Top

Top

HOMES AND SAFE COMMUNITIES SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

 

Minutes of a meeting held on 15th June, 2016.

 

Present:  Councillor C.J. Williams (Chairman); Councillor J. Drysdale (Vice-Chairman); Councillors J.C. Bird, Mrs. C.L. Curtis, Ms. R.F. Probert, R.P. Thomas, Mrs. M.R. Wilkinson and E. Williams.

 

Also present:  Councillors Ms. B.E. Brooks, L. Burnett, N. Moore and R.A. Penrose along with co-opted Members Mrs. G. Doyle and A. Raybould (Tenant Working Group).

 

 

101            APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE -

 

These were received from Councillors A.G. Bennett and Mrs. V.M. Hartrey and G. Amos (Tenant Working Group).

 

 

102            MINUTES -

 

RECOMMENDED - T H A T the minutes of the meeting held on 18th May, 2016 be approved as a correct record.

 

 

103            DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST -

 

No declarations were received.

 

 

104            CALL-IN - VALE OF GLAMORGAN GYPSY AND TRAVELLER ACCOMMODATION ASSESSMENT MAY 2016 -

 

Cabinet, at its meeting on 6th June, 2016, considered a report in relation to matters that had emerged as a result of the ongoing Local Development Plan process and which related to Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation and sought approval for a suggested way forward.  The report also sought the adoption of the Vale of Glamorgan Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) May 2016. 

 

At its meeting, Cabinet had made the following resolutions 

  • T H A T the situation in respect of the Local Development Plan (LDP) concerning the allocation of a Gypsy and Traveller site be noted.
  • T H A T the suggested approach detailed in the report, that the Head of Regeneration and Planning issue a letter to the travellers currently occupying the unauthorised site at Hayes Road, Sully to provide them with the assurance that no planning enforcement action will be pursued against their residential use of the site within the subsequent five year period from the date of the letter, be endorsed.
  • T H A T subject to resolution 2 above, the Council continue to work with the occupants of the unauthorised site at Hayes Road, Sully to come to a mutually agreeable resolution to find a site that will meet their needs.
  • T H A T subject to resolution 2 above, the Vale of Glamorgan Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment, May 2016 attached at Appendix 1 to the report be adopted.
  • T H A T the report be referred to the Homes and Safe Communities Scrutiny Committee, the Environment and Regeneration Scrutiny Committee and the Project Steering Group for consideration, and to the Planning Committee for noting.

The Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Education, with permission to speak, began by stating the she would be leading on this item.  She stated that she was disappointed with the Call-In and that this item had been referred by Cabinet for the consideration of this Committee.  She referred to the complex range of factors that were considered prior to these proposals that included a number of policy and legislative areas, around which, officers would be best placed to advise and answer questions.

 

Councillor R.A. Penrose, who was present at the Scrutiny Committee meeting, outlined his reasons for the Call-In of the decisions.  He began by stating that the Vale of Glamorgan Council had always portrayed itself as a responsible Local Authority that catered for the legislative requirements of minority groups and individuals and adhered to Government policy.  However, he stated that this had not been the case in regards to the Gypsy and Traveller Community in the Vale of Glamorgan.  Councillor Penrose felt that the Travellers who had been illegally camp at Hayes Road, Sully since 1st January, 2016 and who were previously illegally camped at the Billy Banks, Penarth for several years, purely and simply was because the Council had failed to meet the Westminster and Welsh Government Legislation in not providing a permanent Gypsy/Traveller site in the Vale of Glamorgan over a period of seven years. 

 

Councillor Penrose then stated that he had raised this subject as a matter of consideration to the Scrutiny Committee (Economy and Environment) where he made a presentation to the meeting on 9th October, 2012, stating that the illegal Travellers were occupying an unsuitable and unsafe site at Hayes Road, Sully because of the Authority’s failure to establish a permanent site.  Councillor Penrose then outlined that this Authority then proposed that this site would become a candidate for a permanent Gypsy/Traveller site within the Local Development Plan dated 2013.  He then referred to the site’s proximity to a C2 Flood Plain as well as potential risk of contamination due to the site’s previous use as a waste recycling centre and he commented that this was not suitable for any form of residential development. 

