Meeting of the Council of The City and County of Swansea 3rd December 2009 at 4.00pm COUNCIL SUMMONS
You are hereby summoned to attend a Meeting of the COUNCIL OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA to be held in the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Swansea on Thursday, 3 December 2009 at 4.00 p.m.
The following business is proposed to be transacted:
1. Apologies for Absence.
2. To Receive Disclosures of Personal and Prejudicial Interests from Members in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Conduct adopted by the City & County of Swansea.
(NOTE: You are requested to identify the Agenda Item / Minute No. Planning Application No. and Subject Matter to which the interest relates).
3. To receive and sign as correct records the Minutes of the following meetings:-
(1) Extraordinary Meeting of Council held on 15 October 2009. 6-7 (2) Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 22 October 2009. 8-21
4. Presiding Officer’s Announcements
5. Leader’s Announcements
6. Public Questions Questions must relate to matters on the open part of the Agenda of the meeting and will be dealt within a ten minute period.
7. Public Presentations
(A) British Waterways
8. Cabinet Member Reports
(A) Environment Portfolio (1) Giving the Neighbourhood the Brush Off – Petition Against Rubbish 22-23 and Litter in Uplands, Swansea. (2) Review of the Gambling Policy. 24-60
(B) Community Leadership and Democracy (1) Membership of Committees/Outside Bodies. 61-63
(C) Economic & Strategic Development (1) Draft Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Guidance – Report 64-118 on Consultation. (2) Wales Audit Office Report – ‘’Development Control’’. 119-155 (3) Planning Services Member Task Group - Work Programme. 156-159
(D) Finance (1) Council Tax Base Calculation 2010/11. 160-164
9. Report of the Corporate Director (Social Services) (1) Child & Family Services. 165-179
10. Joint Report of the Presiding Officer and Monitoring Officer (1) Proposal to Amend the Terms of Reference of Licensing Committee 180-182 and General Purposes Panel. (2) Wales Audit Office Report Development Control - Speaking Rights at 183-187 Planning Committees. (3) Amendments to the Council Constitution. 188-190
11. Joint Report of the Head of Communications and Scrutiny (1) Overview & Scrutiny Strategic Work Programme 2009/10 - Update. 191-197
12. Report of the Chief Executive (1) Councillors Allowances Handbook. 198-227
13. Councillor Questions 228-225
14. Notice of Motion from Councillors DG Sullivan and NJ Tregoning
This Council notes that: 1. Climate change predictions show that without severe cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, the world will be hit by drought, flooding and famine affecting all of us and poorest countries in particular. Some of these countries are already suffering from the effects of climate change. This is an issue of social justice as well as a call to take environmental action. 2. Under the UK Climate Change Act 2008 the UK is due to cut its emissions by 34% by 2020, and that Camden aspires to a 40% cut by 2020 as a supporter of the Friends of the Earth "Get Serious" Campaign, but that, according to climate change scientists, a cut of 10% in 2010 is in line with what is now needed to avert runaway climate change. 3. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which meets in Copenhagen in December of this year, may be the world's last chance to negotiate a deal that will avert the worst consequences of climate change. 4. To ensure a breakthrough at the critical Copenhagen conference government ministers need to know that the public support more dramatic cuts in emissions than have hitherto been proposed.
5. Ten councils are among those who have signed up to the "10:10 Campaign" initiated by Camden filmmaker Franny Armstrong, which seeks to persuade individuals, businesses, organisations and the UK government to reduce their CO2 emissions by 10% in 2010. This Council supports the aims and ambitions of the 10:10 Campaign. This Council therefore resolves to sign the City and County of Swansea Council up for the 10:10 Campaign.
16. To authorise the affixing of the Common Seal to any document necessary to carry into effect any resolution passed or confirmed at this meeting
David Daycock Head of Legal and Democratic Services Civic Centre Swansea 26 November 2009 To: All Members of the Council
Item No. 2
Disclosures of Personal Interest from Members
To receive Disclosures of Personal Interest from Members in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Conduct adopted by the City and County of Swansea. You must disclose orally to the meeting the existence and nature of that interest.
NOTE: You are requested to identify the Agenda Item / Minute No. / Planning Application No. and Subject Matter to which that interest relates and to enter all declared interests on the sheet provided for that purpose at the meeting.
1. If you have a Personal Interest as set out in Paragraph 10 of the Code, you MAY STAY, SPEAK AND VOTE unless it is also a Prejudicial Interest.
2. If you have a Personal Interest which is also a Prejudicial Interest as set out in Paragraph 12 of the Code, then subject to point 3 below, you MUST WITHDRAW from the meeting (unless you have obtained a dispensation from the Authority’s Standards Committee)
3. Where you have a Prejudicial Interest you may attend the meeting but only for the purpose of making representations, answering questions or giving evidence relating to the business, provided that the public are also allowed to attend the meeting for the same purpose, whether under a statutory right or otherwise. In such a case, you must withdraw from the meeting immediately after the period for making representations, answering questions, or giving evidence relating to the business has ended, and in any event before further consideration of the business begins, whether or not the public are allowed to remain in attendance for such consideration (Paragraph 14 of the Code).
4. Where you have agreement from the Monitoring Officer that the information relating to your Personal Interest is sensitive information, as set out in Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct, your obligation to disclose such information is replaced with an obligation to disclose the existence of a personal interest and to confirm that the Monitoring Officer has agreed that the nature of such personal interest is sensitive information.
5. If you are relying on a grant of a dispensation by the Standards Committee, you must, before the matter is under consideration: (i) disclose orally both the interest concerned and the existence of the dispensation; and (ii) before or immediately after the close of the meeting give written notification to the Authority containing -
- details of the prejudicial interest; - details of the business to which the prejudicial interest relates; - details of, and the date on which, the dispensation was granted; and - your signature
Z:\Committees\A Agenda Pack\Council\2008-09\08 June 26\02 - Disclosures of Personal Interest.doc Item No 3 (1)
CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA
MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA
HELD AT CIVIC CENTRE, SWANSEA ON THURSDAY 15 OCTOBER 2009 AT 4.30 P.M.
PRESENT: Councillor E W Fitzgerald (Presiding Officer) presided
Councillor(s): Councillor(s): Councillor(s):
V A Bates-Hughes B J Hynes H M Morris N S Bradley D H James J Newbury J E Burtonshaw D I E Jones B G Owen M C Child J W Jones G Phillips A R Clement M H Jones C L Philpott A C S Colburn M R Jones D Price W J F Davies S M Jones S J Rice A M Day W E A Jones I M Richard C R Doyle J B Kelleher D A Robinson J E Evans E T Kirchner G Seabourne W Evans R D Lewis P B Smith M E Gibbs R J Lloyd R L Smith J B Hague K E Marsh R C Stewart M J Hedges P N Matthews R J Stanton C A Holley P N May C Thomas N A Holley P M Meara L G Thomas P R Hood-Williams J T Miles J M Thomas D T Howells W K Morgan D P Tucker
65. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors V A Abbott, R Francis-Davies, D H Hopkins, R H Kinzett, A Lloyd, D Phillips, T H Rees, J C Richards, M Smith, D G Sullivan, D W W Thomas, N J Tregoning
66. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST
In accordance with the provisions of the Code of Conduct adopted by the City and County of Swansea, no interests were declared.
67. PRESIDING OFFICER’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
None. Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of the Council of the City and County of Swansea (15.10.09) Cont’d
68. LEADER’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
69. CORPORATE IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2009-12
The Cabinet Members for Business Improvement and Efficiency and Finance reported on the Corporate Improvement Plan, 2009-12. The plan summarised actions and targets agreed for delivery during the current reporting year 2009-10 and future years up to 2012 and provided a commentary on progress made on achieving targets, mitigating risks and undertaking actions since 2008-09.
Members highlighted a number of issues relating to the Children and Young People Plan 2008/11, the Health and Social Care and Well- Being Strategy 2008/11, Performance Summary 2008-09, Summary of Movement of Risks during 2008-09 to 2009-10, Swansea’s performance compared to other Welsh Unitary Local Authorities and associated finance and costs.
The appropriate Cabinet Member(s) responded accordingly.
RESOLVED that the Corporate Improvement Plan 2009-12 be approved and adopted.
70. COMMON SEAL
RESOLVED that the Common Seal be affixed to any necessary documents to bring into effect any decisions taken at this meeting.
The meeting ended at 5.25 p.m.
CHAIRMAN
Z: Extraordinary Council 15 October 2009 (JEP/GDL) 16 October 2009
Item No. 3 (2)
CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA
MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA
HELD AT CIVIC CENTRE, SWANSEA ON THURSDAY 22nd OCTOBER 2009 AT 4.00 P.M.
PRESENT: Councillor E W Fitzgerald (Presiding Officer) presided
Councillor(s): Councillor(s): Councillor(s):
V N Abbot D I E Jones B G Owen V A Bates-Hughes J W Jones D Phillips P M Black M H Jones G Phillips J E Burtonshaw M R Jones C L Philpott M C Child S M Jones D Price A R Clement W E A Jones T H Rees A C S Colburn A Jopling S J Rice W J F Davies J B Kelleher I M Richard A M Day R H Kinzett J C Richards C R Doyle E T Kirchner D A Robinson J E Evans R D Lewis G Seabourne W Evans A Lloyd M Smith R Francis-Davies R J Lloyd R L Smith M E Gibbs K E Marsh R C Stewart J B Hague P N Matthews D G Sullivan M J Hedges P N May C Thomas C A Holley P M Meara D W W Thomas N A Holley J T Miles L G Thomas P R Hood-Williams W K Morgan J M Thomas D H Hopkins H M Morris D P Tucker D T Howells J Newbury J Woodman B J Hynes
71. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors N S Bradley, D H James, P B Smith, R Speht, R J Stanton, N J Tregoning and S M Waller Thomas.
72. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST
The Head of Legal and Democratic Services gave advice regarding declarations of interest in relation to items on the Council Summons, particularly in relation to the Estyn Report and its implications for School Governors, Petitions, Council/Social Housing, Pension Matters report and for Members who were Community Councillors in relation to the “Are You Being Served?” Notice of Motion response. Minutes of the Council of the City and County of Swansea (22.10.09) Cont’d
Councillor V N Abbott - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Plasmarl Primary - personal.
Councillor V A Bates-Hughes - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Dylan Thomas Community School - personal.
Councillor P M Black - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor Pentrehafod School - personal.
Councillor J E Burtonshaw - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Daniel James Community School - personal.
Councillor M C Child - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Grange Primary and Bishop Gore Comprehensive - personal.
Councillor A R A Clement - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Clase and Gwyrosydd Primary - personal.
Councillor A C S Colburn - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Newton and Oystermouth Primary - and Item No. 14(1) - Overview Board Report as Mumbles Community Councillor - personal.
Councillor W J F Davies - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Morriston Primary and Morriston Comprehensive - personal.
Councillor A M Day - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Sketty Primary - personal.
Councillor C R Doyle - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Birchgrove Comprehensive - personal.
Councillor J Evans - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Pennard and Talycopa Primaries - personal.
Councillor W Evans - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Pontybrenin and Tre Uchaf Primaries and Item No. 14(1) as Llwchwr Town Councillor - personal.
Councillor E W Fitzgerald - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Penllergaer Primary and Pontarddulais Comprehensive and Item No. 14(1) - Overview Board report as Penllergaer Community Councillor - personal.
Councillor R Francis-Davies - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Pentreporth Infants and Daniel James Community School - personal. Minutes of the Council of the City and County of Swansea (22.10.09) Cont’d
Councillor M E Gibbs - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Pentrechwyth Primary and Cefn Hengoed Comprehensive - personal.
Councillor J B Hague - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Cwmglas Primary and Cefn Hengoed Comprehensive and Item No. 9 (B)(1) - Pension Matters as Member of Pension Fund Panel - personal.
Councillor M J Hedges - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Glyncollen and Ynystawe Primaries and Item No. 9(B)(1) - Pension Matters as Member or Pension Fund Panel - personal and Item 9(A)(1) Lon Las School Petition - daughter at school - personal and left during discussion.
Councillor C A Holley - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Cwmbwrla and Manselton Primaries - personal.
Councillor N A Holley - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Cadle and Gendros Primaries - personal.
Councillor P R Hood-Williams - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Cila and Crwys Primaries and Item No. 14(1) - Overview Board Report as Upper Killay and Llanrhidian Higher Community Councillor - personal.
Councillor D Hopkins - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor – Sea View School
Councillor D T Howells - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Pontarddulais Primary and Pontarddulais Comprehensive - personal.
Councillor B J Hynes - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - St Helens and Waun Wen Primaries - personal.
Councillor J W Jones - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Dunvant Primary and Olchfa Comprehensive - personal.
Councillor M H Jones - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Hendrefoilan Primary and Olchfa Comprehensive and Item No. 14(1) - Overview Board Report as Killay Community Councillor - personal.
Councillor M R Jones - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Dan-y-graig Primary and St Thomas Community Primary and Item No. 9(A)(2) - Dan-y-Graig Road Petition - personal.
Councillor S M Jones - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Tregwyr Infants and Gowerton Comprehensive and Item No. 14(1) - Overview Board Report as Gowerton Community Councillor - personal. Minutes of the Council of the City and County of Swansea (22.10.09) Cont’d
Councillor W E A Jones - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Townhill Community Primary - personal.
Councillor A Jopling - Item No. 14(1) - Overview Board Report as Gorseinon Town Councillor - personal.
Councillor J B Kelleher - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Pennard and Waunarlwydd Primaries - personal.
Councillor E T Kirchner - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - St Joseph’s R.C. Junior and Terrace Road Primary - personal.
Councillor R D Lewis - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Knelston and Llanrhidian Primaries - personal.
Councillor A Lloyd - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - St Helen’s Primary and Bishop Gore Comprehensive and Item No. 9(B)(1) - Pension Matters as Member of the Pension Fund Panel - personal.
Councillor R J Lloyd - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Graig Infants and Pentrepoeth Infants - personal.
Councillor K E Marsh - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Bishopston Primary and Bishopston Comprehensive - personal.
Councillor P M Matthews - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Trallwyn Primary and Birchgrove Comprehensive and Item No. 9(a)(1) - Lon Las Petition - personal.
Councillor P N May - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Brynmill Primary and YGG Bryn-y-Mor and daughter at YGG Bryn-y- Mor and Item No. 16 (Question 13) - Brynmill Play Scheme - personal.
Councillor P M Meara - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Sketty Primary and Pen-y-Bryn Special School - personal.
Councillor J T Miles - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - YGG Bryniago and Pontarddulais Comprehensive - personal.
Councillor W K Morgan - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Waunarlwydd Primary and YGG Login Fach - personal.
Councillor H M Morris - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor – Daniel James Community School and Portmead Primary - personal. Minutes of the Council of the City and County of Swansea (22.10.09) Cont’d
Councillor J Newbury - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Dunvant Primary and Item No. 9(B)(1) - Pension Matters as Member of Pension Fund Panel - personal.
Councillor B G Owen - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Clase Primary and Daniel James Community School - personal.
Councillor D Phillips - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Terrace Road Primary and Dylan Thomas Community School - personal.
Councillor G Phillips - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Blaenymaes and Portmead Primaries and Item No. 9(B)(1) - Pension Matters as Member of Pension Fund Panel - personal.
Councillor C L Philpott - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Sketty Primary - personal.
Councillor D Price - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Tre Uchaf Primary - personal.
Councillor T H Rees - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - YGG Llwynderw and Olchfa Comprehensive - personal.
Councillor S J Rice - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Brynmill Primary and Item No. 9(B)(1) - Pension Matters as Member of Pension Fund Panel - personal.
Councillor I M Richard - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Craig-Cefn-Parc Primary and YGG Gellionen and Item No. 14(1) - Overview Board Report as Mawr Community Councillor - personal.
Councillor J C Richards - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Casllwchwr Primary and Penyrheol Comprehensive and Item No. 14(1) - Overview Board Report as Llwchwr Town Councillor - personal.
Councillor D A Robinson - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Dan-y-Graig Primary and St Thomas Community Primary - personal and Items No. 9(A)(1) - Lon Las Petition - grandchildren at school and No. 9(A)(2) - Danygraig Road Petition - personal and left during discussion.
Councillor G Seabourne - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Penyrheol Primary and Penyrheol Comprehensive - personal. Minutes of the Council of the City and County of Swansea (22.10.09) Cont’d
Councillor M Smith - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Pennard Primary - personal.
Councillor R L Smith - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Graig Felen Primary and Clydach Infants and Item No. 14(1) - Overview Board Report as Clydach Community Councillor - personal.
Councillor D G Sullivan - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Llangyfelach Primary and Pontlliw Primary and Item No. 14(1) - Overview Board Report as Llangyfelach Community Councillor - personal.
Councillor C Thomas - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Gwyrosydd Primary and Daniel James Community School - personal.
Councillor D W W Thomas - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Whitestone Primary and Bishop Gore Senior Comprehensive - personal.
Councillor L G Thomas - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Manselton Primary and Pentrehafod Comprehensive and Item No. 16 (Question 16) - Director of the Swansea Stadium Management Company - personal.
Councillor J M Thomas - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - YGG Bryn-y-Mor - personal.
Councillor D P Tucker - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - Llanmorlais Primary and Item No. 14(1) - Overview Board Report as Llanrhidian Higher Community Councillor - personal.
Councillor J Woodman - Item No. 8 - Estyn Report - LEA Governor - YGG Bryn-y-Mor - personal.
73. MINUTES OF COUNCIL
RESOLVED that:
(1) the Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting of Council held on 10th September, 2009 be accepted as a correct record;
Minutes of the Council of the City and County of Swansea (22.10.09) Cont’d
(2) the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 10th September, 2009 be accepted as a correct record, subject to the following amendments:
(i) delete Councillor P B Smith from list of Members present;
(ii) Minute No. 63 (Page 21) - third line - fourth word - (02) - amend from “improved” to “approved”.
74. PRESIDING OFFICER’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE)
The Presiding Officer referred to the success of the City & County of Swansea in its success in the recent APSE awards.
Swansea was successful in securing a number of finalist nominations and two overall winner awards.
• The Programme and Project Management Team was also shortlisted for the Best Information and Communication Technology Initiative
• Corporate Building Services were finalists in the Best Service Team Construction and Building and Waste Management and Recycling.
• Corporate Building Services also secured the overall winner award for Best Employee and Equality Initiative for its work around training and apprentices.
• The above accolades also contributed to Swansea securing the overall Council of the Year in Service Delivery.
Len Amos and Mike Powney from the Programme and Project Management Team and Martin Nicholls and Chris Cutforth representing Corporate Building Services received the awards.
New Political Group
The Presiding Officer reported that Councillors M E Gibbs, G Seabourne and R L Smith had formed a new political group within the Authority called Communities of Swansea. Minutes of the Council of the City and County of Swansea (22.10.09) Cont’d
Former Councillors
Council agreed to send best wishes to former Councillors G H Burtonshaw and W G Evans following their recent illnesses.
75. LEADER’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Leader referred to the awarding of the Future Jobs Fund for the Employment Training Team.
76. PUBLIC QUESTIONS
Six Questions were asked.
Mr T Hennigan and Mr K Ross both asked questions in relation to Affordable Housing Delivery Statement (Item No. 9(E)(1)). The Cabinet Member for Housing responded.
Mrs L Davies asked two questions in relation to Council Questions Item No. 16 - (Question 16) and ESTYN Report - Item No. 8. The Cabinet Member for Environment indicated that a written response would be sent on dog fouling (Item 16) and the Cabinet Member for Education responded to the question on Item 8.
Mr A Beddow asked two questions in relation to Affordable Housing Delivery Statement - Item No. 9(E)(1) and Council Questions - Item No. 16 (Question 5). The Cabinet Member indicated that a written reply would be sent regarding Dragon Software (Item 9 E1) and responded to the other question(Item 16).
77. PUBLIC PRESENTATION
None.
78. QUALITY AND STANDARDS IN EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN WALES - ESTYN
Mr. Gerard Kerslake, Lead Inspector accompanied by Mrs M. Stone and Mr. S. Lamb of ESTYN gave a detailed and informative presentation to members outlining the results of the inspection of the Local Authority’s Education Services carried out in June, 2009.
He referred to the background and context to the review, then outlined the summary of findings and recommendations highlighted for action by the inspection.
The response from the Local Authority to the findings of the report was also outlined. Minutes of the Council of the City and County of Swansea (22.10.09) Cont’d
Members asked detailed questions of the Estyn Inspectors.
The Inspectors responded accordingly.
RESOLVED that the report be noted.
79. PETITION - REQUESTING SAFETY MEASURES IN THE VICINITY OF YSGOL GYNRADD GYMRAEG LON LAS, LLANSAMLET
The Cabinet Member for Environment reported on a petition from stakeholders in Ysgol Gynradd Lon Las requesting safety measures to benefit pupils.
RESOLVED that the petition be noted, that the safe routes in communities be progressed and that a limited Traffic Regulation Order scheme be implemented.
80. PETITION - REQUESTING TRAFFIC CALMING ALONG DANYGRAIG ROAD, PORT TENNANT
The Cabinet Member for Environment reported on a petition from residents in Port Tennant requesting installation of traffic calming measures.
The results of speed surveys were outlined.
Mrs Acari made representations on behalf of the residents.
RESOLVED that the matter be deferred pending further discussion between the Cabinet Member, Local Councillors and Petitioners.
81. DELEGATION OF POWER TO MAKE DECISIONS IN RELATION TO PENSIONS MATTERS
The Cabinet Member for Business Improvement and Efficiency presented a further report informing Council of the need to put in place a clear scheme of delegation relating to pension matters.
Further to Members' queries at the previous Council meeting, Patrick Arran, Directorate Lawyer, gave a presentation in support of the report outlining in detail the changes required.
RESOLVED that:
(1) the resolutions made at the Council meeting on 10th September, 2009 be confirmed;
(2) the necessary changes to the Council Constitution be adopted; Minutes of the Council of the City and County of Swansea (22.10.09) Cont’d
(3) the changes set out to the Council constitution take affect immediately following the close of the Council meeting.
82. MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEES
The Cabinet Member for Community Leadership and Democracy reported on the changes proposed to the various groups/bodies.
He also referred to an addendum report which had been circulated.
RESOLVED that the following changes to Committees/Groups be approved and the nominations to Outside Bodies be noted:
Local Development Plan Advisory Group Appoint Councillors D G Sullivan (Chair), V N Abbott, A R A Clement, J Newbury, D Price, D P Tucker, W Evans, E T Kirchner, P M Matthews, G Phillips and M Smith.
Councillors ICT Working Group Appoint Councillors M H Jones, S M Jones, J B Kelleher and P Hood- Williams, J C Richards and R C Stewart.
Chief Executives Remuneration and Appraisal Committee Remove Councillor S J Rice.
OUTSIDE BODIES Shoreline Management Plan - Appoint Councillor J B Hague. Cycling Forum - Appoint Councillor R Speht in place of Councillor I M Richard.
83. TREASURY MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT 2008/09
The Cabinet Member for Finance presented a report detailing the Council’s Treasury Management Activities for 2008/09.
The report compared actual performance against the strategy and indicators agreed at the start of the year.
RESOLVED that the Treasury Management Annual Report 2008/09 be noted. Minutes of the Council of the City and County of Swansea (22.10.09) Cont’d
84. AFFORDABLE HOUSING DELIVERY STATEMENT
The Cabinet Members for Economic Strategy Development and Housing jointly presented a report seeking consideration and endorsement of an affordable Housing Delivery Statement for the City and County of Swansea.
The Cabinet Member for Economic and Strategic Development outlined the following minor amendments to the report:
Page 166 - First paragraph, point 5.1 - Figure of “1295” amended to “1341”.
Page 170 - Figure of “30%” amended to “25-30%”.
RESOLVED that:
(1) the Affordable Housing Delivery Statement as outlined be adopted and submitted to the Welsh Assembly Government for information;
(2) the Corporate Director (Regeneration and Housing) write to the Welsh Assembly Government to emphasise the shortfall in affordable housing delivery and to request the release of additional funds for Social Housing Grant and the Three Dragons Appraisal Toolkit.
85. CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
The Corporate Director (Social Services) provided an update regarding Child and Family Services.
He outlined the current position regarding the overview of activity across Child and Family Services and stated that detailed analysis and discussion would continue to be addressed via the Child and Family Services Overview and Scrutiny Board.
He referred to the ongoing issues relating to staffing levels.
The Chief Executive referred to the content and tone of the recently received letter from the Intervention Board.
RESOLVED that the contents of the report be noted. Minutes of the Council of the City and County of Swansea (22.10.09) Cont’d
86. AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION - PROCEDURE REGARDING NOTICES OF MOTION - COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULE 11
The Presiding Officer and Monitoring Officer jointly submitted a report detailing amendments to Procedural Rule 11 of the Council Constitution.
RESOLVED that the matter be referred back to Constitution Working Group for further consideration.
87. AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION - COUNCILLORS QUESTIONS - COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULE 15
The Presiding Officer and Monitoring Officer jointly submitted a report detailing amendments to Procedural Rule 15 of the Council Constitution.
RESOLVED that:
(1) Council Procedural Rule 15.2. be amended as follows:
“Following the close of receipt of Councillors Questions, the Presiding Officer shall meet with the Proper Officer or his/her representative and draw lots for the order in which Supplementary Questions (Part A Questions) will be considered at Council. The Political Group Leaders/individuals who have submitted these questions or their representatives, shall have an open invite to this drawing of lots and shall be allowed to prioritise their questions according to the result of the draw.
NOTE:
(1) a set date and time shall be established for the meeting to draw lots, however, the Presiding Officer shall have the discretion to alter this provided, two clear working days’ notice is given of the new date and time”.
(2) the change to the Council Constitution take effect immediately following the close of the Council meeting.
88. OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY ANNUAL REPORT
The Presiding Officer presented a report for information outlining the annual report of the work of the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Boards for 2008/09.
RESOLVED that the report be noted. Minutes of the Council of the City and County of Swansea (22.10.09) Cont’d
89. REVIEW OF YOUTH OFFENDING SERVICE YOS/INSPECTION
The report from the Children and Young People’s Scrutiny Board was presented for information to Council informing members of the findings, conclusions and recommendations resulting from the Board’s review of the Youth Offending Service Inspection and Action Plan.
RESOLVED that the report be noted.
90. NOTICE OF MOTION REFERRAL - ARE WE BEING SERVED? THE REPORT OF THE COUNCILLOR COMMISSION EXPERT PANEL FOR WALES
The report of the Finance Audit and Business Improvement Overview Board was presented to Members following its referral to the Board at the Council Meeting held on 10th September, 2009.
The responses of the Board to the Notice of Motion were outlined in detail.
RESOLVED that:
(1) the summary of responses as outlined in the report recommendations be forwarded to the Welsh Assembly Government by the Chief Executive in response to their consultation;
(2) the Finance, Audit and Business Improvement Overview Board report back to a future meeting of Council regarding recommendations 2 (legal separation of executive/non executive functions), 10 (publicity) 11 (councillor annual reports) and 21 (working with children and young people to promote democracy);
(3) recommendations 23 (using IT to reduce time commitments) and 33 (IT support for individual members) be referred to the Councillors ICT Working Group.
91. OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY STRATEGIC WORK PROGRAMME 2009/10 AND UPDATE
The Head of Communications, Overview and Scrutiny and Overview and Scrutiny Co-ordinating Group jointly reported for information on the update work programme for the various boards.
RESOLVED that the report be noted. Minutes of the Council of the City and County of Swansea (22.10.09) Cont’d
92. COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Twenty Four Questions were submitted under Council Procedure Rule 15. The relevant Cabinet Members responded by way of written answers.
Supplementary questions were also asked and the relevant Cabinet Members responded.
Written responses would be provided (copied to all Members) in respect of Questions 2, 3, 7 and 8 by the relevant Cabinet Members.
93. NOTICE OF MOTION FROM COUNCILLORS D PHILLIPS, J BURTONSHAW, J MILES, B LLOYD, C THOMAS, R STEWART, M CHILD, R FRANCIS-DAVIES, C RICHARDS AND P MATTHEWS
“Swansea should be rightly proud of the participation of pupils and young people in arts activity. Swansea has an enviable record in regards to Arts in Education because of the innovation and excellent work done by its and its predecessor authorities. However, it is understood that a consequence of the ongoing LEA review and restructuring, is that posts have been deleted from the Education Advisory Service, specifically the Co-ordinator for the Arts.
Council therefore calls upon the relevant Cabinet Member to advise Council how the outstanding work that has been done in regards to encouraging both pupil participation and the promotion, support and facilitation of such activity in and between schools and other organisations is to be maintained in the future.”
An amendment was moved by Councillor A M Day, seconded by C A Holley to add a further line to the Motion to read:
“and that the Cabinet Member for Education will ensure that any implications will be considered as part of the Budget proposals for 2010/2011”.
The amendment was carried.
RESOLVED that the amended Notice of Motion be approved.
94. COMMON SEAL
RESOLVED that the Common Seal be affixed to any necessary documents to bring into affect any decisions taken at the meeting.
The meeting ended at 8.55 p.m.
CHAIRMAN Z: Council - 22 October 2009 (GB/GDL) - 22 October 2009 Item No. 8 (A) (1)
Report of the Cabinet Member for Environment Council – 3rd December 2009 GIVING THE NEIGHBOURHOOD THE BRUSH OFF – PETITION AGAINST RUBBISH AND LITTER IN UPLANDS, SWANSEA Summary
Purpose: To advise Council of a petition regarding rubbish and litter in Uplands, Swansea.
Policy Framework: Council Procedure Rules
Reason for Decision: To respond to petitioners.
Consultation: Local Members, Legal and Finance.
Recommendation(s): It is recommended that the petition is noted and that the work carried out by the Environment Department’s Waste Management and Housing Divisions’ and partners is continued and developed.
1. Introduction
1.1 A 151 signature petition has been received from residents of Uplands and Brynmill highlighting the high concentration of Houses of Multiple Occupation and the increased litter and rubbish that this generates.
1.2 In particular spilt refuse bags and subsequent littering, debris in gutters and chewing gum are mentioned.
1.3 The main request emanating from this petition is to bring back the ‘Broom Man’ and ‘The Man with the Van’ to collect spilt refuse as it occurs.
1.4 Prior to the petition being received and following a number of concerns raised from a resident a meeting was arranged to discuss issues in Brynmill and Uplands.
1.5 Meetings subsequently took place in September and various clean up activities were arrange in partnership between the Council’s cleansing, enforcement and recycling sections, Keep Wales Tidy, members of the Swansea Students Union, the Police and residents.
1.6 These events took place in October in Uplands and Brynmill and were considered a success. Further similar events are planned to build on the partnership in the future. 1.7 The introduction of ‘Neighbourhood Working’ teams under the proposed ‘Streetscene’ approach to Street cleansing will address the issues raised regarding clearing litter more promptly following refuse collection.
1.8 In January of this year the Council adopted its Additional HMO Licensing Scheme. This means that all HMOs in Castle and Uplands wards must be properly licensed resulting in each property having to meet the appropriate standards including management. Licensed HMOs must comply with licence conditions and included in those are requirements relating to waste arrangements, anti social behaviour and streetscene.
1.9 In addition, the HMO Management Regulations place further responsibilities on managers and occupants. The Council has taken a number of prosecutions for failure to licence and those landlords have been referred to Licensing Committee and had their licences revoked.
1.10 In the coming year there will be a greater focus on prosecutions for breach of licensing conditions as more and more HMOs are fully licensed.
2. Financial Implications
2.1 There are no financial implications associated with this report.
3. Legal Implications
3.1 There are no Legal implications associated with this report.
4. Recommendations
4.1. It is recommended that the petition is noted and that the work carried out by the Environment Department’s Waste Management and Housing Divisions’ and partners is continued and developed.
Background Papers: None
Contact Officer: Ian C. Whettleton, Divisional Officer Waste Management Ext 5627
Legal Officer: Rod Jones 7652
Item No. 8 (A) (2)
Report of the Cabinet Member for Environment
Council – 3rd December 2009
REVIEW OF THE GAMBLING POLICY
Summary
Purpose: To consider the responses to the consultation on the draft review of Gambling Policy and to agree the amended Gambling Policy for adoption and publication.
Policy Framework: The Gambling Act 2005 requires the review of the Gambling Policy every three years.
Reason for Decision: To comply with the requirements of the Gambling Act 2005 and to publish the policy by the required date of 31st January 2010.
Consultation: Extensive consultation has been undertaken involving existing licence holders likely to be affected by the changes, representatives of local businesses, statutory agencies, bodies representing interested parties, all local Authority Members, Legal and Finance.
Recommendation(s): It is recommended that:
1) Council adopts the amended policy attached at Appendix A as the Statement of Policy for Gambling for the City and County of Swansea from 31st January 2010.
2) The policy is reviewed at a maximum period of three years.
1. Introduction
1.1 The Gambling Act 2005 requires the City and County of Swansea, as a licensing authority, to review its Statement of Policy for Gambling every three years.
1.2 The current policy was adopted at Council on 14th December 2006 for publication 3rd January 2007.
1.3 The draft review of the policy was issued formally for consultation on 21st August 2009.
2. The Gambling Policy
2.1 The Statement of Gambling Policy must comply with the requirements of the Act. Account should also be taken of guidance issued by the Gambling Commission.
2.2 The guidance by the Gambling Commission was first issued in April 2006 and has subsequently been revised. The latest version was issued in May 2009.
3. Changes to the Policy
3.1 The policy has been updated to reflect the guidance issued by the Gambling Commission in May 2009.
3.2 These changes have been included in bold in the draft document attached at appendix A.
3.3 Consultation on the draft policy has been carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Gambling Commission guidance.
3.4 There has been little response to the draft document following the consultation exercise. Initially, some enquiries were made to the Licensing Division but only three written responses were received. These are attached at Appendix B.
4. Finance Implications
4.1 There are no financial implications.
5. Legal Implications
5.1 Policy review is a matter of statutory requirement.
6. Recommendations
6.1 It is recommended that:
i) Council adopts the amended policy attached at Appendix A as the Statement of Policy for Gambling for the City and County of Swansea from 31st January 2010.
(ii) The policy is reviewed at a maximum period of three years.
Background papers: Draft revision of Gambling Policy Contact Officer: Lynda Williams Contact number: 5087 Legal Officer: Lyndsay Thomas
ELH2765 APPENDIX A
CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA
STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES
GAMBLING ACT 2005
INDEX
Foreword 2
1. Licensing Objectives 2 2. Introduction 3 2.1 The City and County of Swansea 3 2.2 Consultees 4 2.3 Responsible Authorities 4 2.4 Interested Parties 4 2.5 Licensing Authority Functions 5 2.6 Exchange of Information 6 2.7 Enforcement 6 3. General Principles 7 3.1 Definition of Premises 8 3.2 Premises ready for gambling 9 3.3 Location 9 3.4 Planning 10 3.5 Door Supervisors 10 3.6 Duplication with other Regulatory Regimes 10 3.7 Casinos 11 3.8 Bingo Premises 11 3.9 Betting Premises 12 3.10 Tracks 12 3.11 Adult Gaming Centre 14 3.12 Licensed Family Entertainment Centre 14 3.13 Travelling Fairs 15 4. Provisional Statements 15 5. Reviews 16 6. Permits 16 6.1 Unlicensed Family Entertainment Centres 16 6.2 Alcohol Licensed Premises 17 6.3 Club Gaming Permits 18 6.4 Prize Gaming & Prize Gaming Permits 19 7. Temporary Use Notices 19 8. Occasional Use Notices 19 9. Registration of Small Society Lotteries 20 10. Licensing Objectives 20 11. Further Information 22
Appendix A Map of the City and County of Swansea 24 Appendix B Consultees 25 Appendix C Terms of Reference 26 Appendix D Table of Delegations of Licensing Functions 27
CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA
GAMBLING POLICY
JANUARY 2010 – JANUARY 2013
Foreword
The Gambling Act 2005 created a new system of licensing and regulation for commercial gambling in this country. As part of the changes The City and County of Swansea assumed responsibility for licensing premises, issuing permits and authorisations for the temporary use of premises amongst other matters. The Licensing Authority is also required to prepare and publish a “Gambling Policy” (also called in the Act a statement of principles). This policy sets out the principles the Licensing Authority will apply when exercising its licensing functions under the Act. The Gambling Policy will be reviewed every three years.
This Gambling Policy is intended to assist applicants, residents, local businesses, statutory consultees and Licensing Committees in their decision making role based on local knowledge and local people.
PART A
1.0 Licensing Objectives
1.1 Licensing Authorities when exercising their functions under the Gambling Act 2005 must have regard to the licensing objectives. These are:-
• Preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime; • Ensuring that gambling is carried out in a fair and open way; • Protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling.
1.2 The licensing authority is aware that in accordance with Section 153 of the Gambling Act 2005, in making decisions about premises licences and temporary use notices it should aim to permit the use of premises for gambling in so far as it thinks it is:
• in accordance with any relevant Codes of Practice issued by the Gambling Commission • in accordance with any relevant Guidance issued by the Gambling Commission • in accordance with the Authority’s statement of Gambling Policy, and • Reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives.
2.0 Introduction
2.0.1 The City and County of Swansea is the Licensing Authority under the Gambling Act 2005.
2.0.2 Licensing Authorities are required by the Gambling Act 2005 to publish a Gambling Policy, which they propose to apply when exercising their functions. This policy must be published at least every three years. This policy will come into effect on the 31st January 2010 and will have effect until 30th January 2013. The policy can be reviewed from “time to time” and any amended parts consulted upon. The policy must then be re-published.
2.0.3 The Licensing authority declares that this policy has been prepared having regard to the provisions of the Guidance issued by the Gambling Commission, the licensing objectives of the Gambling Act 2005 and any responses from those consulted. All references to the Gambling Commission’s Guidance for local authorities refer to the Guidance published in May 2009.
2.0.4 This Gambling Policy will be available on the City and County of Swansea website at www.swansea.gov.uk.
2.1 The City and County of Swansea
2.1.1 The City and County of Swansea covers an area of 378 kilometres (146 square miles), has a population of 228,100 people and is Wales’ second largest city. Some two-thirds of the County’s boundary is with the sea. The City and County of Swansea can be broadly divided into 4 physical areas. In the north, the Lliw Uplands present an open moorland feature; the Gower Peninsular in the west, a rural landscape with contrasting coasts and a collection of small villages; the urban and suburban centre stretching from Swansea to Gorseinon and Pontarddulais; and the coastal strip around Swansea Bay, no more than 2 miles in width.
2.1.2 The urban area of the City and County is chiefly focused on Swansea and radiates to the west and north of the city centre – around Swansea Bay to Mumbes; over Townhill to Cwmbwrla, Treboeth, Fforestfach and Penlan; through Uplands, Sketty, Killay and Dunvant; along the Swansea Valley communities of Hafod, Landore, Plasmarl, Morriston to Clydach; and on the east side of the River from St Thomas to Bonymaen, Llansamlet and Birchgrove.
2.1.3 The second urban focus centres on the Gowerton, Gorseinon and Loughor triangle, along with the nearby communities of Pontarddulais and Penllergaer.
2.1.4 The City and County of Swansea is served by 23 community councils.
2.1.5 A map of the Council area is attached at Appendix A.
2.2 Consultees
2.2.1 The City & County of Swansea consulted widely upon this statement before finalising and publishing. This Policy has been subject to formal consultation with:-
• South Wales Police; • Representatives of persons carrying on gambling businesses within the Authority’s area who will be affected by this Gambling Policy; • Persons/bodies representing the interests of persons likely to be affected by the exercise of the Authority’s functions under the Gambling Act 2005 and by this Gambling Policy.
A full but not exhaustive list of consultees is shown at Appendix B.
2.3 Responsible Authorities
2.3.1 The Licensing Authority is required by regulations to state the principles it will apply in exercising its powers under Section 157(h) of the Act to designate, in writing, a body which is competent to advise the authority about the protection of children from harm. The principles are:
• the need for the body to be responsible for an area covering the whole of the licensing authority’s area • the need for the body to be answerable to democratically elected persons, rather than any particular vested interest group.
2.3.2 In accordance with the Gambling Commission’s Guidance for local authorities this Authority designates the Local Safeguarding Children Board of the City and County of Swansea for this purpose.
2.3.3 The contact details of all the Responsible Bodies under the Gambling Act 2005 are available via the Council’s website at www.swansea.gov.uk.
2.4 Interested Parties
2.4.1 Interested parties can make representations about licence applications, or apply for a review of an existing licence. These parties are defined in the Gambling Act 2005 as follows:
2.4.2 “For the purposes of this Part a person is an interested party in relation to an application for or in respect of a premises licence if, in the opinion of the Licensing Authority which issues the licence or to which the application is made, the person-
a) lives sufficiently close to the premises to be likely to be affected by the authorised activities,
b) has business interests that might be affected by the authorised activities, or c) represents persons who satisfy paragraph (a) or (b)”
2.4.3 The Licensing Authority is required by regulations to state the principles it will apply in exercising its powers under the Gambling Act 2005 to determine whether a person is an interested party. The principles are:
2.4.4 Each case will be decided upon its merits. The Licensing Authority will not apply a rigid rule to its decision-making. It will consider the examples of considerations provided in the Gambling Commission’s Guidance to Local Authorities. Decisions on Premises Licences and temporary use notices, will be made “in accordance” with Gambling Commission Guidance (Section 153). It will also consider the Gambling Commission’s Guidance that “has business interests” should be given the widest possible interpretation and include partnerships, charities, faith groups and medical practices.
2.4.5 The Gambling Commission Guidance states that those representing persons living close to premises or have business interests could include trade associations and trade unions, and residents’ and tenants’ associations. This Authority will not, however, generally view these bodies as interested parties unless they have a member who can be classed as an interested person under the terms of the Gambling Act 2005 e.g. lives sufficiently close to the premises to be likely to be affected by the activities being applied for.
2.4.6 Interested parties can be persons who are democratically elected such as Councillors, Welsh Assembly Members and Members of Parliament. No specific evidence of being asked to represent an interested person will be required as long as the Councillor etc represents the Ward likely to be affected. Likewise, Parish Councils, likely to be affected will be considered to be interested parties. Other than these persons, the Licensing Authority will generally require written evidence that a person ‘represents’ someone who either lives sufficiently close to the premises to be likely to be affected by the authoritied activities and/or business interests that might be affected by the authorised activities. A letter from one of these persons, requesting the representation is sufficient.
2.4.7 If individuals wish to approach Councillors to ask them to represent their views then care should be taken that the Councillors are not part of the Licensing Committee dealing with the licence application. If there are any doubts then please contact the Licensing Division. Contact details are provided at paragraph 11 below.
2.5 Licensing Authority Functions
2.5.1 Licensing Authorities are required under the Act to:
• Be responsible for the licensing of premises where gambling activities are to take place by issuing Premises Licences • Issue Provisional Statements • Regulate members’ clubs and miners’ welfare institutes who wish to undertake certain gaming activities via issuing Club Gaming Permits and/or Club Machine Permits • Issue Club Machine Permits to Commercial Clubs • Grant permits for the use of certain lower stake gaming machines at unlicensed Family Entertainment Centres • Receive notifications from alcohol licensed premises (under the Licensing Act 2003) for the use of two or fewer gaming machines • Issue Licensed Premises Gaming Machine Permits for premises licensed to sell/supply alcohol for consumption on the licensed premises, under the Licensing Act 2003, where there are more than two machines • Register small society lotteries below prescribed thresholds • Issue Prize Gaming Permits • Receive and Endorse Temporary Use Notices • Receive Occasional Use Notices • Provide information to the Gambling Commission regarding details of licences issued • Maintain registers of the permits and licences that are issued under these functions
2.5.2 It should be noted that the Licensing Authority will not be involved in licensing remote gambling at all. This will be the responsibility of the Gambling Commission via operating licences. Spread betting is regulated by The Financial Services Authority and the National Lottery is regulated by The National Lottery Commission.
