Venue: Phoenix Chambers, Phoenix House, Tiverton
Contact: David Parker Member Services Officer
Link: audio recording
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS (03:34) To receive any apologies for absence and notices of appointment of substitute Members (if any). Minutes: No apologies were received.
Cllrs , E Buczkowski, J Buczkowski, A Glover, S Keable, L Taylor attended the meeting virtually.
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT (03:44) To record any interests on agenda matters.
Minutes: Members were reminded of the need to make declarations where appropriate.
|
|
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME (04:00) To receive any questions relating to items on the agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.
Note: A maximum of 30 minutes is allowed for this item. Minutes: Paul Elstone’s questions related to Item 8 on the agenda; on the subject of Review Recommendations of the Planning Enforcement Working Group.
Question 1: The Summary Report indicates there were 3 levels of priority in terms of Caseload. High Medium and Low. What were the selection criteria for determining in which priority an enforcement issue was allocated to?
In reply to Mr Elstone’s questions, the Director of Place answered:
Answer: The priority of a case was determined by the enforcement officers using their professional knowledge, expertise and judgement and in accordance with principles as set out within the current Local Enforcement Plan.
The list of enforcement matters were also regularly reviewed (monthly) with the Development Management Manager and Corporate Manager. The Director of Place reviewed high priority cases on a monthly basis.
The new enforcement policy – currently in draft and being worked on by officers prior to presentation to Cabinet – would consider a revised approach to how cases are prioritised and escalated, although the focus would continue to be on high priority cases.
It should be noted that a high degree of officer discretion would always be necessary in relation to prioritisation given that each case is unique and would need to be considered based on its own facts.
Question 2 Was there a MDDC Policy or Procedure Document that clearly outlined the priority selection process?
Answer: The Local Enforcement Plan set out the priority level of cases in a broad sense.
Question 3 Was this document available for public review?
Answer: Yes – the current plan was on the public website and was easy to find.
Question 4 Of the High Priority enforcement issues, which were estimated to be currently around 22, how many had been outstanding for over 6 months?
Answer: There were 12 cases.
Question 5 What was the longest outstanding High Priority enforcement case? And why had it taken so long to close down?
Answer: A case from 2020 relating to a Listed Building and UPVC windows. The reason the case had been outstanding for so long was because they were awaiting information from the owner.
Question 6 Of the 517 cases that had been closed how many of these were handled by. - Non Material Amendments. - Certificates of Lawfulness. - Planning Variation Agreements of any sort. Answer: That information was not to hand – If Mr Elstone was keen to have that information then the Department would need to consider the request separately and they would need to consider how long it would take to deal with that request.
Question 7. Of the Preceding categories in question 6, how many had been closed down on a delegated authority i.e. by MDDC Officers and without any referral back to the MDDC Planning Committee?
Answer: Planning enforcement matters are not referred back to the Planning Committee. Under the previous Council, the Cabinet Member for Continuous Improvement had oversight of planning enforcement matters and was kept involved regarding the closure of cases and matters relating ... view the full minutes text for item 12. |
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (07:02) PDF 133 KB To consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the meeting held on Monday 19 June 2023.
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on Monday 19 June 2023 were approved as a correct record and SIGNED by the Chairman.
|
|
DECISIONS OF THE CABINET (10:28) To consider any decisions made by the Cabinet at its last meeting that have been called-in. Minutes: The Committee NOTED that none of the decisions made by the Cabinet on 4 July 2023 had been called in.
|
|
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (10:35) To receive any announcements that the Chairman of Scrutiny Committee may wish to make. Minutes: The Chairman and others had attended a meeting of the Scrutiny Network for the South West. The Chairman had therefore requested reports on Highways and on Deprivation from the clerk to that committee.
|
|
MOTION 564 - INCLUSIVITY AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT (11.32) Committee to discuss the question: Does Local Government work for women? Committee to be mindful of the fact that work needs to be continued. Some recommendations had been approved by the Scrutiny committee and Full Council but they still needed to be finalised.
Discussion to be supported by the Corporate Manager for People, Governance and Waste, the District Solicitor and Monitoring Officer, and the Members Services Officer. Minutes: The Committee NOTED, a verbal report on Motion 564 – Inclusivity and Community Engagement from the Corporate Manager for People, Governance and Waste.