 

He added that since the Planning Inspector at the Local Development Plan Hearing Number 16 advised that the site was not acceptable for any residential development and because there were no acceptable alternative sites, officers had requested for the Council to write to the Travellers occupying the Hayes Road site.  This letter would inform them that no planning enforcement actions would be taken against them for the next five years, whilst Council officers would try to find an alternative site, which they had estimated could take about two years.  Councillor Penrose then outlined his reasons why he felt the Council should not write such a letter: 

  • That the site in question had been designated as unsafe by Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales and because the Planning Inspector had advised that the Authority had a duty of care to all the occupants of the site and could not be seen to turn a blind eye to health and safety issues.
  • Sending such a letter would also indicate a legitimisation of illegal occupation of an authority owned site.
  • Why did a period of five years need to be stated if the letter that was sent when our officers indicated that they needed two years. 
  • Why did Council officers need to take two years when the Council had at least two option sites which could be implemented virtually immediately, namely Llangan and the Alps. 

Councillor Penrose then referred to the ORS Ltd report entitled ‘Vale of Glamorgan Gypsy and Travellers Accommodation Assessment May 2016’.  For this it had been highlighted at the LDP Hearing that inaccurate information had been submitted in draft form to Welsh Government in order to meet a deadline date.  With regards to the contents of this document he pointed out several weaknesses which were as follows: 

  • That the report admitted that no contact had ever been made with the illegal Travellers at Hayes Road, Sully, mentioning vague contact via third party, and only really guesstimate the number of families as 17.  Councillor Penrose raised the question as to how had this number ever been quantified.
  • The report stated that there were Fairground Travellers at Hayes Road, but that this was simply not true.
  • The report stated that the Travellers at Hayes Road had formally stated, to a third party, that they would not move onto a permanent organised site.  If this was the case then why were their numbers shown in the total requirement calculation in the report.
  • No contact had ever been made with Gypsy/Travellers in bricks and mortar, and the question was why.
  • At the LDP Hearing Number 16, Council officers stated that the original Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment submitted to Welsh Government was an inaccurate draft submitted purely to meet a deadline, how did the final document vary from the original inaccurate document submitted.

Councillor Penrose then requested that the Scrutiny Committee should not accept the officer’s recommendations and proposed the following recommendations for Cabinet’s consideration:

 

1.         Firstly, that the Vale of Glamorgan Council instigate an immediate survey to be carried out to quantify whether the site at Hayes Road, Sully was in any way contaminated or not.

 

2.         That Vale of Glamorgan Council officers liaise with Natural Resources Wales to view their recently created Flood Plain model for this area to quantify the flood risk to this site.

 

3.         In the interim, while this action was being undertaken the Vale of Glamorgan Council should not write any letter to the Travellers illegally occupying Hayes Road, Sully.

 

4.         That the Vale of Glamorgan Council immediately establishes a safe temporary location for these Travellers, on a Council owned site.

 

5.         The Vale of Glamorgan Council accelerates its officer’s efforts to establish the location of a permanent Gypsy/Traveller site in the Vale of Glamorgan.

 

6.         The Vale of Glamorgan Council via its officers, the Gypsy/Traveller Accommodation Assessment Steering Group, Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet reanalyse the accuracy and completeness of the Assessment and draft Final Report May 2016.

 

Prior to the meeting, the Head of Regeneration and Planning tabled a map which showed the C2 Flood Plain risks for the surrounding area of the Hayes Road site in Sully.