2.6 Exchange of Information
2.6.1 The Licensing Authority, in fulfilling its functions under sections 29, 30 and 350 of the Act, in relation to the exchange of relevant information with the Gambling Commission and other regulatory bodies, will comply with current advice issued by the Commission. In exchanging such information, the Licensing Authority will act in accordance with the provisions of the Gambling Act 2005 and with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Licensing Authority will also have regard to any guidance issued by the Gambling Commission on this matter as well as any relevant regulations issued by the Secretary of State under the powers provided in the Gambling Act 2005.
2.7 Enforcement
2.7.1 Licensing Authorities are required by regulation under the Gambling Act 2005 to state the principles to be applied by the Authority in exercising the functions under Part 15 of the Act with respect to the inspection of premises; and the powers under Section 346 of the Act to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the offences specified.
2.7.2 The City and County of Swansea’s principles are that it will be guided by the Gambling Commission’s Guidance to Licensing Authorities and it will endeavour to be:
• Proportionate: regulators should only intervene when necessary: remedies should be appropriate to the risk posed, and costs identified and minimised; • Accountable: regulators must be able to justify decisions, and be subject to public scrutiny; • Consistent: rules and standards must be joined up and implemented fairly; • Transparent: regulators should be open, and keep regulations simple and user friendly; and • Targeted: regulation should be focused on the problem, and minimise side effects.
2.7.3 In accordance with the Gambling Commission’s Guidance the Licensing Authority will endeavour to avoid duplication with other regulatory regimes so far as possible.
2.7.4 The Licensing Authority will use appropriate enforcement to promote the Licensing Objectives. The main enforcement and compliance role for the Licensing Authority under the Gambling Act 2005 will be to ensure compliance with the premises licences and other relevant permissions.
2.7.5 The Gambling Commission is the enforcement body for the operating licences and personal licences. Any concerns about manufacture, supply or repair of gaming machines will not be dealt with by the Licensing Authority but will be notified to the Gambling Commission.
PART B - PREMISES LICENCES
3.0 General Principles
3.0.1 Premises licences are subject to the requirements set out in the Gambling Act 2005 and regulations, as well as the specific mandatory and default conditions which are detailed in regulations issued by the Secretary of State. Licensing Authorities are able to exclude default conditions and also attach others, where it is believed to be appropriate.
3.0.2 This Licensing Authority is aware that in making decisions about premises licences it should aim to permit the use of premises for gambling in so far as it thinks it is: • in accordance with any relevant code of practice issued by the Gambling Commission; • in accordance with any relevant guidance issued by the Gambling Commission ; • reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives; and • in accordance with the Authority’s Gambling Policy.
3.0.3 In accordance with the Gambling Commission's Guidance "moral objections to gambling are not considered a valid reason to reject applications for premises licences" and unmet demand is not a criterion for a Licensing Authority.
3.1 Definition of Premises
3.1.1 Premises is defined in the Act as including “any place”. Section 152 therefore prevents more than one premises licence applying to any place. A single building could be subject to more than one premises licence, provided they are for different parts of the building and the different parts of the building can be reasonably regarded as being different premises. This approach has been taken to allow large multiple unit premises such as a pleasure park, pier, track or shopping mall to obtain discrete premises licences where appropriate safeguards are in place. The Licensing Authority will pay particular attention if there are issues about sub-divisions of a single building or plot and will ensure that mandatory conditions relating to access are observed.
3.1.2 Whether different parts of a building can properly be regarded as being separate premises will depend on the circumstances. However, the Gambling Commission does not consider that areas of a building that are artificially or temporarily separate and can be properly regarded as different premises.
3.1.3 The Licensing Authority takes particular note of the Gambling Commission’s Guidance. The Licensing Authority will take particular care in considering applications for multiple licences for a building and those relating to a discrete part of a building used for other (non- gambling) purposes. In particular the Authority will be aware of the following:
• Entrances and exits from parts of a building covered by one or more licences should be separate and identifiable so that the separation of different premises is not compromised and that people do not ‘drift’ into a gambling area. In this context it should normally be possible to access the premises without going through another licensed premises or premises with a permit.
• Customers should be able to participate in the activity named on the premises licence.
• The third licensing objective seeks to protect children from being harmed by Gambling. In practice this means not only preventing them taking part in gambling but also preventing them from being in close proximity to gambling. Premises should be configured so that children are not invited to participate in, have accidental access to or closely observe gambling where they are prohibited from participating.
3.1.4 The Licensing Authority will also consider other issues including: • Whether the premises has a separate registration for business rates. • Whether the neighbouring premises is owned by a different person. • Whether each of the premises can be accessed from the Street or public passageway. • Whether the premises can only be accessed from other gambling premises.
3.2 Premises “ready for gambling”
3.2.1 The Guidance states that a licence to use a premises for gambling should only be issued in relation to premises that the Licensing Authority can be satisfied are going to be ready to be used for gambling in the reasonably near future consistent with the scale of building or alterations required before the premises are brought into use. If the construction of a premises is not yet complete or if they need alteration, or if the applicant does not yet have the right to occupy them, an application for a provisional statement should be considered.
3.2.2 In deciding whether a premises licence can be granted where there are outstanding constructions or alteration works at a premises, the Authority will determine applications on their merits, applying a two stage consideration process: -
• Firstly, whether the premises ought to be permitted to be used for gambling. • Secondly, whether appropriate conditions can be put into place to cater for the situation that the premises are not yet in the state in which they ought to be, before gambling takes place.
3.3 Location
3.3.1 The Licensing Authority is aware that demand issues cannot be considered with regard to the location of premises. In accordance with the Gambling Commission’s Guidance for Local Authorities, this Authority will pay particular attention to the protection of children and vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling, as well as issues of crime and disorder. When considering the Licensing Objectives with regard to the location, the Licensing Authority may take into consideration the following facts
• Size and nature of premises • Type of facilities applied for • Nature of area in which premises to be situated • Potential impact of premises on area • Any other reasonable factor
3.3.2 Should any specific policy be decided upon as regards areas where gambling premises should not be located, this statement will be updated. It should be noted that any such policy does not preclude any application being made and each application will be decided on its merits, with the onus upon the applicant to show how potential concerns can be overcome.
3.4 Planning
3.4.1 The Licensing Authority will take into consideration all relevant matters and will not take into consideration any irrelevant matters i.e. those not related to gambling and the licensing objectives. Irrelevant matters would be considered to be issues relating to planning permission or building regulation approval.
3.5 Door Supervisors
3.5.1 The Gambling Commission advises in its Guidance for Local Authorities that licensing authorities may consider whether there is a need for door supervisors in terms of the licensing objectives of protection of children and vulnerable persons being harmed or exploited by gambling, and also in terms of preventing premises becoming a source of crime. Where operators and licensing authorities decide that supervision of entrances/machines is appropriate, it will need to be decided whether these need to be SIA licensed or not. It will not be automatically assumed that they need to be licensed.
3.6 Duplication with Other Regulatory Regimes
3.6.1 The Licensing Authority will seek to avoid any duplication with other statutory / regulatory systems where possible, including planning. The Authority will not consider whether a licence application is likely to be awarded planning permission or building regulations approval.
It will however, listen to, and consider carefully, any concerns about conditions, which are not able to be met by licensees due to planning restrictions, should such a situation arise.
3.6.2 When dealing with a premises application for finished buildings, the Authority will not take into account those buildings have to comply with the necessary planning or building consents. Fire or health and safety risks will not be taken into account as these matters are dealt with under other relevant legislation.
3.7 Casinos
3.7.1 The City and County of Swansea submitted a proposal for a premises licence for a ‘large’ and ‘small’ casino to the Independent Casino Advisory Panel. On the 19th May 2009, the Authority was authorised to issue a small casino premises licence.
3.7.2 There are currently 2 casino’s operating within The City and County of Swansea, one being the Grosvenor Casino, High Street the other Aspers, Salubrious Place.
There is no resolution to prohibit casinos at present. However, the Authority reserves the right to review this situation and may at some time in the future, resolve not to permit casinos.
3.7.3 Should the Authority decide to pass such a resolution in the future, this will be a decision of Full Council. This policy will be updated with details of any such resolution.
3.7.4 Casinos and Competitive Bidding - The Licensing Authority is aware that to grant a premises licence for the new style small casino where there are a number of operators wishing to operate the casino the authority must run a ‘competition’ under schedule 9 of the Gambling Act 2005 and in accordance with any regulations/codes of practice.
3.8 Bingo Premises
3.8.1 Children and young people are allowed to enter bingo premises licensed for bingo however, they are not permitted to participate in the bingo, and if category C machines are available, these must be separated from areas where children and young people are allowed. The Licensing Authority will ensure that:
• all such machines are located in an area of the premises separate from the remainder of the premises by a physical barrier which is effective to prevent access other than through a designated entrance; • only adults are admitted to the area where the machines are located; • access to the area where the machines are located is supervised;
• the area where the machines are located is arranged so that it can be observed by staff of the operator or the licence holder; and • at the entrance to, and inside any such area there are prominently displayed notices indicating that access to the area is prohibited to persons under 18.
3.9 Betting Premises
3.9.1 The Act contains a single class of licence for betting premises. However, within this single class of licence, there will be different types of premises which require licensing.
3.9.2 The Act also permits betting intermediaries to operate from premises, although betting intermediaries usually offer their services via remote communication, such as the internet. In principle, however, there is nothing to prevent a betting intermediary applying for a betting premises licence to offer intermediary services upon the premises.
3.9.3 The Authority is aware of its power to restrict the number of betting machines, their nature and the circumstances in which they are made available by attaching a licence condition to a betting premises licence.
3.9.4 In considering whether to impose such a condition the Licensing Authority will, among other things, take into account the size of the premises, the number of counter positions available for person to person transactions, and the ability of staff to monitor the use of the machines by children and young persons or by vulnerable persons.
3.10 Tracks
3.10.1 The Licensing Authority is aware that tracks may be subject to one or more premises licence, provided each licence relates to a specified area of the track.
3.10.2 In accordance with the Gambling Commission's Guidance, the Licensing Authority will especially consider the impact upon the third licensing objective (i.e. the protection of children and vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling) and the need to ensure that entrances to each type of premises are distinct and that children are excluded from gambling areas they are not permitted to enter.
3.10.3 The Licensing Authority will therefore expect the applicant to demonstrate suitable measures to ensure that children do not have access to adult only gaming facilities. It is noted that children and young persons will be permitted to enter track areas where facilities for betting are provided on days when dog-racing and/or horse racing takes place, but that they are still prevented from entering areas where gaming machines (other than category D machines) are provided.
3.10.4 The Licensing Authority notes the Commission's Guidance that Licensing Authorities need to consider the location of gaming machines at tracks, and applications for track premises licences will need to demonstrate that, where the applicant holds a pool betting operating licence and is going to use his entitlement to four gaming machines that these machines are located in areas where children are excluded. Children and young persons are not prohibited from playing category D gaming machines on a track.
3.10.5 Betting Machines - The Licensing Authority will in accordance with the Gambling Commissions Guidance, take into account the size of the premises, the number of counter positions available for person to person transactions and the ability of staff to monitor the use of machines when considering the number/nature/circumstances of betting machines an operator wants to offer.
3.10.6 The Licensing Authority will also take note of the Gambling Commission's suggestion that Licensing Authorities consider restricting the number and location of such machines in respect of applications for track betting premises licences.
3.10.7 Condition on rules being displayed – The Licensing Authority may attach a condition to track premises licences requiring the track operator to ensure that the rules are prominently displayed in or near the betting areas, or that other measures are taken to ensure that they are made available to the public. An example may be that the rules are printed in the race-card or made available in leaflet form from the track office.
3.10.8 Applications and plans - The Gambling Act requires applicants to submit plans of the premises with their application in order to ensure the Licensing Authority has the necessary information to determine whether the premises are fit for gambling.
3.10.9 Plans for tracks do not need to be in a particular scale but should be drawn to scale and should be sufficiently detailed to include the information required by the regulations.
3.11 Adult Gaming Centre (AGC)
3.11.1 The Licensing Authority will specifically have regard to the need to protect children and vulnerable persons from harm or being exploited by gambling.
3.11.2 The Licensing Authority will expect applicants to satisfy the authority that there will be sufficient measure to ensure that no-one under the age of 18 is permitted to enter an AGC. The Licensing Authority will have particular regard to the location of and entry to AGCs to minimise the opportunities for children to gain access.
3.12 Licensed Family Entertainment Centres (FEC)
3.12.1 The Licensing Authority will specifically have regard to the need to protect children and vulnerable persons from harm or being exploited by gambling and will expect the applicant to satisfy the Authority that there will be sufficient measures to ensure that under 18 year olds do not have access to the adult only areas.
3.12.2 Children and young persons will be permitted to enter a FEC and may play on the category D machines. They will not be permitted to play on category C machines, and it will be a requirement that there must be clear segregation between the two types of machine, so that children do not have access to category C machines.
3.13 Travelling Fairs
3.13.1 Where category D machines and/or equal chance prize gaming without a permit are to be made available for use at travelling fairs it is the responsibility of the Licensing Authority to ensure that the facilities for gambling amount to no more than an ancillary amusement.
3.13.2 The Licensing Authority will also consider whether the applicant falls within the statutory definition of a travelling fair.
The 27-day statutory maximum for the land being used as a fair, is per calendar year, and it applies to the piece of land on which the fairs are held, regardless of whether it is the same or different travelling fairs occupying the land. The Licensing Authority will work with its neighbouring Authorities to ensure that any land, which crosses our boundaries, is monitored so that the statutory limits are not exceeded.
4.0 PROVISIONAL STATEMENTS
4.0.1 Developers may wish to apply for provisional statements before entering into a contract to buy or lease land to judge whether a development is worth taking forward. There is no need for the applicant to hold an operating licence or have the right to occupy a premises to apply for a provisional statement.
4.0.2 In terms of representations about premises licence applications, following the grant of a provisional statement, no further representations from relevant authorities or interested parties can be taken into account unless they concern matters which could not have been addressed at the provisional statement stage, or they reflect a change in the applicant’s circumstances. In addition, the authority may refuse the premises licence (or grant it on terms different to those attached to the provisional statement) only by reference to matters:
(a) which could not have been raised by objectors at the provisional statement stage; or
(b) which in the authority’s opinion reflect a change in the operator’s circumstances; or (c) Where the premises has not been constructed in accordance with the plan submitted with the application. This must be a substantial change to the plan. The Licensing Authority notes that it can discuss any concerns it has with the applicant before making a decision.
5.0 Reviews
5.0.1 Interested parties or responsible authorities may make requests for a review of a premises licence; however, it is for the Licensing Authority to decide whether the review is to be carried-out. This will be on the basis of whether the request is relevant to the following matters:
• is in accordance with the Gambling Commission Guidance and is reasonably consistent with the relevant codes of practice, the Authority’s Gambling Policy or licensing objectives. • the request for review will also be subject to consideration as to whether the grounds are: • frivolous • vexatious • will certainly not cause the Authority to alter/revoke/suspend the licence. • are substantially the same grounds cited in a previous application relating to the same premise. The Licensing Authority will take into account time lapsed since previous application when considering this point. • are substantially the same as representations made at the time the application for the premises license was considered. The Licensing Authority will take into account time lapsed since the previous application was considered and will not review the licence on the basis of the same arguments considered on the grant of the premises licence.
PART C - PERMITS / TEMPORARY & OCCASIONAL USE NOTICE
6.0 Permits
6.0.1 The Act introduces a range of permits granted by Licensing Authorities when premises provide a gambling facility and either the stakes and prizes are very low or gambling is not the main function of the premises.
6.1 Unlicensed Family Entertainment Centres Gaming Machine Permits(FEC)
6.1.1 Where a premises does not hold a premises licence but wishes to provide gaming machines, an application may be made to the Licensing Authority for a permit.
6.1.2 The Licensing Authority will expect applicants to show that there are policies and procedures in place to protect children from harm. Harm in this context is not limited to harm from gambling but includes wider child protection considerations. The efficiency of such policy and procedures will be considered on their merits. They may include training of staff regarding suspected truant school children, how to deal with unsupervised, very young children or children causing problems in and around the premises. In accordance with the Gambling Commission’s guidance applicants will be expected to demonstrate a full understanding of the maximum stakes and prizes of the gambling permissible in unlicensed FECs; that the applicant has no relevant convictions and that staff are trained to have a full understanding of the maximum stakes and prizes.
6.2. Alcohol Licensed Premises
6.2.1 The Act provides an automatic entitlement to make available 2 gaming machines of category C or D for use in premises licensed to sell alcohol for consumption on the premises. To take advantage of this premises must notify the Licensing Authority and pay the prescribed fee. The Licensing Authority can remove the automatic authorisation in respect of any particular premises if:
• provision of the machines is not reasonably consistent with the pursuit of the licensing objectives; • gaming has taken place on the premises that breaches a condition of section 282 of the Gambling Act (i.e. that written notice has been provided to the Licensing Authority, that a fee has been provided and that any relevant code of practice issued by the Gambling Commission about the location and operation of the machine has been complied with); • the premises are mainly used for gaming; or • an offence under the Gambling Act has been committed on the premises.
6.2.2 If a premises wishes to have more than 2 machines, then it needs to apply for a permit and the Licensing Authority must consider that application based upon the licensing objectives, any guidance issued by the Gambling Commission issued under Section 25 of the Gambling Act 2005, and such matters as they think relevant.
6.2.3 The Licensing Authority considers that such matters will be decided on a case by case basis but generally there will be regard to the need to protect children and vulnerable persons from harm or being exploited by gambling and will expect the applicant to satisfy the Authority that there will be sufficient measures to ensure that under 18 year olds do not have access to the adult only gaming machines.
6.2.4 Measures which will satisfy the Authority that there will be no access may include the adult machines being in sight of the bar, or in the sight of staff who will monitor that the machines are not being used by those under 18. Notices and signage may also assist.
6.2.5 In relation to the protection of vulnerable persons applicants may wish to consider the provision of information leaflets / helpline numbers for organisations such as GamCare.
6.2.6 It is recognised that some alcohol licensed premises may apply for a premises licence for their non-alcohol licensed areas. It is likely that any such application would require an application for and be dealt with as an Adult Gaming Centre premises licence.
6.2.7 It should be noted that the Licensing Authority can decide to grant the application with a smaller number of machines and/or a different category of machines than that applied for. Conditions (other than these) cannot be attached.
6.2.8 It should also be noted that the holder of a permit must comply with any Code of Practice issued by the Gambling Commission about the location and operation of the machine.
6.2.9 The Act will not allow Licensing Authorities to issue premises licences to authorise gaming machines in certain types of premises and these include take-away premises, taxi offices, guest houses and other ‘non gambling’ premises.
6.3 Club Gaming Permits
6.3.1 The Licensing Authority may grant members’ clubs and miners’ welfare institutes (but not commercial clubs) club gaming permits or club gaming machine permits. These enable premises to provide gaming machines as well as equal chance gaming and games of chance as prescribed in regulations.
The Licensing Authority will only refuse an application on the grounds that:
• the applicant does not fulfil the requirements for a members’ or commercial club or miners’ welfare institute and therefore is not entitled to receive the type of permit for which it has applied; • the applicant’s premises are used wholly or mainly by children and/or young persons;
• an offence under the Act or a breach of a permit has been committed by the applicant while providing gaming facilities; • a permit held by the applicant has been cancelled in the previous ten years; or • an objection has been lodged by the Commission or the police.
6.3.2 Club gaming permits allow the provision of no more than three gaming machines. These may be from categories B4, C or D. The club is permitted to choose the combination of machines on its premises. The Licensing Authority may grant or refuse a permit, but it may not attach any conditions to a permit.
6.4 Prize Gaming & Prize Gaming Permits
6.4.1 A prize gaming permit is a permit issued by the Authority to authorise the provision of facilities for gaming with prizes on specified premises.
6.4.2 An application for a permit can only be made by a person who occupies or plans to occupy the relevant premises and if the applicant is an individual, they must be aged 18 or over. An application for a permit cannot be made if a premises licence or club gaming permit is in effect for the same premises.
6.4.3 The applicant is expected to set out the types of gaming that is intended to be offered and to demonstrate that they understand the limits to stakes and prizes set out in regulations and that the gaming is offered within the law.
6.4.4 The Licensing Authority may not attach conditions to this type of permit.
7.0 Temporary Use Notices
7.1 Temporary use notices allow the use of premises for gambling where there is no premises licence but where a gambling operator wishes to use the premises temporarily for providing facilities for gambling. Premises that might be considered suitable for a temporary use notice would include hotels, conference centres, and sporting venues.
7.2 A temporary use notice may only be granted to a person or company holding a relevant operating licence. For example, the holder of a betting operating licence could apply to provide betting facilities at a snooker tournament.
7.3 The type of gambling that can be authorised by temporary use notices is prescribed by regulations. The Licensing Authority will consider objecting to notices where it appears that their effect would be to permit regular gambling in a place that could be described as one set of premises.
8.0 Occasional Use Notices
8.1 Where there is betting on a track on eight days or less in a calendar year betting may be permitted by an occasional use notice without the need for a full premises licence.
8.2 The Licensing Authority has very little discretion as regards these notices aside from ensuring that the statutory limit of 8 days in a calendar year is not exceeded. The Licensing Authority will however consider the definition of a ‘track’ and whether the applicant is permitted to avail him/herself of the notice.
9.0 Registration of Small Society Lotteries
In carrying out its functions in relation to Lotteries the Authority will have regard to the Act, the guidance issued by the Gambling Commission and any Regulations issued by the Secretary of State.
PART 4- THE LICENSING OBJECTIVES
10.0 The Licensing Objectives
10.1 Premises licences granted must be reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives. The Licensing Authority has considered the Gambling Commission’s Guidance to Local Authorities as follows:
10.2 Objective 1 Preventing gambling from being a source of crime and disorder; being associated with crime and disorder or being used to support crime.
