Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and notices of appointment of substitute Members (if any).

Apologies were received from Cllr L Knight who offered Cllr A Glover as a substitute.

To record any interests on agenda matters.

Members were reminded of the need to make declarations of interest where appropriate.

No interests were declared under this item

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.

Sarah Coffin (The Chairman read out on Sarah Coffin’s behalf)

Ref: Scrutiny Meeting 08/11/2021 (Agenda Item No. 11)

I am writing with reference to the above proposal submitted to Scrutiny by Councillor Barnell and accepted by Committee members; calling for a cross-agency investigation into the various nuisance and planning breaches, arising from the unfettered expansion of farm-fed anaerobic digester (AD) plants and servicing farm operations.

In view of the sheer volume of expert evidence submitted and the ongoing related issues, can the Committee please confirm:

Question 1: Whether a detailed investigation took place, as requested by the proposal?

Answer: Further to the November 2021 Scrutiny meeting, the then Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee wrote to neighbouring authorities in order to consider whether a joint investigation in to AD plants could be progressed with the input of those authorities – this being considered necessary in order to inform any investigation. Ultimately, the investigation did not progress beyond this stage but further work did progress within Mid Devon – including a visit to an AD plant in a neighbouring authority and further and ongoing work relating to AD plants within Mid Devon, led by officers.

Question 2: Whether there was a record of those invited who attended, as well as those who did not?

Answer:This was not relevant as the investigation did not progress.

Question 3: Were any conclusive findings and recommendations published in a closing report and made available to both elected Councillors and the public?

Answer: This was not relevant as the investigation did not progress.

In relation to the following Nuisance/ Enforcement related issues:

Question 4: What ‘risk assessment’ process was used by Council officers prior to advising elected Members on potential ‘legal costs’ implications, related to contentious Planning/Enforcement Appeals; who has sight and final decision over interpretation of any ‘legal opinion/advice’ if obtained?

Answer: Any ‘Risk assessment’ would vary between applications and will be dependent upon the unique characteristics of any application – as does who, for example, (an officer, members or both) makes final decisions.

Question 5: Does such process include counter consideration of potential lost revenue via ‘withheld rates’ (escrow account) or ‘reduced rates’ (Rates Tribunal) awarded to proven ‘Nuisance/blight impacted’ properties?

Answer: Planning enforcement matters were considered in light of relevant planning legislation and best practice.

Question 6: If Councillors agree ‘Planning integrity’ requires ‘effective Enforcement’ and without both, there can be no credible ‘Net Zero/Climate’ pledge/policy, please grant this review urgently?

Answer: This question relates to both a specific case and policy. Planning enforcement is discretionary and has to be managed from within the Council’s limited resources. Nonetheless, Mid Devon District Council is committed to effective and proportionate enforcement and is accordingly focused on addressing the most severe planning breaches. Mid Devon is equally committed to ensuring that net-zero and climate policies are achieved.

Barry Warren

Questions in relation to item 11 on the agenda:

In Section 1, page 82, it states: “It should be noted that within the time constraints  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

To consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the meeting held on Monday 30^th October 2023.

The minutes of the last meeting held on 30 October 2023 were approved as a correct record and SIGNED by the Chairman.

To consider any decisions made by the Cabinet at its last meeting that have been called-in.

The Committee NOTED that none of the decisions made by the Cabinet on 12 December 2023 had been called in.

To receive any announcements that the Chairman of Scrutiny Committee may wish to make.

The Chairman wished everybody a Happy Christmas and asked that everyone be mindful that Christmas is not always a happy time for everybody perhaps due to poverty or the reason that they had suffered bereavement around Christmas, it could be a distressing time so the Chairman asked everyone to look out for their colleagues, neighbours and local residents.

To receive a report from the Corporate Manager for Performance and Improvement, providing Members with an update on performance against the corporate plan and local service targets for quarter 2 (2023/24).

The Committee had before it, and NOTED, a report* from Dr Stephen Carr which outlined the Corporate Performance Report for Quarter 2 – July to September 2023. The Performance and Risk reports have been separated out and following a recommendation from  an internal audit report, the Performance report would be reviewed by the Scrutiny Committee and then by Cabinet. It will come to Scrutiny Committee every 6 months.

Consideration was given to:

• The increase in the number of Homelessness presentations – due to; supply, cost of living pressures, mortgage failures, income levels and a myriad of other reasons. Best captured in overarching Corporate Risk. The tables showed the sharp end of the current nationwide housing crisis. The Council’s broad Housing Strategy, the Housing Development Programme and the efforts to get in front of the pressure.
• The drop in housing complaints responded to on time – this was due to the comparatively low number and a slight variation affecting overall performance. Performance is affected by a number of factors including staff absence, complexity of the complaint, and reaching an agreement with the complainant to close the case. Sometimes it was better to give a good quality response than a timely one.
• Tree Planting – how many of those trees survived?
• Panier Market – what were the Council doing to support occupancy rates?
• Community Climate and Biodiversity Grants – what was the rough amount per project? What did the numbers mean in the Community Schemes Environmental Graph?
• Fixed Penalty Notices – in comparison against other periods enforcement was up.
• Further detailed responses to the questions raised will be circulated to Members via email.