 

The Committee also considered written representation from Councillor Richard Bertin, which was tabled prior to the meeting.  In his email, Councillor Bertin concurred with the views of Councillor Penrose as set out in his Call-In.  It was Councillor Bertin’s view that the Hayes Road site should not be permitted for residential use due to the given regards of both health and safety within the chemical blast zone and flood risks from the site’s close proximity to the sea and water.  He also outlined that he felt that the Council should be doing more to accommodate Gypsy and Travellers in accord with various policies and regulations and that sites must be shared fairly across the county.  The Council should therefore find alternative provision for the removal of the Hayes Road site within an agreed timescale.

 

In referring to the Cabinet report, the Principal Appeals and Enforcement Officer stated that the assessment of Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation needs, and the duty to make provision for sites where the assessment identified need, became statutory requirements under Section 3 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. 

 

Following a procurement exercise undertaken through the Sell2Wales website, four quotes to undertake the GTAA were received, one was subsequently withdrawn and the remaining three quotes were evaluated by the Steering Group. Opinion Research Services (ORS) were appointed to undertake the work in compliance with the Welsh Government guidance entitled 'Undertaking Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments May 2015' (GTAA Guidance).

 

The Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) would also inform the Local Development Plan (LDP) for the Vale of Glamorgan.  Welsh Government guidance required Local Planning Authorities to accommodate any unmet needs identified in the area within the Development Plan.  The LDP was currently being considered at the examination in public.  Sessions were held between January and April this year and the Council was currently working on action points arising from those sessions with a view to preparing a Matters Arising Changes (MAC) schedule for public consultation later this year.

 

The Local Development Plan for the Vale of Glamorgan Council contained a specific policy (MG5) to allocate a new Gypsy and Traveller site.  The allocation was proposed as a response to the unmet needs identified in the 2013 GTAA. 

 

At the LDP Hearing session held on 22nd March, 2016 the Inspector was advised that a new GTAA was in the process of being prepared in accordance with Section 101 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014.  The Inspector was advised that a draft version of the GTAA was submitted to the Welsh Minister on 26th February, 2016 as required under Section 102 of the 2014 Act.  The draft GTAA was not a published document and the Inspector was advised that it was hoped that the final version of the GTAA would be agreed by Council’s Cabinet and published by the end of April 2016.  This resulted in the Inspector making the following action points: 

  • Action Point 2 - the Council to submit the updated Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment.  The Council should also submit a position paper outlining the implications for the Plan, including how the needs of permanent, transit and travelling show people should be addressed within the Plan - identifying new allocations if necessary.  Also to include monitoring indicators within the Plan as necessary.

In addition, due to a flooding constraint affecting the Hayes Road site that the Inspector considered could not be overcome or mitigated, he also directed the following action point: 

  • Action Point 5 - in light of C2 flooding constraints, the late Hayes Road, Sully as a Gypsy and Traveller allocation.  The Council to provide an update as to how it wishes to address the resulting shortfall within the Plan. 

The Inspector also considered that the Council’s duty under Section 103 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014, which required local authorities to meet any unmet needs identified in an approved assessment.  In view of this, the Inspector was of the view that the Plan was unlikely to be found to be sound should the Plan not allocate sufficient land to accommodate any need identified in the new GTAA. 

 

So in summary, the Principal Appeals and Enforcement Officer explained that it was the Inspector’s view that the site was not appropriate as a permanent site, which had been based on the potential risk of flooding.  She also referred to the Technical Advice Note 15 (TAN 15) that related to flood zones, which were used as development advice maps and so were not meant to be used for emergency flood planning.

 

In referring to TAN 15, a Committee Member stated that the Call-In referred to the severe risk and harm due to potential flooding.  He stated that from what he understood the level of risks for C2 flood areas for a river was 1 in 100 years, while the risk of flooding for tidal areas was 1 in 1,000 years. The Principal Appeals and Enforcement Officer confirmed that the risk from river flooding was a 1 in 100 year event and that the risk from tidal flooding was indeed a 1 chance in a 1,000. 

The Committee Member then stated that the area of risk did not include the entire site but was the road leading up to it and that the potential risk of flooding was 1 in 1,000 years.  This was also confirmed by the Head of Regeneration and Planning.