The officer explained that two previous councillors, Elizabeth Lloyd and Jo Norton, led a project which looked to enhance the diversity of candidates who would apply and put themselves forward to be prospective councillors at Mid Devon District Council. There were different events organised about how to potentially broaden a pool of applications, and this led to a number of recommendations which were approved by full council. These included:
There had been good progress made against these objectives including:
It was AGREED that a cross party working group be established to create a report on Inclusivity and Community Engagement within Mid Devon that would feedback to the Scrutiny Committee in early 2024 with the following membership: Cllrs Mrs F J Colthorpe, G Westcott and L G J Kennedy.
|
|
PLANNING ENFORCEMENT REPORT (17:28) PDF 370 KB To receive a report from the Director of Place at the request of the Scrutiny committee further to the meeting of the committee in June 2023. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee had before it, and NOTED, a *report on planning enforcement from the Director of Place.
Consideration was given to:
· There had not been any specific analysis of the change in uptake following the introduction of a fee for pre-planning advice but it appeared that the uptake was the same. The introduction of the charge had generated income for the Council, which was used to help cover the costs of providing the service. Councillors should be confident that because of the pre-planning involvement that officers were better engaged with the applicants. · Monitoring statistics of caseloads moving forwards and the grounds for determining whether a case went to Enforcement. · Admin support for the two full time Enforcement Officers had now ceased and the two officers do their own admin as a self-contained unit and both members of staff were content with that way of working. · Enforcement cases would in future be reported on as KPI’s within the reports the department already deliver. · Cabinet member for Planning and Economic Regeneration would have oversight of Enforcement. · Reminder to the Planning Department to keep the Ward Councillors informed of progress of matters. · Changes have been made within the Planning Department since the previous Scrutiny working group report, from an officer perspective they were on top of the cases and that they were managing the processes appropriately. · There was now a dedicated planning solicitor. · There was one outstanding action from the previous working group relating to the Local Enforcement plan, they were working upon a revised draft of the Local Enforcement Plan to make it as robust and fit for purpose as it could be. That draft plan could go to the Planning Policy Advisory Group for comment before it went to Cabinet. · Enforcement action was taken against highest and high priority cases, as a statement of intent.
The Chairman invited Mr Warren (a former Cllr of the previous administration) to speak. Mr Warren provided his opinion on the planning enforcement working group actions. The Chairman thanked Mr Warren for his input.
The Chairman summed up that officers should keep ward members abreast of enforcement cases and that building KPI’s on planning enforcement into the reporting process should commence. The report would be sent to the Planning Policy Advisory Group before it went to Cabinet.
Note: *Report previously circulated and attached to the minutes
|
|
WORK PROGRAMME (57:56) PDF 261 KB To discuss the current work plan for the Scrutiny Committee and consider new suggestions for the Work Plan. Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee reviewed the current *Forward Plan and *Scrutiny Work Plan and NOTED the following items:
Motion 583 - Protecting Rivers and Seas work – The Scrutiny Policy Research Officer would report back to the October meeting
Motion 564 – Inclusivity and Community Engagement – does Local Government work for women? The working group of Cllrs G Westcott, Mrs F J Colthorpe and L G J Kennedy would report back to the Scrutiny Committee in February 2024. Cllr R Gilmour had some reports that she would pass to the working group.
3 Rivers - This matter would come back to the Scrutiny Committee once both external reports had been received. An entire meeting would be dedicated to that matter in the September meeting.
Participatory budgeting review – this was going to the Community PDG. The Scrutiny Committee Policy Research Officer would continue to look for examples of Participatory Budgeting, he would look at other councils within the LGA and seek examples both good and bad.
National Grid – The Chairman said that she was not sure that that was something for this Scrutiny Committee to be concerned with. She thought it should go to the Net Zero Advisory Group in the first instance – that was agreed.
Vacancy Issues – This would be included within the Establishment update report in August 2023.
Other matters for the work plan: 1. Making Green requirements part of future planning applications – It was agreed that this matter would be passed to the Planning Policy Advisory Group (PPAG). 2. Installation of sprinkler systems into all new build residential properties. It was agreed that this matter would be passed to the PPAG. 3. Making the Exe Valley an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. – It was agreed that this was a matter for Parliament and that Councillors should lobby their MP’s.
There was a conversation about the work of committees overlapping, and some of the matters that had been raised overlapping with Policy Development Groups.
The Chairman again stated her intention that the Scrutiny Committee would be as transparent as possible and that at the September meeting dealing with 3 Rivers as little as possible would go into part 2.
Note: *Scrutiny Work Plan previously circulated and attached to the minutes |