10.2.1 The Gambling Commission takes a leading role in preventing gambling from being a source of crime.
10.2.2 Anyone applying to the Authority for a premises licence will have to hold an operating licence from the Commission before a licence can be issued so the Licensing Authority will not be concerned with the suitability of an applicant. Where concerns about a person’s suitability arise the Licensing Authority will bring those concerns to the attention of the Commission without delay. This Authority will in addition pay attention to the proposed location of gambling premises in terms of the objectives. Thus, if an area has known high levels of organised crime this authority will consider carefully whether gambling premises are suitable to be located there and whether conditions may be suitable such as the provision of door supervisors.
10.2.3 The Licensing Authority will seek to address issues of disorder under the Act. Disorder is intended to mean activity that is more serious and disruptive than nuisance.
A disturbance could be serious enough to constitute disorder if Police assistance was required to deal with it. Another factor the Licensing Authority is likely to take into account is how threatening the behaviour was to those who could see or hear it.
10.2.4 The Licensing Authority will, when determining applications, consider whether the grant of a Premises Licence will result in an increase in crime and disorder.
10.2.5 Applicants are encouraged to discuss the crime prevention procedures in their premises with the Licensing Authority’s Licensing Officers and South Wales Police before making a formal application.
10.2.6 In considering licence applications, the Licensing Authority will particularly take into account the following:-
• The design and layout of the premises; • The training given to staff in crime prevention measures appropriate to those premises; • Physical security features installed in the premises. This may include matters such as the position of cash registers or the standard of CCTV that is installed; • Where premises are subject to age restrictions, the procedures in place to conduct age verification checks; • The likelihood of any violence, public order or policing problem if the licence is granted.
10.3 Objective 2 Ensuring gambling is conducted in a fair and open way
10.3.1 Generally, the Gambling Commission would not expect Licensing Authorities to become concerned with ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way, as this will be a matter for either the management of the gambling business and therefore relevant to the Operating Licence, or will be in relation to the suitability and actions of an individual and therefore relevant to the Personal Licence. Both of these licences are the responsibility of the Gambling Commission.
10.3.2 As track operators will not necessarily have an operating licence from the Gambling Commission the Authority may, in certain circumstances, require conditions of licence to ensure that the environment in which betting takes place is suitable.
10.4 Objective 3 Protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling
10.4.1 The Licensing Authority has noted the Gambling Commission’s Guidance that this objective means that children and young persons should be prevented from taking part in gambling and should be prevented from entering those gambling premises which are adult only environments. The Licensing Authority will therefore consider as suggested in the Gambling Commission’s Guidance, whether specific measures are required at particular premises, regarding this objective.
10.4.2 The Licensing Authority is also aware of the Gambling Commission Codes of Practice in relation to specific premises.
10.4.3 It is noted that the Gambling Commission does not seek to offer a definition of “vulnerable persons” but states that “it will for regulatory purposes assume that this group includes people who gamble more than they want to; people who gamble beyond their means; and people who may not be able to make informed or balanced decisions about gambling due to a mental impairment, alcohol or drugs.” This Licensing Authority will consider this licensing objective on a case by case basis.
10.4.4 The Licensing Authority will seek to ensure that there are restrictions on advertising for premises so that gambling products are not aimed at children or advertised in such a way that makes them particularly attractive to children.
10.4.5 The Licensing Authority will consult with the South Wales Police and the Local Safeguarding Children Board and the Adult Protection Committee on any application that indicates there may be concerns over access for children or vulnerable persons.
10.4.6 The Licensing Authority will expect applicants to offer their own measures to meet the licensing objectives in respect of issues such as: • Proof of age • CCTV • Supervision of entrances/machine areas • Physical separation of areas • Locations of entry/gaming machines • Notices/signage • Specific opening hours • Self Exclusion schemes • Provision of information leaflets/helpline numbers for organisations such as Gamcare.
This list is not mandatory and is not exhaustive. It is merely indicative of example measures.
10.4.7 The Licensing Authority will judge the individual merits of each application before deciding whether to impose conditions to protect children and vulnerable adults on particular categories of premises. This may include such requirements as:-
• Appropriate signage for adult only areas; • Supervision of entrances; • Use of supervisors; • Segregation of gambling areas from areas frequented by children; • Supervision of gaming machines in non adult gambling specific premises.
Any conditions attached will be proportionate to and will be:
• Relevant to the need to make the proposed building suitable as a gambling facility; • Directly related to the premises and type of licence applied for; • Fairly and reasonably related to the scale of type of premises; and • Reasonable in all other aspects.
11.0 Further Information
For further information about the Gambling Act 2005 or this Gambling Policy please contact the Licensing Division at the following address:
Licensing Division Environment Department City & County of Swansea Civic Centre Oystermouth Road Swansea SA1 3SN
Or:
Telephone: 01792 635600 Email: [email protected] Website: www.swansea.gov.uk
Information is also available from:-
Gambling Commission
Victoria Square House Tel: 0121 230 6500 Victoria Square Fax: 0121 237 2236 Birmingham B2 4BP
Email: [email protected] Website: www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk
Department of Culture Media and Sport
2-4 Cockspur Street Tel: 020 7211 6200 London SW1Y 5DH
Email: [email protected] Website: www.culture.gov.uk
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B - Consultees
The Licensing Authority has consulted the following on the content of this Gambling Policy:-
• Association of British Bookmakers • British Amusement Catering Trade Association (BACTA) • Bingo Association • British Casino Association • British Beer & Pub Association • British Greyhound Racing Board • Casino Operators Association of the UK • Club & Institute Union • Gambling Commission Regional Inspector • Gamcare • Lacors • Lotteries Council • Maritime & Coastguard Agency • Neighbourhood Watch • Public Houses • Bingo Halls • Clubs • Amusement Arcades • Betting Shops • Responsibility in Gambling Trust • Responsible Authorities:- Chief Officer of Police Licensing Authority Chief Fire Officer HM Revenue & Customs Environmental Health Gambling Commission Planning Children & Family Services Local Safeguarding Children Board/Adult Protection Committee • Licensing Committee • Elected Members of City and County of Swansea • Legal Services • Community Councils
APPENDIX C – Terms of Reference
Licensing Objectives: As defined in section 1 Authority The City and County of Swansea Council: The area administered by the City & County of Swansea (Map appended at Appendix A) Licences: As defined in section 2.5 Licensing Authority Functions Applications: Applications for licences and permits as defined in section 2.5 Licensing Authority Functions Notifications: Means notification of temporary and occasional use notices Act: The Gambling Act 2005 Regulations: Regulations made under the Gambling Act 2005 Premises: Any place, including a vehicle, vessel or moveable structure
Code of Practice: Means any relevant code of practice under section 24 of the Gambling Act 2005 Mandatory Condition: Set by the Secretary of State (some set out in the Act) and some prescribed by regulations. Default Condition: Prescribed in Regulations made by the Secretary of State to be attached to all classes of premises licence, unless excluded by the Authority (The City and County of Swansea) Specific Condition: Conditions that can be attached to an individual premises by the Authority. (However these conditions cannot prevent compliance with operating licence conditions.) Responsible Authority: For the purposes of this Act, the following are responsible authorities in relation to premises: 1. The Authority in whose area the premises are wholly or mainly situated (“The City and County of Swansea”); 2. The Gambling Commission; 3. The Chief Officer of Police; 4. Mid and West Wales Fire Authority 5. The Local Planning Authority; 6. An Authority with functions in relation to pollution of the environment or harm to human health; 7. A designated body to advise on the protection of children; 8. HM Revenue & Customs. 9. Any other person prescribed by Regulations. Interested Party: For the purposes of this Act, a person is an interested party in relation to a premises licence if, in the opinion of the Authority which issues the licence or to which the application is made, the person:- a) Lives sufficiently close to the premises to be likely to be affected by the authorised activities; b) Has business interests that might be affected by the authorised activities; c) Represents persons who satisfy a) or b) above.
APPENDIX D – Table of Delegations of Licensing Functions
MATTER TO BE DEALT WITH FULL LICENSING SUB- OFFICERS COUNCIL COMMITTEE
Three year Gambling Policy X
Policy not to permit casinos X
Fee Setting - when appropriate X (to be approved by the
Executive)
Application for premises licences Where representations Where no have been received and representations received/
not withdrawn representations have been withdrawn
Application for a variation to a Where representations Where no licence have been received and representations received/
not withdrawn representations have been withdrawn
Application for a transfer of a Where representations Where no licence have been received from representations received the Commission from the Commission
Application for a provisional Where representations Where no statement have been received and representations received/
not withdrawn representations have been withdrawn
Review of a premises licence X
Application for club gaming /club Where representations Where no machine permits have been received and representations received/
not withdrawn representations have been withdrawn
Cancellation of club gaming/ club X machine permits
Applications for other permits X
Cancellation of licensed premises X gaming machine permits
Consideration of temporary use X notice
Decision to give a counter notice X to a temporary use notice
X Indicates at the lowest level to which decisions can be delegated
APPENDIX B RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION ON DRAFT POLICY REVIEW
Reference Respondent Comments Appraisal Response
1 City and County of Whether the inclusion of The draft policy reflects No change to policy Swansea Education some information on the Gambling required. Department. education on gambling Commission guidance. in secondary schools Information and advice would be appropriate. on gambling is available from the Gambling Commission and voluntary organisations such as Gamcare. This information will be provided to the Education Department for distribution to the schools as considered appropriate.
2 Roger Etchells & i) Paragraph 2.4.4 - we The terminology used in No change to policy Company Ltd on behalf can see no reference in paragraph 2.4.4 is required of Case Concepts the Gambling referred to in paragraph Group Commission’s Guidance 6.25 of the Gambling to the text in bold print in Commission Guidance this paragraph. The (May 2009) Commission deals with the issue of “interested parties” at paragraph 8.11 – 8.18 and the terminology referred to in this paragraph is not present.
ii) Paragraph 3.2.1 – Paragraph 3.2.1 reflects Paragraph 3.2.1 has we believe this is the Gambling been amended and contrary to the latest Commission Guidance instead of the last word version of the Gambling in respect of situations reading “made” it now Commission’s Guidance that may require a states “considered”. (May 2009). Section 11 provisional statement. It which deals with is acknowledged that a Provisional Statements provisional statement is and 7.59 – 7.66 which not a requirement in all deal with the cases therefore the relationship between wording in paragraph plans and applications 3.2.1 has been and also refers to amended to clarify the Provisional Statements position. does not coincide with paragraph 3.2.1. As we see it there is an option for those in the position referred to paragraph 3.2.1 to apply for a Provisional Statement but it is not a requirement except in the case of those who do not have a right to occupy the premises or who do not have an Operating Licence.
We suggest that Section 4 has been paragraph 3.2.1 be amended to clarify that omitted, that paragraph there is no need for 3.2.2 be put in Section the applicant to have 4 in the section on the right to occupy a Provisional Statements premises to apply for and that further a provisional reference in that statement. section be made to it being a requirement for those who have no right to occupy premises to apply for a Provisional Statement.
iii) Paragraph 3.11 and The comments are Policy amended at 3.12 - We note that a noted and the 3.10.4, 3.11.3, 3.12.3 series of measures references to measures and 10.4.6 including proof of age for specific premises schemes, CCTV etc are referred to have been suggested for AGC’s removed and added to and FEC’s but note that the general casinos, betting and requirements listed in bingo are not subject to paragraph 10.4.6 similar suggestions. Given that those types of premises operate gaming machines and that they have the same age restriction we are at a loss to understand why AGC’s and FEC’s have been singled out.
Further, it seems to us that many of the issues raised there concern matters which are covered by the Operating Licence LCCP. I have in mind proof of age schemes, supervision of entrances, physical separation of entrances, notices and signage, self exclusion schemes, provision of information leaflets, recruitment and training.
Given that these are covered by the Operating Licence LCCP can there be any need to refer to them in this context.
Operating Licences
Should it not be 10.2.2 already states No change to policy acknowledged in the this requirement required policy somewhere that applicants for Premises Licences need to have Operating Licences and that they have responsibilities to the Gambling Commission as a result of those Operating Licences?
Committee Members Licence conditions are No change to policy should be made aware referred to in paragraph required. of the Licence 3.0.2 and there are a Conditions and Codes number of references to of Practice by virtue of the codes of practice references to it in this within the document. document.
3 Director of Social I have read the Comments noted and a Policy amended at Services document and am paragraph relating to paragraph 10.4.3 pleased to see that vulnerable adults added. there is reference throughout to consider the impact on vulnerable adults. The various passages then go on to describe how they would address the issue with children and young people, e.g. There is ongoing reference to separating areas where children and young people are not able to enter but this doesn't include how they would attempt to address the potential issues around vulnerable adult's. Not surprisingly there is nothing to indicate how they would address any possible exploitation of vulnerable adults. The issue in relation to vulnerable adults will surround their capacity to engage in gambling or to be in the vicinity where gambling takes place – and I would imagine that this is almost an impossible task. So I suppose it’s good as far as it can go in that it recognises that vulnerable adults can be harmed or exploited in the arena of gambling, whether that’s with them being enticed into the area to spend their money, or by others preying on them and intimidating or exploiting them or even financially abusing them (theft!) in order to support another persons habit. ELH2765b Item No. 8 (B) (1)
Report of the Cabinet Member for Community Leadership and Democracy
Council – 3rd December 2009
MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEES/OUTSIDE BODIES
Summary
Purpose: That Council approves the nominations / amendments to the Bodies listed below.
Policy Framework: None.
Reason for Decision: To agree nominations for Committee Membership / Outside Bodies.
Consultation: Political Groups.
Recommendation(s): It is recommended that Council approves the nominations / amendments to the membership of the Committees/Boards etc outlined and notes the changes to the Outside Bodies listed.
1. Introduction
1.1 The Annual Meeting of Council on 11th May 2009, agreed membership of the various Committees / Boards as reflected in the lists submitted by the Political Groups.
1.2 Following the formation of the “Communities of Swansea” Political Group a further review of the membership has been undertaken.
2. Changes to Committee Membership
2.1 As a result of 1.2 above the Political Groups have since submitted changes/nominations which are outlined below:
COMMITTEES/PANELS/GROUPS ETC
Admissions Panel Appoint Councillor ME Gibbs in place of Councillor C Thomas
Appointments Committee Appoint Councillor J Thomas in place of Councillor S Waller Thomas
Area 1 Development Control Committee Remove Councillor G Seabourne & S M Waller Thomas Appoint Councillors P Matthews and R Francis-Davies as Voting Members
Area 2 Development Control Committee Remove Councillors J E Burtonshaw, P N May and D Phillips Appoint Councillors M E Gibbs and R L Smith
Challenge Panel Appoint Councillor A R A Clement in place of Councillor A Jopling
Children & Young People Scrutiny Board Appoint Councillor J Thomas in place of Councillor P M Meara
Councillors ICT Working Group Appoint Councillor R L Smith
Environment, Regeneration & Culture Overview Board Appoint Councillor M E Gibbs in place of Councillor ACS Colburn
Environment, Regeneration & Culture Scrutiny Board Appoint Councillor V N Abbott in place of Councillor S M Waller Thomas
Finance, Audit & Business Improvement Scrutiny Board Appoint Councillor J Woodman in place of Councillor J Thomas
General Purposes Panel Appoint Councillor N A Holley in place of Councillor S Waller Thomas
Health, Social Care & Well Being Overview Board Appoint Councillor P M Meara in place of Councillor S M Waller Thomas
Local Development Plan Advisory Group Appoint Councillor G Seabourne
Standards Committee Appoint Councillor P N May in place of Councillor J Woodman
Standards Committee Vacancy Panel Appoint Councillor G Seabourne
Student Liaison Forum Delete Mayals Electoral Division Member from membership list
Trustees Panel Appoint Councillors P M Meara, S J Rice, RL Smith and D G Sullivan Remove Councillor V A Bates-Hughes
OUTSIDE BODIES
Joint Resilience Committee – Appoint Councillor D G Sullivan in place of Councillor A Jopling
Mid & West Wales Fire Brigade – Appoint Councillor D T Howells in place of Councillor A Jopling
Swansea/Gorseinon College Shadow Board – Appoint Councillor P N May
West Glamorgan Council for Alcohol & Drug Abuse – Appoint Councillor M H Jones in place of Councillor S M Waller Thomas
3. RECOMMENDATION. that Council approves the nominations / amendments to the membership of the Committees/Boards etc outlined and notes the changes to the Outside Bodies listed.
Background papers: Local Government & Housing Act 1989, the Local Government (Committees & Political Groups) Regulations 1990.
Contact Officer: Gareth Borsden 01792 636824 Legal Officer: Rod Jones 24.11.2009 Item No. 8 (C) (1)
Report of the Cabinet Member for Environment
Council – 3rd December 2009
DRAFT PLANNING OBLIGATIONS SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE – REPORT ON CONSULTATION
Summary
Purpose: To inform Members of the representations received during the recent consultation on the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Guidance. To seek views on the representations received, the proposed responses made by the Council and consequent amendments to the guidance. Policy Framework: City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (Adopted November 2008). Reason for Decision: To finalise the Council’s policy for the issuing of planning obligations. Consultation: Legal, Finance, Education, Culture and Tourism, Housing, Regeneration, Transportation and Highways. Recommendation(s): It is recommended that Council:
1) Agree the proposed amendments to the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Guidance set out in the report and,
2) Approve the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Guidance, as amended,
3) Agree to adopt the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Guidance as planning guidance.
1.0 Background
1.1 On the 26th March 2009 the Draft Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) was presented to Cabinet. Members resolved to endorse the draft document to be issued for a six week period of consultation with stakeholders and all interested parties. The document has since been subject of a consultation exercise which ran from the 18th May until the 3rd July 2009.
1.2 The draft document and an accompanying questionnaire were sent to various internal departments, County Councillors, specific, general and local consultation bodies including Community Councils. Notification letters were sent to various local organisations, interest groups and private individuals advising of the issuing of the SPG and inviting comments. A dedicated webpage was also established and copies of all relevant documents and supporting information were made available at the Civic Centre and all Libraries within the County. A press notice was also placed within the South Wales Evening Post on the 18th May 2009.
1.3 A questionnaire consisting of a number of specific questions relating to planning obligations was circulated. A total of 285 consultations were sent during the consultation period resulting in 28 representations being duly made. Of these 16 were questionnaires with the remainder being formal letters/e-mails. Detailed responses were received from a range of consultees including house builders, land owners, planning agents, environmental organisations, County Councillors, Town and Community Councils and various internal departments (See Appendix 1). A breakdown of the representations received along with the Authority’s response is attached in Appendix 2.
1.4 An amended track changed version of the SPG (Appendix 3) has been prepared on the basis of the recommendations following the public consultation exercise. It includes additional clarification and references on matters raised by respondents. For ease of reference the resultant changes are specified within the track changed version of the guidance which is available to view in the Member Group Rooms or can be requested from the Planning Policy Team.
2.0 Representations Received
2.1 The production of the SPG was generally welcomed in the interests of clarity, fairness, transparency and in elaboration of the policies contained in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP). However, the main areas of concern centred on the belief that the SPG:
Totally disregards the current economic climate and the effect that planning obligations have on the viability of development proposals. The development industry are keen to ensure that the Council only seeks planning obligations where they are necessary to mitigate the impact of new development and where there is need arising from a development, having regard to existing capacity and facilities already serving the development sites.
In response: The guidance will be a starting point for all negotiations and does allow for flexibility to take account of site specific circumstances. However, it is agreed that the issue of flexibility and viability should be clarified and the SPG could benefit from additional clarification on prioritising planning obligations. In situations where developers feel that the contributions required are over onerous and will affect the viability of a development proposal, the Council will require a financial appraisal to be prepared and where appropriate be independently assessed in order to ascertain what levels of contributions the proposal can sustain. The obligations identified are considered reasonable and fair as they merely reflect UDP policy and requirements already in place by the Council. The SPG proposals are based on sound evidence of the cost to provide community infrastructure reflecting the Council’s service areas’ expertise and experience in delivering these facilities. Furthermore, the Council has successfully secured such contributions in the past through negotiation and agreement with developers and therefore are satisfied that the requirements are not unduly onerous or likely to impact upon development viability.
Had not paid due regard to national policy (Circular 13/97).
In response: The Council has paid due regard to the contents of Circular 13/97 in the preparation of the SPG (By the fact that the obligations will only be required when they are necessary, relevant to planning, directly related to the proposed development, fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development and reasonable in all other respects), and is satisfied that it complies with national guidance. The SPG outlines the types of obligations likely to be sought to address the impacts of developments which occur most often. It also makes it clear that each case will be considered on its own merits.
Contains a proposed management and monitoring framework of 20% of the planning fee or 2% of the value of the obligation that is not justifiable and concerns were raised about the potential large sums that could be payable on more major schemes.
In response: The proposed management and monitoring fee of either 20% of the planning fee or 2% of the value of the obligations in the S106 Agreement is considered both sufficient to cover the Council’s costs and reasonable given the current economic downturn. It also reflects best practice elsewhere whereby consistently a levy on the S106 contributions themselves, typically 2- 3% is expected. If for some reason the proposed fee becomes unsuitable or unrealistic then it may be subject to change during the subsequent revision of the guidance. The charge is not aimed at making a profit but only recovering the costs, which apart from officer time includes support costs. In addition to this a Principal Planner has been appointed to ensure consistency in negotiation and effective monitoring and implementation of planning obligation will ensure improvements to the process.
Suffers from a general lack of information to back up the obligations set therefore its publication should be delayed until the forthcoming Local Development Plan (LDP) evidence base is in place.