 

A Committee Member queried whether there were any other similar issues with other sites developed within the area of Hayes Road.  In reply, the Head of Regeneration and Planning referred to developments at the former Sully Hospital and also at Bendricks Road, around which, Welsh Government had been consulted and had not raised any objections in respect of concerns with flooding.

 

The Managing Director then commented that to clarify the situation, the Council had received a Category B objection from the Planning Inspector which related to the need to provide more justification around the use of the Hayes Road site.  Following this, the Council had been working on a Flood Risk Assessment which had been through a number of iterations and the Managing Director reiterated a previous point around the development of other sites about which no objections had been raised.  The Inspectors specific concerns related to access and egress for the Hayes Road site and the Inspector had directed the Council to review this allocated sited.

 

The Managing Director also provided a verbal update following discussion of the GTAA at the previous night’s meeting of the Environment and Regeneration Scrutiny Committee.  That Committee had recommended that this Scrutiny Committee should have maps available in order to highlight the areas at risk of flooding and the Committee had also queried the five year period for no planning enforcement action.  Overall, the Environment and Regeneration Scrutiny Committee supported and endorsed the Cabinet resolutions.

 

A Committee Member queried whether the Managing Director was satisfied with Hayes Road site.  In reply, the Managing Director stated that there was a balance to be struck as the Council did not have an alternative site available.  He went on to outline that Welsh Government guidelines encouraged local authorities to work with the Gypsy and Traveller community.  An important consideration was the narrow window available in order to resolve the situation and he alluded to the difficulties found in engaging with the Gypsy and Traveller community.  In addition, there were also a number of other complex issues associated with alternative sites such as some not being owned by the Council and the development of plans which could take longer than six to seven weeks for formalise.  The issue for the Council was either to ‘tolerate’ or ‘move on’ and because there was at present no alternative site, the best option was to tolerate and to work with the community to find a more permanent solution.  Further to these comments, the Head of Regeneration and Planning reiterated that timescales was a key issue and that resolution had to be found very quickly.  He advised that the LDP had been adopted subject to review and that this review could last up to three years.  However, it was more likely that Welsh Government and the Planning Inspector would want the Council to develop a solution within the next two years.

 

The Chairman questioned the reasons for the five year period in which no planning enforcement action would be taken; when it was planned that resolution would be sought within two years.  In reply to this, the Principal Appeals and Enforcement Officer stated that there had been some confusion between the two and five years.  The five years related to paragraph 146 of Welsh Government guidance, around how local authorities should conduct their GTAA.  This outlined that no planning enforcement action be taken for a period of five years for Gypsy and Travellers who were occupying a tolerated site while the Council assessed options.  This meant that the Council was meeting the needs of the Gypsy and Travellers occupying the site.  She also mentioned that the GTAA had been used as part of the LDP and it was therefore important to consider this over the lifetime of the LDP.  It was also important to outline what would happen after the five years.

 

In response to the question of what would happen after the five years, the Head of Regeneration and Planning reiterated that the letter would stipulate that the Council would not take any enforcement action for period of five years.  Legal advice on this had been sought and it was important to recognise that the no enforcement action was from a planning perspective.  The Head of Legal Services confirmed that once an alternative site had been found the Council could move the process on.

 

Further to these comments and in referring to the Hayes Road site, a Committee Member raised a point of clarity.  He stated that Natural Resources Wales had objected because they had not been given enough information in order to say that the site was contaminated or not.  Natural Resources Wales had raised concern that there was a potential risk of contamination at the site.  In reply, the Head of Regeneration and Planning stated that the comments from Natural Resources Wales related to a separate application for an adjacent site and their comments were not uncommon, particularly in relation to former waste collection sites.  He confirmed that Natural Resources Wales had not indicated that the site was contaminated and he added that history of the site did raise some concerns as it had been used for military purposes.  Furthermore, the front part of the site had been used as a Civic Amenity Site for which a licence had been granted by the former Environment Agency.  This licence therefore stipulated that only certain types of waste could be handled at the site and so it was the view of officers that the risk of contamination was low. 