Note: * report previously circulated

To review the existing Work Plan and consider items for the committee’s future consideration, taking account of:

a) Scrutiny Committee Proposal Form – To decide upon which version of the form to be used going forward.

b)  Any items within the Forward Plan for discussion at the next meeting;

c) Suggestions of other work for the committee in 2023/24.

The Committee had before it, and NOTED the *Forward Plan and the *Scrutiny Work Programme.

The following was discussed:

The report into Key Performance Indicators in relation to Planning Enforcement was to be brought forward from March to the January 2024 meeting.

Corporate Parenting was discussed, Cllr J Lock and the Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing would produce an Overview of Corporate Parenting in a timely manner once the Corporate Parenting Board for Devon had been able to organise themselves and could give some input.

The Scrutiny Committee reviewed the two proposed Scrutiny Work Forms. It was RESOLVED that the original work proposal form continue to be used.

At the meeting in January members of the Scrutiny Committee would be deciding upon which order they would wish to scrutinise Cabinet Members about their portfolios.

Note: * Forward Plan and Work Programme previously circulated

To receive the Annual report from the Corporate Manager for Digital Transformation and Customer Engagement on compliments, comments and complaints received as part of our 2 plus million contacts with customers in 2022/23.

The Committee had before it, and NOTED a *report from the Corporate Manager for Digital Transformation and Customer Engagement which provided the annual report on Compliments, Comments and Complaints.

The following was discussed:

The report covered two distinct periods. The Local Government Ombudsman annual report which covered the period 22/23 and the last twelve calendar months of monitoring for compliments, comments and complaints.

There had been a significant rise of complaints in a couple of areas; first, housing – as reported to the Homes PDG – the significant rise was due to the housing ombudsman changing the guidelines in which Housing monitor and manage their complaints. There was a focus on listening to Council tenants and therefore a change to the way that the Council were recording, monitoring and responding to tenants and actively encouraging feedback.

The other area where there had been a significant rise in complaints was over refuse and recycling. The monitoring period covered, the new Bin It 123 scheme which was launched in November 2022 and the Council would expect to see an increase in reports for the first six months of the scheme. Those numbers had now gone back down to similar levels before the roll-out of the project. The increase in complaints was comparatively small, approximately 65 complaints in 12 months out of 3½ million collections every year.

Recently the Housing Ombudsman and the Local Government Ombudsman had held a consultation exercise asking for Council feedback on whether the guidelines regarding complaints should be brought closer together. The consultation closed in November 2023 and the Council awaited the outcome which may mean that later in 2024 the Council in other services would need to match what Housing have been doing. The Corporate Manager encouraged all Councillors to look at the Housing Report for the direction of travel.

With regard to referrals to the Ombudsman, a very low percentage of complaints were referred to the Ombudsman and out of the 12 complaints the Ombudsman considered, only 1 was upheld.

Consideration was given to:

-        The number of visits to the Council offices, the district coming out of covid lockdown may well have impacted on the increase in numbers from the previous year. However, homelessness, cost of living and consequential requests for hardship payments may have meant that more people were visiting the Council Offices.

-        The new Customer Relationship Manager system would accurately record the numbers visiting the office and the reasons for their visit.

 Note: * report previously circulated

To receive a report from the Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing. This is an annual report to ensure that the Scrutiny Committee has oversight of the East and Mid Devon Community Safety Partnership (CSP) and the opportunity to review the activities of the partnership during 2022-23 with a look ahead to the priorities for 2023/24 and beyond.

The Committee had before it, and NOTED, a *report from the Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing.

The Corporate Manager particularly mentioned the Serious Violence Duty, a new duty imposed on Community Safety Partnerships. The activity was relatively limited in 2022-2023. The Community Safety Partnership (CSP) had agreed on their priorities for the year going forward. There was a report going to Cabinet about the strategy around the Serious Violence Duty and the Corporate Manager encouraged all Councillors to look at the report.

The Community Safety Partnership (CSP) was no longer funded in that the Council did not receive any money from the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) and so the CSP was now a facilitating and enabling partnership which directed other organisations to the funding which the PCC held rather than having that funding direct, this had reduced the activity that the CSP could introduce themselves. The Government had indicated that they would make some funds available to Devon to deal with the Serious Violence Duty but at present the level of funding was not known.

Note: * report previously circulated

To receive a report from the Working Group into the Lessons to be learned for the future from the experience of operating a Special Purpose Vehicle “3 Rivers Development Ltd”.

The Committee had before it, and NOTED, a report from the Chairman of the Working Group looking into the Lessons to be Learned from the 3 Rivers Development Ltd Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV). The Chairman of the Working party introduced the report and gave thanks to all members of the Working Group.

Consideration was given to;

• Timescale for the report
• Confidentiality led to more information being given to the Working Group
• The report was on the back of various previous reports into 3 Rivers Development Ltd.
• The Commerciality of any new company being able to go to the market for a loan and the ability of the Council to be able to make commercial loans
• Political consideration in taking on the St George’s Court site – the working party had considered this at length and their deliberation had resulted in Recommendation 5 – Public interest regeneration objectives for particular sites should be separately funded from non-commercial sources, for example by the offer of a grant to attract developers. – The development was a social statement as much as a political statement but it was driven by politics.
• A Holding Company containing two subsidiaries one being Teckel and one Non-Teckel.
• The amount of Scrutiny and Investigation the Company had been subject to.
• The costs of the various external reports were already in the public domain and the costs had been included in publicly available accounts.

Note: * report previously circulated