Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor S Newton, Councillor C Cottle-Hunkin and Mr I Harper.

Confirmation of the minutes held on the 4^th February 2025.

It was proposed by Councillor C Hodson, seconded by Councillor S Inch and –

Resolved:

That the minutes of the meeting held on the 4^th February 2025 be agreed and signed as a correct record.

(Vote: For – 6, Against – 0, Abstentions - 2)

The Committee discussed and updated the Action List.

A 15-minute period for public contributions.  (The deadline for registering to speak is by 2pm Friday 28^th February 2025). To register please email dem.services@torridge.gov.uk).

There were no public contributions.

Members with interests should refer to the agenda item and describe the nature of their interest when the item is considered.

Members were reminded that declarations of interest should be made as and when the specific agenda item to which they related was under discussion.

There were no urgent matters brought forward.

There were no Part II items.

Here, the Chair outlined that there would be an amendment to the agenda structure; the update on the Social Value Policy would be presented after the Draft Enforcement Plan. Members were in agreement of this.

To receive a verbal update from the Planning Manager.

The Planning Manager presented the item, the purpose of which was for Members to note and comment on the draft Enforcement Plan. The presentation included information on:

·         Cases received between 2020-2025

·         Current outstanding cases

·         Enforcement action

·         Enforcement appeals and outcomes

·         Site visits

·         The use of a high and medium priority classification system, with the possibility of introducing an additional low priority tier

·         Timescales for cases per classification

The Planning Manager highlighted that the key changes to the Enforcement Plan are prioritisation and the commitment to timescales.

A discussion occurred. Members questioned if modelling had been conducted for the medium to low priority cases. The Planning Manager explained that modelling had not occurred, but that it would be beneficial. Members noted that an additional low priority tier would provide increased scope for managing workloads.

Members expressed concern on the two-day timescale for high priority cases. The Planning Manager explained that the timescale can be shortened based on factors such as the availability of Enforcement Officers. The Committee discussed examples and recognised that action is usually taken quickly when required.

Following this, the Committee discussed adding targets for site ‘re-visits’ when site access issues have occurred. The Planning Manager explained that a procedure for this could be added to the Enforcement Plan. Members suggested that the wording of a ‘second site visit’ requires rephrasing, as it implies that the first visit had been successful. The Head of Legal and Governance (& Monitoring Officer) outlined that these visits are labelled as second visits even when inaccessible due to the operation of the recording process. The potential requirement of a warrant was outlined.

Briefly, Members raised concern over the classification of low priority cases and questioned if case classification can change where necessary. The Planning Manager reiterated that the Enforcement Plan will recognise that case prioritisation may change, and referred to timescale commitments.

When questioned about the next steps of the Enforcement Plan, the Planning Manager explained that a draft Enforcement Plan document will be taken to Full Council for decision. Here, Members were in favour of the draft coming to the Committee first for comment and scrutiny.

It was proposed by Councillor C Hodson, seconded by Councillor D Smith and –

Resolved:

That the draft Enforcement Plan report will be brought to the Internal Overview and Scrutiny Committee prior to Full Council, enabling Members to comment and make recommendations.

(Vote: For – Unanimous).

To receive a report from the Service Improvement Officer.

The Service Improvement Officer and the Principal Accountant (Deputy S151 Officer) gave a presentation, the purpose of which was for Members to note and comment on the findings in the QBR 3.

The presentation included information on:

·         The Performance Management Cycle

·         Highlights from the Four Themes (Local Economy, Communities, Health & Housing, Our Environment, Our Future and Our Council)

·         Performance Reporting 2024/25 (Budget Monitoring of Revenue, Budget Narrative, Key Significant Adverse Variances, Key Significant Favourable Variances)

·         Key Income Streams

·         Salaries Monitoring (Variance to Budget)

·         Temporary Accommodation Costs (Cost Recovery)

·         Budget Monitoring (Capital and Reserves, Earmarked Reserves)

·         Capital Narrative

·         Investments

The Principal Accountant (Deputy S151 Officer) outlined that the most Significant Adverse Variances were staff costs, Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) and car parking. Whereas, the most Significant Favourable Variances were bank interests, government grants and homelessness costs. Additionally, £2.9 million out of the capital programme budget has been spent, and the highest spend to date is from DFGs and temporary accommodation.

The Committee commended Officers.

Subsequent to the presentation of the QBR 3, the discussion progressed onto the Question and Answer Supplement. The Committee addressed the questions submitted by Councillor Elliott, and Members commented on the potential of having an additional full-time Enforcement Officer due to workloads.