 

A Committee Member commented on Welsh Government not raising any objections prior to the LDP meeting on 22nd March, 2016.  The Head of Regeneration and Planning stated that from 2012/13, Welsh Government correspondence had not indicated that the site was unacceptable.  With regard to the C2 Flood Plain, he advised that Welsh Government had also not raised any objections to the development of other sites located in the area.  It was important to recognise that the C2 Flood Plain maps were used for advisory purposes and that the boundary lines shown on the maps could change and that the maps were only relevant to the time that they were produced. 

 

In referring to the GTAA and ORS report, a Committee Member commented on the difficulties around engagement with the Gypsy and Traveller community and that new legislation would require the Council to routinely review the situation and monitor the number of caravans transiting through the site.  In response, the Head of Housing and Building Services confirmed that it had been difficult to engage with the Gypsy and Traveller community and so a new approach of consultation would be required.  This was why the GTAA had been based on 2013 information.  In terms of people transiting the site it was planned that this would be progressed on a regional basis with other local authorities. 

 

Councillor Penrose was then given an opportunity to comment on any of the previous points raised during the meeting.  He began by clarifying that his Call-In did not relate to the LDP specifically, but was to do with the Inspector’s ruling that the Hayes Road site was unsatisfactory.  He added that he as a Councillor had a duty of care to the occupants of the site to ensure that there was no risk of contamination and that the site was safe from flooding.  He also referred to the former use of the site, which he believed had been used as a fuel depot by the US Army during World War II.  In relation to the C2 Flood Plain, he commented that the site was not located on a hill and that it sat on the lowest part of the area and he made reference to the severe levels of flooding experienced in previous years.  He therefore queried why Natural Resources Wales had not been consulted. 

 

In reply to Councillor Penrose’s comments on flooding, the Head of Regeneration and Planning stated that for clarity Bendricks Road and a large part of Dow Corning were both located on the same Flood Plain.  Issues of flooding would therefore be present on both of these sites, but the Inspectors had not raised any objections to these.  He reiterated his previous comment that the specific concerns of the Inspectors to Hayes Road were in relation to access and egress to and from the site. 

 

The Chairman asked for clarity around whether a survey of the potential risk of contamination at the site had been conducted.  In answer to this, the Head of Housing and Building Services informed Members that the only potential risk of contamination would be from the vehicles that used the former Civic Amenity Site.  In addition, regular inspections of that site had been carried out and any issues would have had to have been reported to the Environment Agency.    Furthermore, the Head of Regeneration and Planning advised that the area in question was located on a hard standing concrete base and so in that regard; it was the view that no assessment was needed.  If there were plans to develop the site then the Council would have to assess the risk for contamination as the site would be disturbed and ‘dug up’.

 

RECOMMENDED -

 

(1)       T H A T the Homes and Safe Communities Scrutiny Committee endorses Cabinet Resolution for the Head of Regeneration and Planning to issue a letter to the Travellers currently occupying the unauthorised site at Hayes Road, Sully to provide them with the assurance that no planning enforcement action will be pursued against their residential use of the site within the subsequent five year period from the date of the letter.

 

(2)       T H A T the Homes and Safe Communities Scrutiny Committee endorses the Council adopting the Vale of Glamorgan’s Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment, May 2016.

 

Reasons for recommendations

 

(1)       To endorse Cabinet’s Resolution to provide a short term solution to the Gypsy and Traveller need in order to progress the Local Development Plan for adoption whilst allowing the Council to continue to work with the Travellers currently occupying the unauthorised site at Hayes Road, Sully in order to meet their long term accommodation needs in a sustainable way.

 

(2)       To endorse Cabinet’s Resolution to ensure that the Council complies with its statutory requirements under the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 and adopts a Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment, May 2016 for submission to Welsh Government and the LDP Inspector.

