contractor provides comprehensive manuals for the operation of the systems. Furthermore, there was a need to ensure that appropriate staff receive the necessary training to operate the systems.

 

The process for the return of artefacts from storage was examined. It was considered that the arrangements provided sufficient security over the artefacts.

 

Level of Assurance at the time of the audit:     Limited

 

Management Response Summary:

A comprehensive response has been received with all recommendations accepted, and realistic dates have been set. Therefore the management response is considered to be adequate

 

Proposed Date for Follow-up:      November 2011

 

Follow-up Assessment:                  Not available

 

 

 

Service:                     Regeneration and Community Services

 

Audit title:              Hazlitt Arts Centre – Bar Stock Checks

 

Report Issued:         July 2011

 

Audit Objectives:     This short audit review was undertaken to verify the arrangements in place for the ordering of bar supplies for the Hazlitt Arts Centre, and included a review of the records maintained to identify and record stock levels. 

 

Key Findings:           The audit selected stock checks related to the period September - November 2010 and March - May 2011. Testing involved agreeing delivery notes/invoices to the stock control records to ensure stock had been correctly recorded.  While undertaking this testing it was established that the Bar Manager had not followed prescribed procedures for the purchasing and payment for bar stock. 

 

Audit testing confirms that the Bar Manager reconciles his stock records monthly through a full stock check exercise.  The stock check procedures, which were observed and tested during the audit, are considered satisfactory with no significant variances in stock levels identified. 

 

Level of Assurance at the time of the audit:     Limited

 

Management Response Summary:

A response has been received with all recommendations accepted. The Bar Manager has been instructed to follow the proper procedures for the purchase of stock. Therefore the management response is considered to be adequate

 

Proposed Date for Follow-up:      November 2011

 

Follow-up Assessment:      Not available

         

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Service:                     Development Management

 

Audit title:              Section 106 Agreements

 

Report Issued:         September 2011

 

Audit Objectives:

·         To establish and evaluate the arrangements for recording the individual planning obligations which are negotiated through the Planning process.

·         To review the process by which negotiated planning obligations are formalised into Section 106 agreements.

·         To establish and evaluate the means by which the Council’s interests are brought into account.

·         To establish and review the process for monitoring Section 106 agreements.

·         To establish and review the means by which planning obligations are collected, recovered or obtained from developers.

·         To establish the progress of arrangements to implement the Community Infrastructure Levy.

 

Key Findings:       The report concludes that controls over the arrangements had improved since the previous audit was undertaken in December 2008, with the implementation of an access database for recording details of Section 106 Agreements and the use of the Sundry Debtors system for the recovery of payments due. However, several significant areas were identified where improvements need to be made, for example, there is excessive reliance on one officer to access the system and provide reports and therefore a need to identify an officer who can undertake the responsibilities of the Compliance Officer in her absence. Improved controls are required over the access database and there is a need to generate reports from APAS to ensure all Section 106 Agreements are properly recorded on the database.

 

Level of Assurance at the time of the audit:    Limited

 

Management Response Summary:

A comprehensive response has been received with all recommendations accepted, therefore the management response is considered to be adequate

 

Proposed Date for Follow-up:        February 2012

Follow-up Assessment:                Not available