Following on, Members addressed Mr Dengate’s questions, where it was outlined that further information is required on a question regarding footfall and business trends in Torridge. The Chair explained that further information could be sought from the Head of Communities and Place. Furthermore, with reference to a question about Universal Credit, the Head of Legal and Governance (& Monitoring Officer) explained that the Council does not hold this data. The Committee noted that this data is a key indicator for the local economy and so requires further discussion.

In response to a question regarding the Planning Preventative Maintenance Programme, the Strategy, Performance & ICT Manager explained that no planning Officers were present in the meeting and highlighted the necessity of submitting QBR questions prior to the meeting. 

Subsequently, Members discussed the Asylum Dispersal Grant with reference to impacts on temporary accommodation costs. The Head of Legal and Governance (& Monitoring Officer) explained that for these families, the Council receives a set sum of money to be used for statutory services. Once asylum has been granted, the Council are able to use the money to assist them with housing. However, this could affect the Council’s temporary accommodation costs.

The Committee questioned if DFGs had stopped in November and the Head of Legal and Governance (& Monitoring Officer) confirmed that this was not the case. Members were made aware of additional funding that will be reported in the next QBR. 

The Committee moved onto the discussion of car parking, and discussed the increase in penalty notices but the reduction of income from car parks. Here, the Committee commented that it would be beneficial to understand the nature of the parking fines for trends to be identified. The Head of Legal and Governance (& Monitoring Officer) explained that this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 385.

To receive an update from the Strategy, Performance & ICT Manager and the Community Project Officer.

The Strategy, Performance & ICT Manager and the Community Project Officer gave a presentation, the purpose of which was to provide an update on the progress of the Social Value Policy.

The presentation included information on:

·                     The background of the Social Value Policy and the Task & Finish Group

·                     The Delivery, including information on The National Themes, Outcomes and Measures (TOMs)

·                     Social Value Roles and Responsibilities

·                     Projects – Social Value Return (-£50k) – OSCAR and ACMIC

·                     £1000 Donation to Local Charity/ Project

·                     Shared Prosperity Fund 2023/24, 2024/25

·                     Rural England Prosperity Fund

·                     Progress and Next Steps, including information on software

The Committee were reminded that the Social Value Policy ensures that all procurements over £50,000 will have social value metrics in the scoring and evaluation process. The Council’s Social Value Policy is based on, and measured by, the TOMs that are centred around the Strategic Plan.

The Chair highlighted that the Committee may have benefitted from receiving this information before the meeting to facilitate scrutiny. The Strategy, Performance & ICT Manager clarified that the information was provided as an update. It was agreed that the presentation would be circulated to the Committee after the meeting.

A discussion occurred. Members referred to the complexity of quantifying monetary and social value. The Committee discussed progression, and highlighted the importance of the policy for measuring activity and a variety of social values.

Following this, the discussion focussed on the monitoring of economic progression and outcomes. Members discussed the creation of employment opportunities and the potential ambiguity of timelines for the Appledore Clean Maritime Innovation Centre (ACMIC). The Community Project Officer outlined that, at the start, there will be quarterly on-site meetings with the Appledore social value manager to discuss and monitor progress. However, the Community Project Officer acknowledged that, sometimes, a developer’s ambition for delivery can exceed actual results. Nonetheless, monitoring will strive to ensure that outcomes are achieved.

The Committee highlighted concerns around the overstating of social value by developers, and the need to keep a record of what is proposed compared to what is delivered. The Strategy, Performance & ICT Manager clarified that this can be added to the project spreadsheet. Moreover, Members were made aware that there has been positive engagement from developers.

The Committee acknowledged the importance of incorporating local knowledge from Town and Parish Councils when developing the TOMs.

To receive an update from the Chair.

The Chair provided an update from Councillor S Newton, and informed the Committee that Councillor S Newton has requested to be a Member of the Task and Finish Group.

Following this, Councillor W Lo-Vel and Councillor J Craigie volunteered to join the group. 

To review the Forward Plan.

The Committee discussed the Forward Plan.

The Strategy, Performance & ICT Manager referred to the Annual General Meeting (AGM) in May and the reconfiguration of the Committee. Briefly, reference was made to training for new Members.

The Chair acknowledged the benefits of the ‘Keep Under Review’ section of the Forward Plan, and reiterated the need for a briefing report from the Car Parking Team.