 

 

105            REVENUE AND CAPITAL MONITORING FOR THE PERIOD 1ST APRIL, 2016 TO 30TH APRIL, 2016 (DEH) -

 

The Operational Manager - Accountancy, presented the report the purpose of which was to advise the Scrutiny Committee of the position in respect of Revenue and Capital expenditure for the period 1st April to 30th April, 2016 which form this Committee’s remit. 

 

As it was early in the financial year, the Committee was advised that the current forecast was for a balanced budget.  A graph and table setting out the variance between the profiled budget and the actual expenditure to date was attached at Appendix 1. 

 

With regard to the Public Sector Housing (HRA), it was expected to outturn on target and any underspend in year would be off-set by additional contributions to Capital expenditure thus reducing the reliance on unsupported borrowing. 

 

It was projected that both the Council Fund Housing and the Fund for Private Housing would both outturn on target at year end. 

 

The report advised that in relation to Regulatory Services, the allocation of £2.056 million represented the Vale of Glamorgan’s budget for its share of the running costs as well as central overhead budgets less the income directly attributable to the Council.  A separate set of accounts was maintained for the Shared Regulatory Services and periodically reported to the Shared Regulatory Services Joint Committee.  At this stage in the year, it was anticipated that the Shared Regulatory Service would outturn within target. 

 

Attached at Appendix 2 was a list of savings to be achieved this year for this Committee.  At this early stage of the year, services were working towards fully achieving their savings targets, however, updates would be provided to Members during the year.  With regard to Capital expenditure, Appendix 3 detailed financial progress on the Capital programme as at 30th April, 2016.  Members were asked to be aware that Appendix 3 did not include requests for unspent committed expenditure to be slipped from 2015/16 into 2016/17. 

 

Appendix 4 provided non-financial information on Capital construction schemes with a budget of over £100,000. 

 

With regard to the Castleland Renewal Area, £100,000 of this budget was uncommitted and due to the ongoing commitments to make good the poor workmanship of Phase 5b of the Penarth Renewal Area at Queens Road, it was estimated that a budget of £100,000 would be needed to complete these works.  Options were currently being explored to recover this money.  It was therefore requested to vire £100,000 from the Castleland Renewal Area to the Penarth Renewal Area’s scheme. 

 

In relation to the Housing Improvement Programme, delegated authority requests had been used to allocate the £28.882 million budgets as follows:

 

WHQS   Internals

£2,085k

WHQS   Externals

£17,339k

Jenner   Road

£920k

Clive   Road

£113k

St   Lukes

£1,059k

St   Pauls

£457k

Williams   Crescent

£1,354k

Emergency   Works

£151k

Aids   and Adaptations

£400k

Regeneration

£230k

Common   Parts

£2,200k

WHQS   Environmental Improvements

£774k

New   Build

£1,800k

 

 

Members in requesting further information in relation to the poor workmanship of phase 5b of the Penarth Renewal Area at Queens Road, were informed that this would be sent to them via email.

 

RECOMMENDED - T H A T the position with regards to the 2016/17 Revenue and Capital Monitoring be noted.

 

Reason for recommendation

 

That the Scrutiny Committee note the position with regards to the 2016/17 Revenue and Capital Monitoring.

 

 

106            END OF YEAR PERFORMANCE REPORT 2015/16 AND TARGET SETTING 2016/17 (DEH) -

 

The Committee received the end of year performance results for the period 1st April, 2015 to 31st March, 2016 for Housing and Building Services and for the Shared Regulatory Service.  The Committee was also presented with the proposed targets for improvement for 2016/17 for existing performance indicators aligned to the Wellbeing Outcomes aligned to the two service areas.

 

The Head of Housing and Building Services, in referring to the end of year performance for her Service area, stated that information contained within the Appendix was not up to date and so this should be considered at the Committee’s next meeting.