In response: The primary purpose of this SPG is to supplement the policies set out within the UDP and will be in place until the adoption of the LDP (during the next 4-5 years). Clearly the gaps in the evidence base needs to be filled to enable the policy to be applied on a comprehensive and consistent basis. However, it is acknowledged that this will take time and resources and with this in mind the SPG has been prepared in a format that permits review and amendment of any particular part as evidence becomes available and/or in response to evolving national policy guidance. The provision of accurate and comprehensive baseline information and evidence is a fundamental requirement of the forthcoming LDP preparation process. Additional survey work/research will therefore need to be carried out by the Council where there are gaps in knowledge and understanding of the existing situation to inform the LDP.
2.2 In addition to the above representations, a number of minor factual and typographical amendments have been identified and are proposed. These changes will also be identified within the track changed version of the amended guidance (Appendix 3 – See Paragraph 1.4).
3.0 The Next Steps
3.1 Following endorsement by Council the SPG will become approved non- statutory guidance that expands upon relevant policies set out in the UDP.
3.2 The outputs from this exercise have also provided an interesting insight into the potential requirements of developing an evidence base for the forthcoming LDP process. Given that the requirement for ‘soundness’ means that the production of the LDP should be informed by robust evidence, the lack of sound, available information is of particular concern. The need for such information can not be underestimated as any significant gaps in the baseline information would increase the pressure on an already demanding 4 year timetable. The LDP process therefore demands continued and even closer co- operation between departments in its formulation and an understanding that there is a need to consider the adequacy of the existing information and the scope of any additional assessments needed, or databases that need to be established.
4.0 Financial Implications
4.1 The amendments proposed to the SPG have no additional cost implications for staff time and resources.
4.2 The preparation of this guidance has however identified gaps in the Council’s evidence base, which will need to be filled by relevant departments/service areas to enable the policy to be applied comprehensively and effectively. This may have financial implications in the next two or three years and these will become clearer when the exact information requirements have been evaluated.
4.3 Implementing this guidance will put the Authority in a better position to secure funding for community facilities linked to future developments.
5.0 Legal Implications
5.1 The SPG once adopted will provide planning guidance and will be a material consideration in evaluating future planning applications.
6.0 Recommendations
6.1 It is recommended that Council:
1) Agree the proposed amendments to the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Guidance set out in the report and,
2) Approve the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Guidance, as amended,
3) Agree to adopt the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Guidance as planning guidance.
Background Papers: None
Contact Officer: Emyr Jones 5082
Legal Officer: Rod Jones 7652
File Reference: Last Updated: Version Number: 23.11.09 V1 Appendix 1: List of Representations
The Consultation Draft Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Guidance was subject to a six week consultation period which ran from 18th May until 3rd July. Out of the 285 consultations sent (both internal an external) a total of 28 representations were duly made. Of these 16 were questionnaires with the remainder being formal letters/e-mails.
In general the production of the SPG was welcomed in the interests of clarity, fairness, transparency and in elaboration of the policies contained in the adopted UDP. However, the main areas of concern centred on the belief that the SPG does not properly take account of development viability which is a critical factor in determining whether or not the extent of planning obligations required can be delivered on a particular development site.
For your information, representations were received from the following sources:
Local Members: (3)
Councillor Keith Marsh Councillor Mark Child Councillor Audrey Clement
Community Councils: (2)
Pontarddulais Town Council Llwchwr Town Council
Officers: (10)
Mandy Jones (Community Regeneration) Gerwyn Jones (Community Regeneration) Paul Jenkins (Corporate Property) Steve Marshall (Regeneration) Aeron Kirczey (Transport) Neil Ranft (Regeneration) Rod Jones (Legal) Nick McDonald (Culture and Tourism) Phil Baxter (Development Control) Steve Smith (Planning Services)
Organisations/Agencies: (5)
Environment Agency Wales Dwr Cymru Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University NHS Trust Home Builders Federation Mumbles Development Trust
Developers/Consultants Representing developers: (8)
Cushman & Wakefield – Hammerson plc Redrow Homes Liberty Properties (Homes) Ltd Asbri Planning – Taylor Wimpey Ltd Boyer Planning Ltd – Taylor Wimpey Asbri Planning – Barratt South Wales Ltd Asbri Planning – Charles Church Wales Meirion Howells – MHPM
Appendix 2: Table of Responses
1) General Issues
Consultee Comment Response/Action CCSC – Cllr. K.E. Marsh I would hope that the SPG will be revisited at regular intervals (2 - 3 yearly) to enable amendments to be Comment noted. The Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) made if necessary. has been prepared in a format that permits review and amendment of any particular part as evidence becomes available and/or in response to evolving national policy guidance. It should be noted that the provision of accurate, comprehensive and consistent baseline information and evidence is a fundamental requirement of the forthcoming Local Development Plan (LDP) preparation process. The SPG will therefore be fully reviewed as part of this process.
CCSC – Mandy Jones: The guidance should also include an obligation to provide new or extend/upgrade existing community Community facilities have an integral role in improving the quality (Head of Community facilities. Larger new housing developments place a burden on existing community facilities and in some of life for communities. A specific obligation was sought, Regeneration) cases where there are no community facilities then issues arise from a lack of places to go. This could be however the basis of the calculations provided were not based on tied to a sum of money of ‘community’ needs, maybe a small grants pot for local community groups (as is sound evidence and could not be justified. Additional survey now offered by some organisations e.g. Wind Farms) or resources for some development staff. There is a work/research will therefore need to be carried out by the Council need to ensure that the communities that have large scale developments are not disadvantaged by the where there are gaps in knowledge and understanding of the development. Community facilities often benefit from being enhanced to accommodate larger numbers and existing community needs situation in order to inform the LDP the existence of such facilities is often crucial in the integration of the old and new community to make one and the subsequent review of the SPG. This work would involve thriving community. an immediate quantitative and qualitative assessment of existing provision. This assessment would then allow the Council to seek financial contributions for improvements to existing community facilities or the provision of additional facilities on all significant developments.
CCSC – Rod Jones: There is no mention of CCTV. Elsewhere I am familiar with the approach in S106 Agreements in either Policy EV1 of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) adopted (Deputy Head of Legal) getting specific provision by the developer in a large scheme to buy the cameras and pay for the link into the November 2008 requires new development to provide a safe Council’s CCTV system or to contribute an amount to a pot which will be used by the Council to provide environment by addressing issues of security, crime prevention, CCTV in an area such as the town centre. It may be that this is not appropriate in Swansea but I raise it as if and the fear of crime in the design of buildings and the space and we do want to develop the system there is no reason that developers should not contribute. routes around them – this includes CCTV provision. A new obligation covering Secured by Design principles could be introduced focusing on crime prevention. However this would need to be considered at the design, layout and construction stages of residential and commercial developments rather than as a legal obligation add-on. The Council’s duty to consider measures to reduce crime under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is covered under Policy EV1 which has not yet had time to take effect. It is recommended that the effectiveness of this policy be monitored before considering the use of planning obligations to cover crime prevention measures. CCSC – Gerwyn Jones: As the result of a discussion at our Senior Management Team I have been asked to let you know that we The previous concerns highlighted during the formulation of this (Principal Officer for believe strongly that community facilities should be included within S106 Agreements as they are very guidance remain, in particular the dependency on the Bridgend Community important when it comes down to local quality of life. This service is not statutory unlike education and if the model. However, if the basis of these calculations and how they Regeneration) Council does not pursue such facilities through S106 Agreements where else could this service be funded specifically relate to Swansea can be confirmed then the situation from. The formula devised from the Bridgend model needs to be reinstated as far as the Community can be reviewed during the subsequent review of the guidance. Regeneration Service is concerned. It is acknowledged that community facilities have an integral role in improving the quality of life for communities but the basis of the calculations/requirements need to be legally unchallengeable.
Additional survey work/research will therefore need to be carried out by the Council where there are gaps in knowledge and understanding of the existing situation in order to inform the LDP and the subsequent review of the SPG. This work would involve an immediate quantitative and qualitative assessment of existing provision. This assessment would then allow the Council to seek financial contributions for improvements to existing community facilities or the provision of additional facilities on all significant developments.
CCSC – Phillip Baxter: The document is too long and uninviting to the reader. There is too much duplication of policy and excessive Whilst it is acknowledged that the most effective SPG is one (Development Control explanation of planning obligations and too many Appendices. The document should direct the reader to which is clear, concise and easily identifiable, the highly technical Principal Planner) additional sources of information rather than duplicate it within the document otherwise there is a risk that it nature of this document makes it extremely difficult to achieve will be overlooked. My view is that the most useful SPG is one which is clear, concise and easily identifiable. this. Given that a blanket approach is not sought the guidance has to identify detailed examples of requirements that could be expected. The inclusion of other sources of information will ensure that it is used as a ‘one stop’ central resource, without the need to trawl through other documents and identifying relevant sections.
CCSC – Neil Ranft: Numbering all paragraphs would be helpful. It is considered that the numbering arrangement in place is (Development Planner sufficient. Regeneration) Paragraph 1.4 – No mention of key infrastructure such as utilities, flood prevention measures; Paragraph 1.4 merely identifies examples of S106 obligation archaeological requirements. Not all of this list are dealt with in Section 2. contributions and is therefore not exhaustive. It illustrates a variety of generic examples which are not necessarily identified with Part 2 of the guidance. The examples identified can therefore be added to the text.
Add the suggested examples to Paragraph 1.4.
Paragraph 1.5 – Last sentence: This is misleading as triggers only lead to further consideration. Comment noted. The final sentence of Paragraph 1.5 should be removed in order to avoid confusion.
Delete final sentence of Paragraph 1.5.
Paragraph 1.7 – Insert as first paragraph: The use of S106 should ensure that key infrastructure and Comments noted. The addition of the suggested text will aid enabling activity is provided in the first instance to allow development to proceed. The various activities clarity and set the context for seeking S106 contributions. which could require contributions, identified in Part 2 of the guidance are not prescriptive but form the basis for further negotiation. Trigger points are identified for each type of activity seeking S106 contribution which Add the suggested text to the first sentence of former means that this is then considered in determining what contributions should be sought. This consideration Paragraph of 1.7 (Now Paragraph 2.5). should be supported by evidence of need and should be justified and relevant to the application being determined. A trigger point being reached does not necessarily lead to contributions for that activity being secured.
Paragraph 1.7 – First paragraph becomes second paragraph. Comment noted. In accordance with the previous response Paragraph 1.7 should be amended.
Amended former Paragraph 1.7 (Now Paragraph 2.5) accordingly.
Paragraph 1.7 – Delete paragraphs 3 and 4. In line with the amendments proposed to Paragraph 1.7 paragraphs 3 and 4 will be amended/amalgamated accordingly.
Amend/amalgamate former Paragraph 1.7 (Now Paragraph 2.5) accordingly.
Part 2 – In each section there is reference to “requirement” for contributions from S106. This is incorrect. Paragraph 1.7 (Now Paragraph 2.5) makes it clear that the The biodiversity section sets the right tone where it indicates “developer obligations may involve” – all the various activities which could require contributions are not sections should be rewritten to reflect this. prescriptive but form the basis for further negotiation. The reference to “requirement” reflects UDP policy whilst the “may involve” reflects obligations (such as biodiversity) which are not based on a specific UDP policy but are purely incorporated as good practice measures/approved Council policy (such as the Local Biodiversity Action Plan and Beyond Bricks and Mortar).
Paragraph 2.1 – Add: Trigger points for each activity are included in each of the following sections. These Comment noted. The addition of the suggested text will aid then become considerations in determining what contributions, for what activities, should be sought from an clarity and set the context for seeking S106 contributions. individual development. Add the suggested text to the final sentence of Paragraph 2.1 (Now Paragraph 3.1).
CCSC – Stephen Smith: I support the use of planning obligations and the SPG will provide greater clarity on what is required and how Comments noted. Community facilities have an integral role in (Principal Urban this is calculated. improving the quality of life for communities. A specific obligation Designer) was sought however the basis of the calculations provided were In addition to the specific comments, I consider that there are two significant omissions in terms of the type not based on sound evidence and could not be justified. of contributions: Additional survey work/research will therefore need to be carried
Community Infrastructure is a key element of creating and sustaining communities. This may be out by the Council where there are gaps in knowledge and contributions towards an existing community centre or a fund towards a new community facility. This is given understanding of the existing situation in order to inform the LDP as an example of in Paragraph 1.4 but not addressed by the SPG. and the subsequent review of the SPG.
Public Realm is a potential area for contributions. For example within Swansea City Centre and other key It is acknowledged that the Public Realm is an area for potential centres a contribution could be negotiated towards streetscape improvements which can be combined with contributions. However, it is also an area where substantial WAG WAG funding to deliver significant uplift. Again this is given as an example of in Paragraph 1.4 but not funding has been provided for schemes recently implemented addressed by the SPG. and funding for further improvements has already been identified over the period that this SPG will apply. Given the other sources of funding for public realm improvements it is not therefore a priority for the SPG at this time, however the inclusion of such an obligation could be considered at the review stage of the guidance
Paragraph 1.4 merely identifies examples of Section 106 obligation contributions and is therefore not exhaustive. It illustrates a variety of generic examples which are not necessarily identified with Part 2 of the guidance.
P.A John: More consultation is required with stakeholders e.g. Community/Town Councils. A six week public consultation exercise was carried out between (Pontarddulais Town 18th May and 3rd July 2009. A total of 285 consultations were Council) sent (inclusive of Town and Community Councils) resulting in 28 representations being duly made. In addition, a dedicated webpage was established, a press notice was placed in a local paper whilst the draft guidance/questionnaire was made available to view at the Civic Centre and all Libraries within the County.
Public consultation is carried out on all planning applications to enable local communities to have an input. It would be unduly onerous and ineffective to seek public opinion on individual planning obligation implementation. However, local ward members are consulted to ensure local views are represented. Whilst the consultation methods used by the Council are considered to be more than sufficient, any comments, ideas or inspiration is encouraged at any point.
Where do young people fall into obligations? New development often creates a need for additional or improved community services and facilities, without which there could be a detrimental effect on local amenity and the quality of the environment. Planning obligations are the mechanisms by which measures are secured to enhance the quality of both the development and the wider environment. This SPG will help to ensure that development makes a positive contribution to sustainable development providing social, economic and environmental benefits to the community as a whole (inclusive of young people).
Consultation has only been with internal departments. Good start but not good enough. No reference to The Draft SPG was approved by Cabinet as the basis for public community participation. consultation on the 26th March 2009. A six week public consultation exercise was carried out between 18th May and 3rd July 2009. A total of 285 consultations were sent (including house builders, land owners, planning agents, Town and Community Councils, environmental organisations and various internal departments) resulting in 28 representations being duly made. In addition, a dedicated webpage was established, a press notice was placed in a local paper whilst the draft guidance/questionnaire was made available to view at the Civic Centre and all Libraries within the County.
Public consultation is carried out on all planning applications and representations are fully considered. The planning committee report is published prior to the meeting to enable scrutiny in order to ensure that the process is fair and open. The consultation methods used by the Council are considered to be more than sufficient.
Leisure should be one of the obligations. After draft S106 is drawn up and before it goes back to the In terms of obligations directly relating to leisure, an outdoor play developer Community/Town Council views should be sought. space obligation is incorporated within the guidance. A specific obligation relating to community facilities was also sought however the basis of the calculations provided were not based on sound evidence and its inclusion could not be justified. Additional survey work/research will therefore need to be carried out by the Council where there are gaps in knowledge and understanding of the existing situation in order to inform the LDP and the subsequent review of the SPG.
Town and Community Councils have been consulted throughout the process. General comments/queries are also welcomed at any point.
T. Scales: (Mumbles Other items should include: Arts & Cultural facilities e.g. the provision of arts centres & studio workshops (not Comments noted. The SPG has been prepared in a format that Development Trust) just works of art), Youth & Community Centres & Grants towards the cost of Environmental & Cultural permits review and amendment of any particular part. However Events. Sustainability & reducing the carbon foot print of the development. the inclusion of such an obligation is dependent on the availability of sound baseline information which is not currently available. The requirement for arts, workshops, youth and community centre provision/events should form part of the review of community needs which the Community Regeneration Department must take the lead on. The findings can then be taken into consideration in any future review of the guidance.
The inclusion of an obligation specifically relating to sustainability/carbon foot print is not necessary as there is a Council approved ‘Sustainable Developer Guide’ in place. This guide is currently subject to review in order to take into account the requirements of Technical Advice Note 22 (Planning for Sustainable Buildings) that will provide overarching national standards on sustainable buildings.
David Watkins: We support you in your efforts to produce and implement such a scheme. One element we have raised with Comments noted. Infrastructure/drainage issues are usually (Environment Agency local planning authorities in south west Wales is the issue of Sustainable Drainage System and whether this covered by other legislative powers than S106, including planning Wales) matter could be included with any Planning Obligations SPG. conditions. In particular recently adopted UDP Policy EV35 (Surface Water Run-Off) encourages sustainable drainage issues within schemes wherever they would be effective and practicable It is recommended that the effectiveness of this policy be monitored before considering the use of planning obligations to deal with this matter.
Rhidian Clement: (Dwr Development invariably places additional burden on existing public water supplies and sewerage facilities Whilst there is no specific obligation for public water and Cymru) and often creates the need for extra facilities. Where this occurs, in particular where there is no planned sewerage facilities the SPG is clear that S106 Agreements will be capital investment by the undertaker, it is reasonable for developers to meet or contribute towards the cost of used to ensure that key infrastructure and enabling activity is providing such essential facilities. The timing of planned Regulatory investment may not align with provided in the first instance to allow developments to proceed. development needs and additionally and more importantly, OFWAT, the Water Industry Regulator may not In addition infrastructure/drainage issues are usually covered by fully approve an undertaker’s submission for funding and therefore where there is shortfall, then OFWAT other legislative powers than S106, including planning conditions. have openly admitted that they expect the cost of improvements to be payable through developers In particular UDP Policy EV33 (Sewage Disposal) clearly states contributions. that planning permission will only be granted where development can be served by the public mains sewer or, where this system is inadequate satisfactory improvements can be provided prior to the development becoming operational. This means that any burden on public water supplies and sewerage facilities will need to be addressed by prospective developers separately from and without prejudice to the contributions identified in the Planning Obligations SPG.
Hammerson plc The negotiation process should be spelt out a little more clearer than at present - the flow chart would Comments noted. Developers are encouraged to discuss their suggest that the large majority of discussion occurs post-submission. Current best practice would suggest proposals informally with Planning Services prior to submitting an that more pre-submission agreement can save significant time during the determination period which is application. This will ensure that any infrastructure or service beneficial to all parties. This matter could be addressed in Paragraph 1.7. requirements, as part of a planning obligation, are identified at the earliest opportunity. This is particularly important with complex or major applications, as it will help provide a better mutual understanding of objectives and the constraints that exist, until the planning obligation has been completed.
It is agreed that the flow chart within Appendix 1 should be amended to promote the need for more pre-submission discussions. In order to aid clarity a new Part 2 (How Agreements are Developed) will be introduced to focus on how agreements are developed.
Amend the flow chart within Appendix 1 and add a new Part 2.
That the evidence base referred to in this Part is properly sourced for applicants to understand (e.g. the Given that the evidence base for the guidance is ever evolving location of school capacity data). and is used for illustrative purposes, the appropriate sources of information can be requested (as and when required) from the Principal Planning Officer – Major Projects Team (See Appendix 6).
Home Builders The HBF is concerned that this SPG does not properly take account of development viability and does not Comments noted. The issue of flexibility and viability should be Federation recognise that development viability will be a critical factor in determining whether or not the extent of clarified and the SPG could benefit from additional clarification on planning obligations required can be delivered on a particular development site. PPW Page 31, paragraph prioritising planning obligations within a new Paragraph 2.5. In 3.3.2 states that - with regard to economic considerations, UDPs will only be effective if they are realistic and situations where developers feel that the contributions required practical and provide developers and others with scope to make choices to secure the efficient and effective are over onerous and will affect the viability of a development use of resources. UDPs should include an indication, in broad terms, of the assumptions made about the proposal, the Council will require a financial appraisal to be resources likely to be available for effecting the policies and proposals formulated. Even though this prepared and where appropriate be independently assessed in paragraph relates to UDPs, it is also relevant to this draft SPG, as it contains policies and proposals that are order to ascertain what levels of contributions the proposal can directly related to UDP policies. sustain. Add a new Part 2 (Paragraph 2.6) to provide greater clarity on viability and flexibility.
Whilst site viability will be taken into consideration, it is important to note that the Council must make decisions in the public interest and in accordance with planning policies. These cannot be ignored simply because of viability issues. If there is no planning merit or public interest in a site being developed, then the Council does not consider a flexible approach to planning obligation requirements could be justified.
It is essential that planning obligations are fair and reasonable and that the policy by which they are required The obligations identified are considered reasonable and fair as is implementable and enforceable. In this context, if economic viability is not considered with each planning they merely reflect UDP policy and requirements already in place obligation, and the cumulative effect of all the obligations within this SPG, we are concerned that the by the Council. The SPG proposals are based on sound document will be unrealistic and ineffective in its attempt to secure planning obligations and become merely evidence of the cost to provide community infrastructure a ‘wish list’ of criteria that cannot be delivered. Even though it might not be the case that one single policy reflecting the Council’s service areas’ expertise and experience in has a negative effect on viability, the accumulative requirements of other planning obligations policies might delivering these facilities. Furthermore, the Council has be enough to render a development unviable unless a proper analysis of the impact of each policy is successfully secured such contributions in the past through undertaken. In this respect, the SPG should include provisions to ensure development viability will be negotiation and agreement with developers and therefore are considered when requiring planning obligations. satisfied that the requirements are not unduly onerous or likely to impact upon development viability. In situations where developers feel that the contributions required are over onerous and will affect the viability of a development proposal, the Council will require a financial appraisal to be prepared and where appropriate be independently assessed in order to ascertain what levels of contributions the proposal can sustain.
Add a new Part 2 (Paragraph 2.6) to provide greater clarity on viability and flexibility.