 

With regard to target setting for Housing and Building Services, the report advised that the annual target setting process for 2016/17 had been aligned with a new Corporate Plan Wellbeing Outcomes.  Appendix 2 outlined the proposed targets for the Homes and Safe Communities Scrutiny Committee and included all relevant performance indicators that would fit within the remit of the newly formed Committee.  Targets had been set for those performance indicators that were continuing into 2016/17. 

 

47 indicators were proposed to be carried forward and collected in 2016/17 and 14 to be deleted.  Of the 47 proposed measures for 2016/17, 20 had set targets to improve on the previous year’s performance, 4 had targets that had been set to remain the same when compared to the previous year and 9 had set targets lower than the previous year’s performance.  14 measures did not have a target set.

 

The Committee in querying the performance of the Council in relation to Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG), noted that the only area of concern related to the complex nature of DFGs for children.   The Committee were also advised that the Council had been able to learn best practice from other neighbouring authorities such as Neath and Port Talbot.

 

In relation to the Shared Regulatory Services, the Operational Manager outlined to Members those indicators where performance for 2015/16 fell below target.  The first related to performance indicator PPN009 (the percentage of food establishments which are broadly compliant with food hygiene standards).  Members were advised that this related to the Food Hygiene rating system which graded premises between 0 and 5, with a 0 being the most inadequate and 5 being the highest.  This was a national performance indicator, for which the performance target had been set at 91% of premises being broadly compliant.  Performance for 2016/16 was 90.69% so the Service just failed to hit its target. 

 

The second indicator related to PPN001ii (the percentage of high risk businesses that were liable to a programmed inspection that were inspected, for food hygiene).  For this, Members were advised that the performance target was 100% and the Shared Regulatory Services achieved a performance of 88.89%.  Performance on this indicator had been affected by a new staff structure and the loss of food officers in previous quarters which had resulted in the Service failing to reach the agreed target.  Members were advised that those businesses which were missed last year have been chased during the first quarter of this current year. 

 

Performance was also highlighted in relation to indicator DSM002 (the percentage of know Houses of Multiple Occupation licensed in the area).  Performance for last year was 3.23% against a target of 40%.

 

With regard to target setting for the Shared Regulatory Service, of 17 indicators aligned to Well-being Outcome 1, 'An Inclusive and Safe Vale' and Well-being Outcome 4, 'An Active and Healthy Vale', 10 were proposed to be collected in 2016-17 and 7 to be deleted. The remaining indicators had proposed targets which were supported by a rationale, explaining why the target had been set at that level. The rationale should clearly provide the reason that had driven the decision to set target at that level. 

 

RECOMMENDED -

 

(1)       T H A T the Committee note the progress being made on developing the Council’s Performance Management Framework

 

(2)       T H A T the Shared Regulatory Services performance results and the progress made towards achieving key outcomes as outlined in the Corporate Plan 2013-17, the Outcome Agreement of Welsh Government 2013-16 and the Improvement Plan Part 1 2015-16 be noted.

 

(3)       T H A T the proposed targets for 2016/17 in relation to Housing and Building Services which aligned to Wellbeing Outcome 1, An Inclusive and Safe Vale, be endorsed.

 

(4)       T H A T the proposed targets for 2016/17 in relation to the Shared Regulatory Services which were aligned to Wellbeing Outcome 1, An Inclusive and Safe Vale, and Wellbeing Outcome 4, An Active and Healthy Vale, be endorsed.

 

Reasons for recommendations

 

(1)       To ensure Members are aware of the progress being made on developing the Council's Performance Management Framework.

 

(2)       To ensure the Council is effectively assessing its performance in line with the requirement to secure continuous improvement outlined in the Local Government Measure (Wales) 2009.

 

(3&4)   To ensure the Council reports a relevant set of performance indicators against which it can demonstrate achievement of its priorities and consistently sets challenging yet realistic performance improvement targets for those priorities in line with requirements under the Local Government (Wales) Measure 2009.

 

 

Share on facebook Like us on Facebook