It is also essential that polices are sufficiently flexible to cope with changing circumstances and market The obligations set out within the guidance identify the sorts of conditions. The current market situation and the effects of the credit crunch are a clear example of the need activities that the Council could require developer contributions for this, and we believe the SPG should include provisions to ensure it is sufficiently flexible to cope with be made towards. The various activities identified as a potential situations like the current market downturn, now and in the future. requirement for developer contributions are not prescriptive but are rather a basis for negotiation. However, the Council accepts Suggested Change: The SPG should include information to state that where planning obligations will be that the SPG should be amended to provide greater clarity on evidence based, justified and will take full account of their impact on development viability, before they are viability and flexibility. imposed on developers. Add a new Part 2 (Paragraph 2.6) to provide greater clarity The SPG should also make clear that certain dispensation will be allowed where its requirements cannot be on viability and flexibility. supported by land values. This will include taking into consideration all planning obligations, as well as development costs. It should be noted that whilst site viability will be taken into consideration, the Council must make decisions in the public interest and in accordance with planning policies. These cannot be ignored simply because of viability issues. If there is no planning merit or public interest in a site being developed, then the Council does not consider a flexible approach to planning obligation requirements could be justified.
Meirion Howells Project You will know that I deal almost daily with your department and it has therefore come as a bit of a surprise It appears that the consultee has mistakenly identified the Management that the LDP Consultation Process has commenced and by reference to your web page was closed on 29th consultation period for the LDP Draft Delivery Agreement as May. As far as I know this consultation has been one of the best kept secrets in Swansea. Despite probably being the one for the Planning Obligation SPG. Comments were being too late I felt that I must comment on some of the proposals currently being considered. received within the given time period and have been taken into account. Considerable consultation measures were carried out to promote the production of the SPG.
The Draft SPG was approved by Cabinet as the basis for public consultation on the 26th March 2009. A six week public consultation exercise was carried out between 18th May and 3rd July 2009. A total of 285 consultations were sent (including house builders, land owners, planning agents, Town and Community Councils, environmental organisations and various internal departments) resulting in 28 representations being duly made. In addition, a dedicated webpage was established, a press notice was placed in a local paper whilst the draft guidance/questionnaire was made available to view at the Civic Centre and all Libraries within the County.
The SPG in my view totally disregards the current economic climate. At a time when we as a City should be The SPG will be a starting point for all negotiations and allows trying to attract development and create employment your planners are adding to the cost and putting up flexibility to take account of site specific circumstances. To date, more hurdles for developers to overcome. We will lose out and Swansea will sink even further into an the Council has been successful at seeking planning obligations economic backwater unless you ease up on these demands. Please do not make it harder, it is already too and has seen no evidence that the Council’s requirements are hard. deterring new development in the area. The SPG will be subject to review if this situation arises.
Liberty Properties Plc The obligations should not be set in stone and should be considered on a site by site basis. The The obligations set out within this guidance identify the sorts of triggers/basis for the obligations set out in Part 2 of the guidance should be considered on an individual activities that the Council could require developer contributions basis. be made towards. The various activities identified as a potential requirement for developer contributions are not prescriptive but are rather a basis for negotiation. The Council has sought to strike the correct balance between clarity to all, whilst being consistent, fair and reasonable and at the same time having regard to site specific factors which require some flexibility. It is therefore clear that a blanket approach is not proposed.
The financial effect of the proposals will stifle development or even prohibit development in the lower priced The SPG will be a starting point for all negotiations but does areas of the Authority. allow for flexibility to take account of site specific circumstances. To date, the Council has been successful at seeking planning obligations and has seen no evidence that the Council’s requirements are deterring new development in the area. The SPG will be subject to review if this situation arises.
Charles Church Wales The guidance is generally supported as providing clarification of what the County Council will be seeking in Comment noted. Ltd/ Barratt Homes terms of contributions from developments. South Wales Ltd/Taylor The document rightly highlights the need for supplementary planning guidance to clarify and amplify national Comment noted. Wimpey UK Ltd guidance and UDP policies, Paragraph 2.2.1 is supported as it acknowledges that development is needed to provide sustainable and inclusive communities.
The Council should seek planning obligations as a means of mitigating the impacts of new development The Council’s requirements on evidence of need and costs where reasonable and where impacts can be demonstrated by firm evidence. associated with delivering community infrastructure are based on experience of previous delivery of such matters. The obligations used are useful to provide clarity and to relate the contributions to the scale and form of development.
At this stage when there is a downturn in the housing market and house builders profit margins are reduced, The primary purpose of this SPG is to supplement the policies set the guidance would be best prepared through the new LDP process where it can be based on up to date out within the UDP and will be in place until the adoption of the evidence. LDP (during the next 4-5 years). The guidance will be a starting point for all negotiations but does allow for flexibility to take account of site specific circumstances and can be subject to review. Clearly the gaps in the evidence base needs to be filled to enable the policy to be applied on a comprehensive and consistent basis. However, it is acknowledged that this will take time and resources and with this in mind the SPG has been prepared in a format that permits review and amendment of any particular part as evidence becomes available and/or in response to evolving national policy guidance. The provision of accurate and comprehensive baseline information and evidence is a fundamental requirement of the forthcoming LDP preparation process. Additional survey work/research will therefore need to be carried out by the Council where there are gaps in knowledge and understanding of the existing situation to inform the LDP.
The guidance does not include a section on community facilities. A specific obligation for community facilities has not been included as the desired information is not available. Further research is required, which involves an immediate quantitative and qualitative assessment of existing provision. This assessment would then allow the Council to seek financial contributions for improvements to existing community facilities or the provision of additional facilities on all significant developments.
Generally the aim of this guidance document in seeking to clarify the type and scale of contributions required Comments noted. is welcomed in principle. In seeking to achieve appropriate levels of contributions for new development, however, impacts need to be established to justify the levels of obligations required and positive impacts of housing developments need to be taken into account.
The guidance generally seeks to complement UDP policies. Whilst the draft SPG provides a degree of The primary purpose of this SPG is to supplement the policies set certainty and a basis for negotiation, it makes little provision for some contributions to be offset against out within the UDP (such as affordable housing) and will be in others, and the timing of the publication can be questioned given the current economic climate and ongoing place until the adoption of the LDP (during the next 4-5 years). uncertainty in the housing market. Study information on which the requirements are based, particularly The SPG will be a starting point for all negotiations and it is relating to affordable housing, are out of date and no longer relevant. flexible enough to take into account site specific circumstances. To date, the Council has been successful at seeking planning obligations and has seen no evidence that the Council’s requirements are deterring new development in the area. The SPG will be subject to review if this situation arises.
Furthermore the issuing of the publication of such a ‘shopping list’ to support UDP policies when the Council The primary purpose of this SPG is to supplement the policies set is about to commence work on a new LDP, is also open to question. The LDP is targeted for adoption within within the UDP and will be in place until the adoption of the LDP 5 years and will be totally evidenced based. As such it will form a more sound and transparent framework (during the next 4-5 years). It is acknowledged that the for seeking contributions. forthcoming LDP process will ensure the provision of accurate and comprehensive baseline information and evidence. Additional survey work/research will therefore need to be carried out by the Council where there are gaps in knowledge and understanding of the existing situation in order to inform the LDP and the subsequent review of the SPG.
As well as good supporting evidence, the overriding need from a housebuilder’s perspective is for the Comments noted. The use of S106 Agreements is not about requirements to be considered fully with an emphasis on site economics. Planning officers should use their spreading contributions across a variety of mitigation measures, skills in a coordinating role to balance these requests, not simply to issue requests directly in order for rather it is used to ensure that key infrastructure and enabling developers to defend them. Such consideration at the outset would assist in more constructive negotiations activity is provided in the first instance to allow developments to and would allow the quicker determination of planning applications. proceed. The Council must first seek to mitigate the direct impacts of the development and comply with the policy requirement set out in the UDP. The obligations set out within the guidance identify the sorts of activities that the Council could require developer contributions be made towards. The various activities identified as a potential requirement for developer contributions are not prescriptive but are rather a basis for negotiation.
Taylor Wimpey (Bristol) The guidance should allow flexibility for negotiation on a site by site basis and that an appropriate balance is The SPG will be a starting point for all negotiations but does achieved between the range and sums of contributions sought in relation to the scale of the proposed allow for flexibility to take account of site specific circumstances. development, the benefits to an area that a development will bring and the development costs (e.g. To date, the Council has been successful at seeking planning remediation / preparation) rather than applying a prescriptive, inflexible policy document approach. obligations and has seen no evidence that the Council’s requirements are deterring new development in the area. The SPG will be subject to review if this situation arises.
Redrow Homes Paragraph 1.7 – The SPG should list the Council’s priorities (in descending order). Whilst this may change Given that the SPG outlines the types of obligations likely to be over time, as and when it does it should prompt a review of the SPG. sought to address the site specific impacts of developments it is considered appropriate that mitigation measures should be considered on their own merits and on a case by base basis.
Abertawe Bro The production of an SPG on planning obligations is to be welcomed in the interests of clarity, fairness and Comment noted. Morgannwg NHS Trust transparency and in elaboration of the policies contained in the Adopted Development Plan.
Paragraph 1.1 – Should make it clear that S106 Agreements are voluntary; nowhere is this mentioned. Comment noted. Where a planning obligation is carried out by a developer, this is considered to be a contribution “in kind” rather than paying a financial contribution to the Council for them to carry out the work. However, in certain areas, for example, contributions towards education, off site highway works, it has become normal practice for financial contributions to be paid to the Council by the developer. The onus is then on the Council to ensure that the received money is allocated and spent on the correct projects within the agreed timescales. Where planning obligations are deemed to be necessary to make a development acceptable, they are essential in order to obtain planning permission, and without them applications are likely to be refused. Developers can also enter into a voluntary legal agreement to carry out works and these are known as ‘unilateral undertakings’.
Amend Paragraph 1.3 accordingly.
Paragraph 1.4 – Lists examples of obligations. The list omits any mention of health care facilities even Whilst it is acknowledged that new residential developments can though virtually all residential developments (and some other developments) will impose added demands on lead to added demands on health services, there is no health services. The health demands created by new residential developments are akin to the demands for information available to justify the inclusion of such an obligation. education facilities and, whereas the SPG deals at length with education, it singularly fails to deal with health This may be subject to review during a subsequent revision of the care. In the NHS Trust’s view, this is a major oversight and the trust could find itself in the invidious position guidance/following the production of the LDP. The LDP will have of having to meet planning obligations on its own developments, whilst receiving no benefit from to assess the health impacts of development through a Health developments carried out by others. This would clearly be unfair and onerous especially given the Trust’s Impact Assessment which will provide a broad and detailed wide-ranging responsibilities for health care provision throughout Swansea. understanding of the various ways a land use plan could impact on life in the County in the future. The LDP will also be subject to a Sustainability Appraisal broadly around the methodology it has developed to secure integrated impact assessment of emerging plans and strategies such as the Health, Social Care and Well- being Strategy. Only once this information has been obtained could consideration be given to inclusion of such an obligation.
Paragraph 1.4 merely identifies examples of S106 obligation contributions and is therefore not exhaustive. It illustrates a variety of generic examples which are not necessarily identified with Part 2 of the guidance. The inclusion of health care facilities as an example within Paragraph 1.4 is appropriate.
Add a reference to health care facilities to Paragraph 1.4.
Paragraph 1.7 – States that the Council does not propose “a blanket approach”. We accept that this is the The Council has sought to strike the correct balance between correct approach, but much of the remainder of the document gives the impression that a blanket of clarity to all, being consistent, reasonable and at the same time formulatic approach to obligations will be used in practice. It should be made clear in this introductory part of having regard to site specific factors which require some the SPG that each application will be treated on its merits. flexibility. The obligations set out within the guidance identify the sorts of activities that the Council could require developer contributions be made towards. The various activities identified as a potential requirement for developer contributions are not prescriptive but are rather a basis for negotiation. A blanket approach is therefore not proposed.
2) Legal Issues
Consultee Comment Response/Action CCSC – Cllr. K.E. Marsh 2% is a low percentage figure especially as the minimum figure is set at £150. 2.5% is suggested as The proposed management and monitoring fee of either 20% of reasonable in the light of the probable costs of implementing obligations, especially if administration costs the planning fee or 2% of the value of the obligations in the S106 (excluding legal fees) are included. The minimum figure should be £200. Agreement is considered both sufficient to cover the Council’s costs in drafting Agreements and reasonable given the current economic downturn. If for some reason the proposed fee becomes unsuitable/unrealistic then it may be subject to change during the subsequent revision of the guidance.
T. Scales: (Mumbles It would greatly improve the effectiveness of the policy if it was set out as a sliding scale whereby all The proposed management and monitoring fee of either 20% of Development Trust) schemes less than £10000 are exempt. All schemes from £10000 to £1M are to be used on cultural & the planning fee or 2% of the value of the obligations in the S106 environmental schemes within the local area of the development. All S106 Agreement contributions on Agreement is considered both sufficient to cover the Council’s schemes up to £1M must be spent on a priority demanded by the payee from a list of cultural & costs in drafting Agreements and reasonable given the current environmental priorities provided by the Council. Larger schemes should include the provision of cultural, economic downturn. It also reflects best practice elsewhere social & community facilities as well as contributing to social housing & education in the area affected by the whereby consistently a levy on the S106 contributions development. themselves, typically 2-3% is expected. If for some reason the proposed fee becomes unsuitable/unrealistic then it may be subject to change during the subsequent revision of the guidance.
The S106 should be triggered at a much lower scheme cost e.g. £1M…with a 1% minimum…for all cultural & The proposed management and monitoring fee of either 20% of environmental contributions other than affordable housing. the planning fee or 2% of the value of the obligations in the S106 Agreement is considered both sufficient to cover the Council’s costs in drafting Agreements and reasonable given the current economic downturn. It also reflects best practice elsewhere whereby consistently a levy on the S106 contributions themselves, typically 2-3% is expected. If for some reason the proposed fee becomes unsuitable/unrealistic then it may be subject to change during the subsequent revision of the guidance.
The management fee should be no more than 1% of either. Or based on best practice elsewhere. The fee and its method of calculation has been derived following careful consideration of the costs involved in monitoring and implementing planning obligations and is logical being related to both the planning fee and the scale of the planning obligations involved. Best practice elsewhere mainly centres on the provision of a dedicated resource for the administration of S106 process. There are two basic approaches to this:
To make a levy on the S106 contributions themselves, typically 2-3%. This is done in Cardiff in order to fund a principal officer. To make a levy on the fees paid in respect of relevant planning applications. This is done in Newport and Bristol, and again provides a principal officer resource. It is commonplace that authorities that have introduced a dedicated officer resource to manage S106 Agreements have also introduced management software and administrative processes to enhance liaison between the planning, legal, estates, finance and spending departments.
Hammerson plc The Council should state within the document that the use of planning conditions will, in general, be The Council has paid due regard to the contents of Circular 13/97 preferred to the use of planning obligations as set out in Circular 13/97. This should be set out in Paragraph in the preparation of the SPG, and is satisfied that it complies 1.2. with national guidance. Planning obligations will only be used when planning conditions are not appropriate or able to deliver particular requirements. Furthermore, any obligation should avoid duplication of planning conditions.
Amend Paragraph 1.1 to clarify the use of planning conditions.
The Council should be clearer in respect of the pre-application process provided at Paragraphs 1.4, 1.7 and Comments noted. In order to aid clarity and understanding it is Appendix 1. This should consider, for example: proposed that a new Part 2 (How Agreements are Developed) is added that considers how agreements are developed (inclusive (a) Typically at what point and how (such as in writing) will the Council set out that an agreement will be of an emphasis on pre application discussions). required given the nature of the proposals; Add a new Part 2 to clarify how Agreements are developed. (b) Who is responsible for proposing Head of Terms and at what point; In response to the issues identified: (c) What is typically expected to be contained in a planning application submission in respect of draft planning obligations; (a) If a planning permission is to be the subject of a planning obligation, the applicant or agent will be informed as soon as (d) Would the case officer act as a central point of reference for planning obligation negotiation or would possible. The Principal Planning Officer – Major Projects Team an applicant be expected to speak to the various service representatives of the Council; and will be responsible for the management of individual planning obligations and ensure guidelines are followed. Developers will (e) When should viability be discussed and how would the Council typically expect this to work and how be advised of the likely costs and requirements of any planning would the Council prioritise types of obligations where all are not viable. agreements, to enable those considerations to be taken into account in negotiations between developers and landowners. Developers and their professional agents are therefore expected to have read the policy requirements of the UDP, together with the guidelines set out in the Planning Obligations SPG.
(b) If draft Heads of Terms or draft legal agreement are not supplied with the planning application, or the need for planning obligations only become apparent after the submission of the application, the Council will contact the developer at the earliest opportunity to advise them of the required obligations and provide them with the option of either preparing and submitting a draft agreement for the Council’s consideration or allowing the Council to prepare an initial draft on their behalf. In both cases evidence of title and a statement agreeing to pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs and monitoring charge will also be requested.
(c) A S106 Agreement will usually contain the following details:
The date of the Agreement, and between whom it is made. Definition of words or phrases contained in the Agreement which may require reference or clarification. If the Agreement is being drawn up during processing of the planning application it will include the condition that planning permission must be granted for the Agreement to take effect. Applicant’s liabilities and how they are affected following sale of the land. Land Registry registration. Site details and nature of development. Provisions or restrictions required in the Agreement (i.e. the detail of the actual undertaking). This may include a description of provisions required and an explanation of important elements. Signatures of applicant, Council official and witnesses. This is subject to amendment depending on the issues involved. Applicants can be assured that all the issues will be explained fully to prevent any uncertainty.
(d) The Principal Officer – Major Projects Team will be responsible for the management of individual planning obligations. This will ensure consistency in negotiation and effective monitoring and implementation of planning obligations. Planning obligations will be monitored to ensure that all obligations are complied with by both the developer and the Council. Regular monitoring reports will be produced that will provide details of agreements entered into, financial contributions received, and the completion of schemes that have been funded through financial contributions in whole or in part.
(e) As stated in Paragraph 2.6 of the SPG, the element of flexibility in the process will ensure not to prejudice the viability of development schemes. Nevertheless, it is proposed that provision is made within the SPG to enable the Council to take into consideration the viability of a proposed development where the applicant considers the extent of planning obligations would render the scheme financially unviable. Should developers be concerned as to the viability of their site in the light of the planning obligation requirements of the Council they may undertake a viability appraisal. In all cases the Council will reserve the right, where appropriate to review such appraisals through the use of independent consultants.
We consider that the level of the proposed legal costs set out in Paragraph 1.8 are unreasonable. For large The purpose of the fee system is to assist the Council in meeting schemes with a limited number of Heads of Terms but which are potentially cumulatively worth millions of the costs of negotiating, drafting and the subsequent monitoring pounds this could equate to tens of thousands of pounds for the Council's legal officers time. Typically for of clauses contained within planning agreements entered into such large scale proposals the applicant would be supported by their own legal team who would assist in the with developers of land. The implementation of the fee will also, legal drafting process. It is also not clear how the value of affordable housing units will be calculated in the importantly allow the Council to provide an efficient approach to proposed calculations. For large scale schemes a sum of money for legal costs should be negotiated and all matters relating to planning agreements, to the benefit of all agreed at an early staged based upon the Council's estimate of officer time required. Such an alternative parties involved in the process. arrangement should be identified as being an acceptable alternative approach in the SPG. Developers are encouraged to discuss their proposals informally with the Planning Department prior to submitting an application. This will ensure that any infrastructure or service requirements, as part of a planning obligation, are identified at the earliest opportunity. This is particularly important with complex or major applications, as it will help provide a better mutual understanding of objectives and the constraints that exist, until the planning obligation has been completed. Identifying the associated legal costs cannot realistically be identified until the conclusion of the process.
Home Builders Paragraph 1.8 – We do not agree that the requirements set out under this paragraph are reasonable. Given The fee and its method of calculation has been derived following Federation the fact that S106 Agreements are voluntary agreements that become legally binding once entered into, we careful consideration of the costs involved in monitoring and don’t believe it is acceptable practice to specify management and monitoring fees. Ultimately, a developer is implementing planning obligations and is logical being related to under an obligation to satisfy the obligations in the agreement or these can be enforced against, as such we both the planning fee and the scale of the planning obligations do not see the ‘reasonableness’ of the Council charging a fee to monitor whether or not they have been involved. paid/implemented. It is quite legal and proper for the Authority to recover its administrative costs of dealing with S106 obligations whilst the appointment of a Principal Planner to ensure consistency in negotiation and effective monitoring and implementation of planning obligation will ensure improvements to the process.
Notwithstanding the above, the figures of 20% of the planning fee or 2% of the value of the obligations have The proposed management and monitoring fee of either 20% of not been justified. The HBF understands that the Council is not permitted to make a profit on such fees. the planning fee or 2% of the value of the obligations in the S106 However, from the percentages given within the paragraph, the potential monetary gain from such fees could Agreement is considered both sufficient to cover the Council’s be significant and could potentially result in substantial profits. In this respect, any fees included must be costs in drafting Agreements and reasonable given the current evidence-based and justified and the amounts payable should be directly related to the work undertaken and economic downturn. It also reflects best practice elsewhere must not involve payments over and above the amount required to undertake the task. In this context, there whereby consistently a levy on the S106 contributions should be evidence to prove the amount required to undertake monitoring and management tasks and the themselves, typically 2-3% is expected. If for some reason the figure should not be an arbitrary amount specified by the Council. proposed fee becomes unsuitable/unrealistic then it may be subject to change during the subsequent revision of the Suggested Change: The monitoring and management fee percentages must be clearly set out to prove that guidance. the Council does not make a profit from their application. The charge is not aimed at making a profit but only recovering Suggested Change: The work required for undertaking monitoring and management of planning obligations the costs, which apart from officer time includes support costs should be set out within the SPG and the costs associated with this work should be evidence-based and (i.e. monitoring and management). In addition to this a Principal justified to prove the relationship between the work and costs involved. Planner has been appointed to ensure consistency in negotiation and effective monitoring and implementation of planning obligation will ensure improvements to the process.
Liberty Properties Plc The proposed management and monitoring fee is an unnecessary charge which is totally unrelated to the The fee and its method of calculation has been derived following cost of the management and monitoring. careful consideration of the costs involved in monitoring and implementing planning obligations and is logical being related to both the planning fee and the scale of the planning obligations involved.
It is quite legal and proper for the Authority to recover its administrative costs of dealing with 106 obligations whilst the appointment of a Principal Planner to ensure consistency in negotiation and effective monitoring and implementation of planning obligation will ensure improvements to the process.
Charles Church Wales Paragraph 1.8 – The legal framework refers to a requirement for applicants to pay the Council’s costs in The fee and its method of calculation has been derived following Ltd/ Barratt Homes drafting S106 Agreements and costs incurred in management and monitoring. It is proposed that these costs careful consideration of the costs involved in monitoring and South Wales Ltd/Taylor will based on either 20% of the planning fee or 2% of the value of the obligations, whichever is the greater. implementing planning obligations and is logical being related to Wimpey UK Ltd My clients consider this is unreasonable, particularly as planning application fees have recently increased, in both the planning fee and the scale of the planning obligations part no doubt in recognition that many applications involve more work, including S106 preparation. involved. It is quite legal and proper for the Authority to recover Furthermore the local authority already stands to benefit from contributions to services and facilities, some of its administrative costs of dealing with S106 obligations whilst the which it has a statutory obligation to provide. If such fees are to be considered it must at least be appointment of a Principal Planner to ensure consistency in demonstrated that efficiency in dealing with planning applications can be improved and that planning officers negotiation and effective monitoring and implementation of in a co-ordinating role can establish an agreed stance in the Authority on the balance of requirements sought planning obligation will ensure improvements to the process. from the developer at an early stage in the process. This could avoid delays and save time for all parties involved. In some instances, expenditure unnecessarily wasted on appeal procedures may also be reduced. It is clear that the reasonable costs incurred by the Council in The requirement for monitoring and legal fees as outlined in Part One of the document is, therefore, association with processing a development application should be objected to in principle. met by the applicant. Whilst it is acknowledged that planning application fees have recently increased to reflect the fact that many applications require more work, the managing and monitoring of planning obligations is in addition to this and requires significant officer time. Contributions from S106 Agreements will in no way eliminate the fact that core public funding will continue to bear the main burden of providing community services and facilities.
My clients consider that the proposed management fee is unreasonable, particularly as planning application The fee and its method of calculation has been derived following fees have recently increased, in part no doubt in recognition that many applications involve more work, careful consideration of the costs involved in monitoring and including S106 preparation. Furthermore the local authority already stands to benefit from contributions to implementing planning obligations and is logical being related to services and facilities, some of which it has a statutory obligation to provide. The imposition of fees for both the planning fee and the scale of the planning obligations monitoring and administration are also unreasonable in this overall context, particularly with the recent involved. It is quite legal and proper for the Authority to recover increase in planning application fees. its administrative costs of dealing with S106 obligations whilst the appointment of a Principal Planner to ensure consistency in negotiation and effective monitoring and implementation of planning obligation will ensure improvements to the process.
It is clear that the reasonable costs incurred by the Council in association with processing a development application should be met by the applicant. Whilst it is acknowledged that planning application fees have recently increased to reflect the fact that many applications require more work, the managing and monitoring of planning obligations is in addition to this and requires significant officer time. Contributions from S106 Agreements will in no way eliminate the fact that core public funding will continue to bear the main burden of providing community services and facilities.
Taylor Wimpey (Bristol) The types of contributions and sums sought must relate to the scale of development and must be necessary The Council has paid due regard to the contents of Circular 13/97 to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms, i.e. Satisfy the tests of WO Circular 13/97. in the preparation of the SPG, and is satisfied that complies with national guidance. The SPG outlines the types of obligations likely to be sought to address the impacts of developments which occur most often. It also makes it clear that each case will be considered on its own merits.
A standard legal agreement template is frequently used for S106 Agreements related to small scale The fee and its method of calculation has been derived following developments therefore a smaller fee should be sought than is proposed in Paragraph 1.8. It is also noted careful consideration of the costs involved in monitoring and that a fee of 2% of the value of obligations on large scale developments could result in a significant fee implementing planning obligations and is logical being related to disproportionate to the work involved in ‘Management and Monitoring’ of the obligation and will unfairly both the planning fee and the scale of the planning obligations penalise large development schemes where a number of payments may be sought. Furthermore, how is it involved. It is quite legal and proper for the Authority to recover proposed to quantify on-site affordable housing or open space provision in this fee? The fees are therefore its administrative costs of dealing with 106 obligations whilst the considered unreasonable and unjustified. Opportunity should be given to present a unilateral undertaking appointment of a Principal Planner to ensure consistency in instead if incurring unreasonable costs imposed by the Council in preparing a S106 Agreement. negotiation and effective monitoring and implementation of planning obligation will ensure improvements to the process.
Paragraph 1.3 of the SPG highlights the fact that the Council will consider Unilateral Undertakings where they are appropriately worded. In order to aid clarity additional guidance on this issue will be provided.
Amend Paragraph 1.3 accordingly.
Redrow Homes Paragraph 1.5 – Any index linking contributions should be from the date of the planning permission and not Comment noted. All financial contributions contained in the the committee. This will encourage speedy conclusion of S106 Agreements. agreements will be index linked from the date of resolution to grant permission until the date that development is due to commence. This is to ensure that the contribution secured in the Agreement will be sufficient at the time of payment to facilitate the project/works it has been secured towards. Building and construction costs do not follow the Retail Price Index (RPI) as they are determined more by the volume of work being carried out or in the pipeline at the time. The two price indices most commonly used to assess these costs are: the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) published by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), and the Building Price & Cost Indices published by the Department of Trade & Industry (DTI). The BCIS gives a cost analysis of various types of buildings as well as forecasts of tender and building costs, and the DTI publication gives a series of indices of historic costs as well as future projections. The DTI Bulletin of Indices covers landscape maintenance costs. The Council will use the most appropriate of these two sets of indices to provide a guide to the construction and other costs of new infrastructure and facilities that are required. The Retail Price Index will be used for non-capital contributions.
Add new Part 2 (Paragraph 2.7) to provide greater clarity on the payment of contributions.
Swansea should not expect financial contributions upon commencement of development. Contributions In order for the Council to provide the necessary services sought should be paid at appropriate trigger points throughout the scheme and these points should be specified in by an Agreement in a timely manner, it is necessary to secure the S106 documents. early payment of any financial contributions. Generally, the Council will seek full payment of contributions upon commencement of development. However, it is acknowledged that for larger development schemes, with long build out periods, it may be necessary to phase payment of contributions based on development triggers, which will need to be specified in the S106 Agreement (See new Paragraph 2.8 – Phasing and Trigger Points).
Financial contributions will normally be paid on commencement of the development as defined by Section 56 (4) of the Act but excluding: Any operations relating to a site investigation or surveys Demolition of any existing buildings Clearance of the application site However, in exceptional circumstances the payment can be made at various stages during the development e.g. prior to first occupation or completion of the 50th dwelling.
Add new Part 2 (Paragraph 2.7) to provide greater clarity on the payment of contributions.
Paragraph 1.6 – States a draft S106 Agreement is advisable to be submitted with an application and Comment noted. Agreements will normally be drafted by the Paragraph 1.8 states Planning Agreements will be prepared by the Councils Legal Services team. Please Council’s Legal Services Team. Applicants have the option of clarify. either preparing and submitting a draft Agreement for the Council’s consideration or allowing the Council to prepare an initial draft on their behalf. In both cases evidence of title and a statement agreeing to pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs and monitoring charge will also be requested.
Amend former Paragraphs 1.6 and 1.8 accordingly. Add a new Part 2 that will clarify how Agreements are developed.
Paragraph 1.8 – The SPG should clarify who can/will prepare S106 Agreements. Council legal costs for the Comments noted. Agreements will normally be drafted by the preparation of the agreement is normally covered by the developer. The management and monitoring cost Council’s Legal Services Team. Applicants have the option of proposals are however outrageous. A sum equivalent to 2% of the value of the obligations will almost either preparing and submitting a draft Agreement for the always be a significant amount of money – far more than legitimately needed for proper management and Council’s consideration or allowing the Council to prepare an monitoring. There should be an upper limit on the amount sought (in addition to a lower limit). It is initial draft on their behalf. In both cases evidence of title and a suggested a £5,000 upper limit is included. statement agreeing to pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs and monitoring charge will also be requested.
Amend former Paragraphs 1.6 and 1.8 accordingly. Add a new Part 2 to clarify how Agreements are developed.
The management and monitoring costs contribute towards the funding of a Principal Planner and will ensure consistency in negotiation and effective monitoring and implementation of planning obligations.
Abertawe Bro Paragraph 1.2 – Refers to national planning policy in respect of planning obligations: The Council has paid due regard to the contents of Circular 13/97 Morgannwg NHS Trust - More detailed reference should be made to Annex B of the Welsh Office Circular 13/97 Planning in the preparation of the SPG, and is satisfied that complies with Obligations, which could be included as an appendix to the SPG. national guidance. It is not appropriate to repeat national - An important aspect of national planning policy is that where there is a choice between planning guidance in local planning policy documents. The Council conditions and planning obligations, the former should be preferred: see, for example, paragraph 4.7.5 of considers the SPG and the Council’s approach to planning Planning Policy Wales. This should be made clear in the SPG. obligations is in accordance with the Circular. - The third paragraph of Paragraph 1.2 states that “any contribution must be…” This implies that it is only contributions that must meet the tests set out in the Circular, whereas all obligations should meet those tests. The word “contribution” should be replaced by “obligation”.
Paragraph 1.3 – Gives the impression that a S106 Agreement imposes obligations only on the developer. Comments noted. Paragraph 2.11 of the guidance makes it clear Agreements also impose obligations on the Council. For example, to spend any financial contribution on a that the Planning Services Division has the responsibility for specific matter and / or within a specific timescale – and this should be referred to. monitoring this process to ensure that all obligations are complied with by both the developer and the Council. The Council has established a database to record and monitor effectively all planning obligations in order to establish whether or not the terms have been adhered to.
Paragraph 1.5 – States that financial contributions will normally be expected to be paid upon The definition of commencement is set out within the Town and commencement of development. In many cases this will be unnecessary and unduly onerous because until Country Planning Act 1990. Developers would be required to the development is underway, cash flow is weak. notify the charging authority of their intention to commence. Financial contributions will normally be paid on commencement of the development as defined by Section 56 (4) of the Act but excluding: Any operations relating to a site investigation or surveys Demolition of any existing buildings Clearance of the application site
However, in exceptional circumstances the payment can be made at various stages during the development e.g. prior to first occupation or completion of the 50th dwelling. A new Paragraph 2.8 will be added to clarify issues regarding phasing.
Add new Paragraphs 2.7 and 2.8 to clarify the above.
Paragraph 1.6 – States that all those with an interest in the land must be parties to the Agreement. This is Section 106 Paragraph (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act not a legal requirement – see S106 (1) of the Act – and, in practice, it is not always necessary for all those 1990 under the heading “Agreements regulating development or with a legal interest in the land to sign the Agreement. use of land” states clearly that:
A local planning authority may enter into an agreement with any person interested in land in their area for the purpose of restricting or regulating the development or use of the land, either permanently or during such period as may be prescribed by the agreement.
To reflect the requirements of the Act the wording of Paragraph 1.6 (Now Paragraph 1.5) of the SPG should be amended from “must be signatories” to “should be signatories” Amend Paragraph 1.6 (Now Paragraph 1.5) accordingly. Paragraph 1.8 – States that S106 Agreements will be drafted by the Council’s Legal Services Department. Agreements will normally be drafted by the Council’s Legal It omits to mention that the applicant may take the initiative in arranging for the S106 Agreement to be Services Team. Applicants have the option of either preparing drafted. It is quite common for this to be done, especially where local authorities’ legal departments are slow and submitting a draft Agreement for the Council’s consideration in dealing with such matters. or allowing the Council to prepare an initial draft on their behalf. In both cases evidence of title and a statement agreeing to pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs and monitoring charge will also be requested.
Add new Paragraph 2.9 to clarify the above.
3) Affordable Housing
Consultee Comment Response/Action CCSC – Cllr. M. Child The Local Housing Market Assessment (LHMA) is recent, but it needs to be updated every 5 yrs. The offsite The LHMA is updated annually and provides SPG to the provision must be in the same area as the development site. Payment of a commuted sum should only be Council’s adopted UDP. Council (26.02.09 minute 220(3)) have acceptable where a preferred site for social housing is identified within the same area as the development. resolved that the latest version of the LHMA will always be taken as the relevant SPG. The Council’s draft Affordable Housing Delivery Statement (AHDS) makes clear that off-site provision will only be acceptable at an agreed appropriate alternative site usually within the locality and a higher proportion of affordable housing will be sought. Financial contributions will only be accepted as an option of last resort and will only be considered when off-site provision is not feasible. These criteria will be made more explicit in the SPG for the avoidance of doubt.
Amend SPG accordingly.
Sites for 10 or more or land of 0.4 hectares or more in Gower + Swansea West are very rare. This level The site threshold triggers are taken from the Council’s UDP should be 6 or more or 0.2 hectares or more. The need remains the same whatever the scale of any (Policy HC3 refers) and apply to Swansea West. Reduced individual development. threshold figures may not be introduced through SPG. However in Gower and other parts of the County’s countryside, UDP Policy EV18 provides an exceptions policy for the development of small sites within and adjoining settlements for the specific purpose of providing affordable housing. Such exception sites may be as small as a single unit of accommodation and would be for the specific purpose of providing affordable housing to meet an existing proven deficiency for people who need to live in the area and cannot be accommodated through the area’s general housing market.
CCSC – Neil Ranft: Paragraph 2.2 – This is wrong and should reflect the AHDS as amended. In particular the target figures are Comments noted. It is agreed that the draft AHDS confirms that (Development Planner misleading. Also the Council’s policy is to negotiate the provision of between 25-30% affordable housing on the general starting point for negotiation with developers will be Regeneration) larger sites. There is not a requirement for at least 30% affordable housing on all sites. 25-30% of the site for affordable housing.
Amend Paragraphs 2.2.2(ii) and 2.2.3 (ii) (Now Paragraphs 3.2.2(ii) and 3.2.3 (ii)) accordingly.
CCSC – Stephen Smith: Paragraph 2.2.2 – (iii) Whilst I acknowledge that there are specific requirements for affordable housing, Comments noted. The standards of design and layout for Principle Urban sometimes these are at odds with place making objectives. The typical example is all parking affordable housing either as freestanding developments or as Designer located on dwelling frontages which whilst well overlooked, does detract from the quality of the part of larger schemes should not be lower than for market public realm. All housing irrespective of type will be assessed against the Councils residential housing. Within larger schemes affordable housing should be design guidance entitled Places to Live and this may require deviation from standard affordable located throughout the development site and not be obviously housing layouts. distinguishable from market housing in order to ensure effective integration.
T. Scales (Mumbles The S106 trigger for affordable housing should be a minimum of 1 in 5 affordable social mix housing. The Council’s general starting point for negotiation with Development Trust) developers of 25-30% provision once the site threshold for affordable housing is triggered is actually higher than the minimum 1 in 5 (20%) proposed. However it should be noted that the level of affordable housing contribution sought on a given site will depend on a number of factors, and principally on the level of affordable housing need in the location or area concerned. It would not therefore be appropriate for an arbitrary level of provision to be sought in all cases.
Hammerson plc The Council clarifying that student housing does not in itself require affordable housing provision / Student housing is not market housing and is not included within contribution; and housing land supply calculations for the City and County. Accordingly any such developments do not require affordable housing provision/contribution.
Home Builders Paragraph 2.2 – This paragraph provides the context for affordable housing requirements and we object to Development viability is a key factor to be considered during the Federation the paragraph on the grounds that it does not take sufficient account of development viability. negotiation of Affordable Housing & S106 Agreements. Paragraph 1.4 clearly states that “When negotiating levels of contributions that will be required, the LPA will take into account any abnormal costs that developers may face and any implications to the overall viability of the proposal.” In addition, new Paragraph 2.6 provides greater detail on flexibility and site viability.
The Council must ensure that any affordable housing targets or thresholds set are based on an up-to-date Development viability is factored into the negotiation of affordable assessment of need and must include an assessment of the impact of the target and threshold on housing. The UDP identifies the site size threshold trigger for development viability. This requirement is clearly stated within National Guidance as described below. affordable housing which is set at such a level so as not to National Guidance (TAN 2, 2006) on the creation of affordable housing policy states affordable housing prejudice the viability of the scheme. The threshold of targets “...should take account of the anticipated levels of finance available for affordable housing, including developments of 25 dwellings or more, or sites of 1 hectare or public subsidy, and the level of developer contribution that can realistically be sought.” (TAN 2, page 7 more (a lower threshold applies in Swansea West and rural paragraph 9.1). Considering this statement, it is abundantly clear that TAN 2 requires the affordable housing areas) reflects the guideline adopted by other urban authorities in target itself to take account of development viability. South Wales and was considered an acceptable guideline by the UDP Inspector.
The TAN goes on to state that when setting site-capacity thresholds and site specific targets local planning The Council does not have site specific targets. The site capacity authorities should balance the need for affordable housing against site viability. This may involve making thresholds identified in the UDP are the trigger for negotiation on informed assumptions about the levels of finance available for affordable housing and the type of affordable the provision of affordable housing. However the requirement for housing to be provided. (TAN 2, page 8, paragraph 10.4). In this context, it is clear that TAN 2 requires local such provision will be dependent upon a number of factors authorities to take account of site viability when setting thresholds and targets and in doing so, they should including site viability. It should also be noted that the TAN also make informed assumptions about the levels of finance available. makes provision for the Council to negotiate the provision of affordable housing on sites falling below the site capacity threshold identified in the UDP in certain defined circumstances (TAN2 Paragraph 10.8 refers).
National Guidance relating to the creation of AHDS is also clear about the need for the local authority to The LHMA provides the up to date position on the amount of consider viability when setting the affordable housing target. Paragraph 1.24 states that targets for the affordable housing that could be provided on those sites where amount of affordable housing to be provided should reflect an assessment of the likely economic viability of the threshold is triggered. It demonstrates that even at a rate of land for housing within the area, taking account of risks to delivery and on the likely levels of finance 25-30% there will still be a shortfall in required affordable housing available for affordable housing, including both public subsidy such as Social Housing Grant and the level of provision over the period to 2011. It also identifies that the developer contribution that could reasonably be secured. The guidance goes on to make the important point current economic recession and banking crisis have thrown the that such a viability calculation is equally relevant in a buoyant or a depressed market. Even though this housing market into turmoil and that it will be very difficult to meet guidance is directly related to the creation of AHDS, it reflects the requirements of the WAG in terms of the the identified need for affordable housing through the planning appropriate creation of affordable housing policy, which is consistent with the nature of this representation. system. Additional funds for Social Housing Grant are therefore to be requested. In this context the viability of future housing development proposals will need to be carefully and thoroughly considered against a development appraisal toolkit which needs to be purchased by the Council to enable negotiation of an adequate level of affordable housing that is fully deliverable on a site by site basis.
National Guidance requires local authorities to undertake viability assessments in order to prove that There is no requirement for the Council to reassess the viability percentage targets and thresholds set for affordable housing are economically viable and will not jeopardise of the affordable housing site capacity threshold set out in the the delivery of housing sites or the creation of sustainable communities by their implementation. We accept UDP. The AHDS recognises that the housing need identified that an up-to-date LHMA can provide evidence in terms of affordable housing need, however, this is only one cannot be delivered through S106 Agreements. Viability must be piece of the evidence that should be used to inform the affordable housing policies. In this context, even judged on a case by case basis and there is only a guideline not though paragraph 2.2.1 of the SPG mentions viability, there is nothing to state that the Council will ensure a target number for affordable housing provision. The local their own affordable housing targets and thresholds will be viable before they are imposed on developers, planning authority will be working with the HBF on viability which is required by National Guidance. The HBF and our members are willing to assist the Authority in assessments during the preparation of the LDP and through joint undertaking these assessments. We are currently engaging with local authorities in South East Wales, in housing land availability studies. One of the main issues will be partnership with the WAG, in order to tackle this issue. whether developers have taken into consideration the requirement for affordable housing when agreeing a purchase price for their land, as policy requirements are unlikely to be relaxed where there has been a lack of foresight. Adoption of this SPG will identify the factors that developers must take into consideration when negotiating future land purchases. Working together and identifying the requirement for affordable housing up front will reduce land values and ensure the viability of the scheme.
Further to this, we would also draw attention to the above appeal (29/07/08) by Blyth Valley Borough Council Comments noted, however this case refers to a draft affordable against the quashing by Collins J of a policy in part of the development plan for the Borough of Blyth Valley housing policy. This Council’s affordable housing policy has in North-East England. Blyth Valley Council had adopted their Core Strategy, within which was a policy been subject of independent examination at a recent UDP public requiring 30% affordable housing on developments over 10 units. The policy was successfully challenged by inquiry and forms part of the adopted UDP. It will remain in place the respondents and the appeal dismissed on the grounds that (amongst other things) the policy did not and must be taken into consideration in the determination of all contain an appropriate assessment of development viability. The appeal also stated that it was not sufficient housing developments which trigger the threshold figure until to base the evidence for the policy on assessments of need alone. Even though this appeal decision is such time as it is replaced with its successor plan – the LDP. related to the English planning system and PPS3, the requirement to undertake a viability assessment is The Council’s policy does not state that it will apply in every case also relevant with respect to guidance provided under our planning system. In this context, the HBF has as each application must be considered on its individual merits been advised by the Planning Inspectorate that they are aware of the Blyth Valley judgement and the having regard to factors such as viability. principles of law set out in that judgement apply equally in Wales.
In addition to this, the Planning Inspectorate commented that the WAG are already prompting local Comments noted. The Council is aware of the requirement for authorities to have a robust evidence base to support the identification of whatever percentage of affordable viability testing which will be taken into consideration as the LDP housing they include in their LDP policies. The Inspectorate indicated that the WAG has referred to viability is prepared over the course of the next 4 to 5 years. However in testing to ensure that not only can sites/general provision be delivered but that any percentage set out in the the meantime applications must continue to be determined in LDP is deliverable. The Inspectorate went on to comment that viability testing of the percentage level set in accordance with prevailing and recently adopted UDP policies. the local plan policies, taking into account economics over the Plan period, will be essential to demonstrate The UDP does not set an affordable housing target nor are delivery. Considering the above, we believe the results of this appeal discussion could have a marked effect thresholds set for individual sites. Moreover such detail may not on decisions related to the soundness of the Council’s affordable housing policy and that viability be introduced through this SPG which is based on the UDP (the assessments of the targets and thresholds set will be an essential component of ensuring such policies are soundness of which is not open to question) and the emerging sound. AHDS.
Suggested Change: The SPG must include information to state that the Council will ensure the affordable This is indicated under the Basis for Calculation section – housing requirements are viable and deliverable, by undertaking an appropriate assessment of development Paragraph 2.2.3(ii). However the wording will be amended to viability before they are imposed as a planning obligation requirement. make more explicit and to clarify how such assessments will be carried out.
Amend Paragraph 2.2.3 (ii) (Now Paragraph 3.2.3 (ii) accordingly.
Meirion Howells Project I agree that affordable homes are necessary, placing a condition that there is to be a 30% contribution to Agreed. The AHDS confirms that the general starting point for Management affordable housing whatever the development is an extreme inhibitor to development. 30% should in some negotiation with developers will be 25-30% of the site for cases be a target but should not be mandatory and should depend on location, affordability and need. affordable housing. The SPG will be amended to reflect this.
The SPG will be amended accordingly.
Liberty Properties Plc Affordable Housing will suffer as the proposed S106 costs will be deductible from viability calculation. Comments noted. It is recognised that the requirement/ability to provide affordable housing will be dependant upon a number of factors including other development costs. This will be a key element of the negotiation process.
Charles Church Wales The document provides for other contributions to be sought as well as affordable housing and that The SPG clearly states that the need for affordable housing is a Ltd/ Barratt Homes developers will incur costs in bringing forward sites for development. It is also stated that new development material planning consideration and an essential element in South Wales Ltd/Taylor is needed to meet communities’ needs. In Paragraph 2.2.3, however, this aspect is not fully acknowledged, contributing to community regeneration and social inclusion. In Wimpey UK Ltd other than the statement ‘whether the provision of affordable housing would prejudice the realisation of other other words it is needed to meet communities’ needs. However planning objectives that need to be given priority in the development of the site.’ Although the economics of Paragraph 2.2.3 (ii) (Now Paragraph 3.2.3 (ii) recognises that provision is referred to as a factor in influencing negotiations, there should also be an acknowledgement that when developing a site there may be other planning objectives in circumstances where significant costs are incurred and where the benefits of development will outweigh that need to be given priority. This paragraph goes onto state any negative impacts, a reduced level of, or indeed no contributions, will be sought. that exact amount of affordable housing to be provided will depend on the merits and circumstances of each proposal. More detailed analysis of requirements for individual sites or localities is more appropriately dealt with through the AHDS.
The Local Housing Market Assessment referred to, on which the 30% requirement is based, was carried out Comments noted. The SPG will need to be updated to refer to in 2007 when market conditions were completely different to those prevailing at the current time. The the latest LHMA and the AHDS which acknowledge and reflect implications of market changes should be reflected in requirements for planning obligations as a whole, and the current economic climate. The requirement for affordable affordable housing in particular. When the market continues to improve, as it undoubtedly will, a higher housing will depend on a viability assessment which ultimately requirement may be justified. The current slowdown in sales of new properties, linked to credit restrictions takes economic circumstances into account. Because of the has also meant that house builders are increasingly incurring higher construction overheads together with prevailing market conditions the need for affordable housing is costs such as interest on the land payment, and selling overheads. Due to the prevailing housing market now more relevant than it has ever been and must be included climate it is therefore contended that the provisions of the SPG as it relates to affordable housing, is no within this SPG. WAG has set a target in its ‘One Wales’ longer relevant and that more flexibility should be allowed for in the documents in order to seek an Strategy for the completion of 6500 affordable homes between appropriate level of affordable housing provision. 2007/08 and 2010/11. The Council through its AHDS is required to establish at the local level clear targets for affordable housing delivery. Accordingly this SPG does not just relate to the current position but is intended to cover both the AHDS requirements and the period until the Council’s LDP is adopted in 4 – 5 years time. Over this period it is anticipated that market conditions will improve and the document is sufficiently flexible to cover this.
Amend SPG to acknowledge latest LHMA and AHDS which reflect the current economic climate.
In terms of developers’ ability to provide affordable housing, much is also dependent on the level of grant Not all sites will require grant assistance; however Paragraph assistance available from the Welsh Assembly Government. If no funding is available or if there is no Social 2.2.3 (ii) (Now Paragraph 3.2.3 (ii) covers the negotiation of Registered Landlord signed up as a provider within the proposed development timeframe, the Council can affordable housing taking into account availability of finance. At not reasonably expect affordable housing obligations to be met. If such matters are not established at the all times it is proposed to engage the Registered Social Landlord point of resolution of the planning application, therefore, the requirement should no longer be imposed. The (RSL) in the process as early as possible to ensure the affordable housing section of the SPG is, therefore, objected to on the basis that more flexibility is needed, obligations are met. By the time any planning application requirements should be founded on a more up to date evidence base and prevailing circumstances on reaches the point of resolution the amount of affordable housing funding taken into account. that may realistically be delivered will have been determined. These details will not be left to negotiation through the S106 process.
The document will be amended to include reference to the latest LHMA and the AHDS which reflect the prevailing economic circumstances. The associated viability assessments which will assist in the determination of the relevant planning applications will also take the economic circumstances into consideration.
The guidance set out in this SPG is to be taken into consideration from the outset in the determination of planning applications to ensure all the necessary information is obtained before determination is made. The SPG evidence base will be up to date at the point in time it is adopted and is sufficiently flexible to deal with changes in circumstances over its lifespan.
Taylor Wimpey (Bristol) No reference is made within the document as to how or whether the Council will respond to changes in the The document will be amended to refer to the AHDS which takes economic climate in negotiating planning obligation contributions. Such factors will directly affect the delivery these factors into consideration. of affordable housing and Welsh Assembly Grant Assistance. Amend SPG accordingly.
Redrow Homes The SPG does not indicate the procedures to be followed in relation to viability testing and what happens The procedures to be followed in relation to viability testing fall when viability is in question. This should be added to the SPG. outside the scope of this SPG. Obligations in relation to affordable housing will only be sought where it has already been determined that it is viable to make such provision.
The procedures for determining the calculation are reasonably straight forward but it is then assumed this The AHDS recognises that even at 30% provision affordable level of provision will be provided. The “calculated” provision must then be tested, to see if it can be viably housing there will still be a shortfall in affordable housing provided and if not (due to lack of grant, site costs or market determination) how a reduction to the provision and that this gap cannot be made up through the requirement will be determined. planning obligation process. Moreover this gap will widen as such levels will not be provided on every site due to other competing factors, not least viability. Viability testing is an intrinsic part of calculating the level of provision on any particular site and the amount of provision will be determined through the planning application process rather than post decision. Paragraph 2.2.3 (Now Paragraph 3.2.3) will be amended to clarify that draft S106 based on the criteria identified will need to be agreed prior to the determination of an application.
Amend Paragraph 2.2.3 (Now Paragraph 3.2.2) accordingly.
Perpetuity – This should be removed if the house provided will not / cannot actually be retained as affordable TAN 2 paragraph 12.2 requires secure mechanisms to be in in perpetuity by the Council or RSL. Following the initial provision by the developer and hand over to the place to ensure that the affordable housing provided is occupied Council / RSL it will be for these bodies to ensure complicity. Furthermore the SPG cannot dictate who the in perpetuity by people falling within particular categories of need. RSL is to be, so the reference should be deleted. The RSL partner is for the developer / landowner to The SPG does not indicate who the RSL partner for developers determine. This freedom to choose the RSL should be explicitly stated in the SPG. will be. However once the units are built and transferred to a RSL (as indicated in Paragraph 2.2.3(ii) (Now Paragraph 3.2.3 (ii), the RSL will be expected to partner the Council in managing the future occupation of the property.
Abertawe Bro Section 2.2.3 – States that “the Council will generally require the provision of affordable housing on all Comments noted. Agree that further clarification is necessary. Morgannwg NHS Trust developments…” This seems at odds with Paragraph 2.2.1 where it is clear that, in accordance with national Under the Basis for Calculation (Now Paragraph 3.2.3) an planning policy guidance, the requirement for affordable housing is predicted on there being a demonstrable additional criterion should be included at the beginning specifying lack of existing affordable housing. The requirement to provide affordable housing on sites should be related that the first issue to consider will be that there is a demonstrable to demonstrable need in the local area, rather than in the city as a whole. need for affordable housing in the area where new housing development is proposed.
Additionally, the wording of the criteria relating to the size of the site should be amended to read: “The Council will generally negotiate the provision of affordable housing on all developments containing 25 or more dwellings … etc…”
Amend Paragraph 2.2.3 (Now Paragraph 3.2.3) accordingly.
4) Education
Consultee Comment Response/Action P.A John: Education should be for all ages. What about life-long learning? Comments noted. Education should indeed be for all ages, (Pontarddulais Town however, priority must be given to the provision of Council) accommodation and facilities for pupils of statutory age. School accommodation and facilities also serve the wider community where such uses are sustainable in their own right.
Meirion Howells Project £17,000 per space is again an inhibition to development. A blanket contribution is not sustainable especially This indicative figure only relates to cost per additional sixth form Management where schools are closing due to lack of numbers. pupil. It is not a blanket contribution since there may be circumstances where a contribution is not required. The proposed approach seeks to provide a degree of certainty and clarity for developers and appears to have been welcomed in other responses for these reasons.
Liberty Properties Plc The method for calculating the number of schoolchildren has doubled in the proposed obligations. The An appropriate and objective methodology is proposed reflecting financial effect of the proposals will stifle development or even prohibit development in the lower priced areas the available data to properly assess the implications and of the County. Affordable housing will suffer as the proposed S106 costs will be deductible from viability educational needs. No alternative data is suggested in the calculation. responses.
Charles Church Wales Paragraph 2.3 – Is generally welcomed in providing a degree of certainty for developers as to likely Comment noted. Ltd/ Barratt Homes requirements in education provision from residential development schemes, subject to the comments below. South Wales Ltd/Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd Paragraph 2.32 (ii) – ‘Determining an Appropriate Level of Contribution’ – Advice on the methodology for The most recent available Census data has been used. identifying need and calculating the amount of developer contributions is set out. Calculations will be based on 0.31 primary school places per unit, 0.22 secondary school places per unit and 0.04 post- 16 places per unit. These figures are, however, derived from 2001 Census information and need to be updated to take into account the continuing trend for lower household sizes.
Paragraph 2.3.3 – Outlines the basis for calculation and states that existing spare capacity will not be The guidance does acknowledge that where there is significant automatically credited to developers. As the guidance is aimed to be a comprehensive document for setting existing spare capacity at the recipient school, which is unlikely to out requirements for planning obligations, there should be an acknowledgement that where spare capacity be taken up by other development, and no works are required to exists in schools within the catchment of a development, less or no education contributions will be required meet Assembly requirements, this will be reflected in the and more emphasis placed on seeking other forms of planning obligations. determination of any education contribution.
An indication of costs per pupil for which contributions is sought is given as £10,372 (Primary); £15,848 Comments noted. (Secondary); and £17,013 (Sixth Form). These will be sought from developments (including mixed use schemes) of more than 10 housing units (1 bed flats are excluded as is elderly/student housing), where the existing catchment school has limited spare capacity, not capable of being extended, or the proposed development is of such a scale that a new primary school is justified (threshold – 350 dwellings), or secondary school (3,000 new dwellings).
Where the scale of proposed development falls below the threshold to deliver a 100% developer funded The 350 new dwellings threshold is consistent with the Council school, contributions will be negotiated on a pro-rata basis. The guidance does not refer to a further means and Audit Commission view that a sustainable primary school of assisting in new school development, i.e. the dedication of land, where appropriate, for new school or should have at least 90 pupils. It is simply a threshold and the school playing field provision. The threshold level for requiring a new primary school of at least 350 units is need for a new school would indeed reflect the existing provision also challenged on the basis that no evidence is provided for this requirement, apart from the likely in the area of the development. generation of approximately 108 pupils. Other factors will determine the need for a new primary school, including demographic factors in the area, the preference of parents and the capacity of existing schools to expand. Most local authorities assume a threshold of 500 dwellings as a starting point to determine whether a new school is necessary.
S106 requirements as reflected in the SPG should also be related directly to the Council’s own school A comprehensive and coherent strategy is being developed for programme. The need for further school provision where there is overcrowding or where schools are not fit schools through the Council’s Quality in Education 2020 for purpose should be looked at comprehensively. Housing land allocations should be considered on their programme. This will enable full consideration of relevant factors merits in assessing wider implications of school provision and this is where evidence in the new LDP process in determining the need for and use of any developer’s will be important. Relying purely on a set formula is not sufficient where other factors need to be included in contribution. However, an objective formula methodology the calculation. An example is the potential funding for a secondary school being provided by releasing the provides a degree of certainty and clarity to developers, which previous site for housing. Such aspects demonstrate that contributions should take into account a variety of has been welcomed in other responses to the consultation. factors.
The education section of the SPG is therefore objected to on the grounds that the additional points referred The points referred to are addressed in the guidance. to should be addressed.
Taylor Wimpey (Bristol) Any education contributions sought must be supported by a clear reasoned justification why any surplus An objective formula methodology provides a degree of certainty capacity is not sufficient to cater for a proposed residential development. Para. 2.3.3 (i) states that existing and clarity to developers, which has been welcomed in other spare capacity will not automatically be credited to developers except where there is “significant” existing responses to the consultation. It is not appropriate to take spare capacity. ‘Significant’ is not quantified. It is argued that ANY spare capacity MUST be fully taken into account of ANY surplus capacity as this may not be of a account in any financial contribution and any sums sought reduced to reflect spare capacity. Para. 2.3.3 (i) satisfactory standard to meet the needs of pupils generated from (a) identifies that allowances are added for external works, furniture and equipment. Such allowances are the proposed development without some investment. Moreover part of the Council’s own education revenue spending and should not be sought from the developer. some surplus capacity is required to enable schools to manage fluctuations in parental preferences both within and between academic years. It is quite appropriate for allowances to be made for external works, furniture and equipment where these additional needs are the result of the development and they are not part of the Council’s mainstream revenue spending.
Redrow Homes Page 13 – Evidence will be required to support any “assumptions” based on parental choice for Welsh or Any assessment of the anticipated distribution of places in terms Voluntary Aided schools. The SPG should be able to state what proportions of all children go to each type of of the need for Welsh medium or voluntary aided places will school (perhaps even at sub-areas). reflect the Council’s robust pupil projection methodology which is regularly subject to external scrutiny and is checked each year for retrospective accuracy. Parental preferences can of course fluctuate from year to year but there is a clear increasing trend in the demand for Welsh medium provision.
Page 15 Section C – Refurbishment of existing places must be deleted. S106 costs cannot be used as a There is no intention to use S106 contributions to substitute for substitute for Council investment in maintaining existing facilities. any Council investment in maintaining existing places. Any such contribution would reflect the implications for schools operating increasingly closer to the level of the school capacity and the fact that existing surplus capacity may be in temporary or other accommodation which is no longer capable of providing a suitable standard of accommodation without further investment. The Council considers that school accommodation should provide a learning environment that is attractive to children and their parents from the proposed development.
Abertawe Bro Paragraph 2.3.1 – The section on education must be seen against the background of falling school rolls in There are also areas where there are pressures on existing Morgannwg NHS Trust many locations. With declining school rolls, it is often a case of replacing existing or previous demand. In provision. School rolls are not falling uniformly across the County such cases, new residential developments in those areas can help support local schools through maintaining and there is increasing demand for Welsh medium provision. viable school rolls. New residential developments may help to support local school rolls but it is also the case that investment in school accommodation and facilities assists to market new properties.
Paragraph 2.3.2 (i) – Given the vagaries entailed in assessing the requirement for additional school places The SPG recognises the difficulty of estimating the number of (as recognised in the SPG), a threshold of 10 units is far too small. According to the Council’s own figures, a additional pupils likely from any new housing development. development of 10 units would generate only three pupils of primary school age and such a low figure would Nevertheless it is important that the impact of new developments be well below the margin of error on any calculation. is recognised and particularly the cumulative impact of successive smaller developments. Consequently a threshold of 10 units is considered appropriate.
Paragraph 2.3.3 (i) – Establishes what is described as a fairly simple and objective formula for each Whether the resident has relocated from another part of Swansea additional dwelling. However, it fails to recognise that many occupants of a new house will be existing or another part of the country altogether does not in any way residents with children, relocating from elsewhere in Swansea. Such residents will not be creating new affect the need for appropriate provision of accommodation and demand for school places. facilities to be made in the area of the new development.
Paragraph 2.3.3 (i)(a) – Contains estimated costs for additional classrooms and classroom extensions. The basis of the indicative sums is explained and they are based These costs are much higher than those used by some authorities and are queried. on a basic need multiplier and building cost information produced by the Department for Education and Skills but reflecting regional variations in prices.
Paragraph 2.3.3 (i)(b) – Gives a threshold of 350 dwellings for the provision of a new primary school. Using The 350 new dwellings threshold is consistent with the Council the Council’s own figures, a development of 350 units would generate up to approximately 100 pupils only and Audit Commission view that a sustainable primary school (assuming family housing rather than apartments), which is too small for a viable new primary school. For should have at least 90 pupils. It is simply a threshold and the comparison, the Vale of Glamorgan Council uses a threshold figure of 700 dwellings. The threshold for a need for a new school would reflect the existing provision in the new secondary school is also likely to be too low, but not to the same extent. area of the development. Similarly the secondary threshold is consistent with Audit Commission and Council views regarding the size of a sustainable secondary school.
5) Outdoor Play Space
Consultee Comment Response/Action CCSC – Phillip Baxter: The guidance requires contributions to be sought on single dwellings and more. From a Development Whilst it is acknowledged that providing a threshold for the (Development Control Control perspective this is unrealistic and would require consulting the recreation department on all planning consideration of contributions would provide greater certainty the Principal Planner) applications for residential development. I would suggest that greater certainty should be given to Council’s approach is bound by the requirements set within the developers by providing a threshold for the consideration of contributions i.e. 10 units or more, which is Adopted UDP. Policy HC24 (Play Areas/Public Open Space) of consistent with Education and others. the UDP provides no set threshold and is based on the provisions of the NPFA standards (or now referred to as FIT standards) which identifies a requirement of 2.4 hectares per 1000 population for public recreational and open space. Additional survey work/research will therefore need to be carried out by the Council where there are gaps in knowledge and understanding of the existing situation in order to inform the LDP and the subsequent review of the SPG. Work is currently ongoing on the production of open space audit which includes the assessment of the quantitative, qualitative and accessibility components of existing provision throughout the County.
CCSC – Stephen Smith: Paragraph 2.4.1 – TAN 16: Sport, Recreation and Open Space (2009) provides more relevant guidance on UDP formulation pre dates the publication of TAN 16 and it was (Principle Urban open space provision (see appendix 3) which varies depending on urban and rural locations. This is therefore not considered during its production. The primary Designer) linked to the Fields in Trust (formerly known as NPFA) standards. purpose of this SPG is to supplement the policies set within the UDP which will be in place until the adoption of the LDP (during Interestingly there is a move away from the formal ‘kit, fence and carpet’ approach to play provision the next 4-5 years). In addition, the guidance set out within TAN towards a more natural locally distinctive approach. This should be reflected in the SPG. 16 purely reflects the requirements for the LDP process. It is acknowledged that the forthcoming LDP process will ensure the provision of accurate and comprehensive baseline information and evidence. Additional survey work/research will therefore need to be carried out by the Council where there are gaps in knowledge and understanding of the existing situation in order to inform the LDP and the subsequent review of the SPG. Work is currently ongoing on the production of open space audit which includes the assessment of the quantitative, qualitative and accessibility components of existing provision throughout the County.
Paragraph 2.4.2 – The statement that play space is not the same as public open space is not correct. All Whilst it is acknowledged that all play space is public the NPFA play space is public and whilst most provision will take the form of a defined/equipped area, the informal play (FIT) standards makes it clear that the following facilities are requirement could simply be an accessible, well overlooked grassed area, or a HomeZone. Therefore this excluded from the definition of ‘outdoor playing space’, although statement needs to be clarified. the NPFA (FIT) recognises that there are circumstances where some of them can make a valuable contribution to the total Examples are needed of the three types of play space. recreational provision of communities. They are not however regarded as substitutes for elements of the NPFA (FIT) standard: As per TAN 16, the distances to the types of play provision (LAP, etc) could be stated. I have previously adopted an on/off site approach to play provision. The Equipped Play should be on site, but financial 1) outdoor sports facilities which are not as a matter of contributions to existing pitches could address the Formal Play element. policy and practice available for public use, such as professional sports stadia; 2) grounds of Her Majesty’s Services, unless as a matter of policy and practice and by formal agreement they are made available for public use; 3) verges, woodlands, commons, the seashore, nature conservation areas, allotments, ornamental gardens and parks (except for clearly defined areas within them for sports, games, practice and play); 4) golf facilities; 5) water used for recreation, except where it forms an interactive feature of an outdoor play area; 6) sports halls or leisure centres; 7) commercial entertainment complexes and theme parks; and 8) car parks for non-recreational use.
In order to aid clarity the SPG should be amended to reflect the above.
Amend Appendix 3 to clarify the above.
Examples are set within Paragraph 2.4.2 (Now Paragraph 3.4.2) for the three types of children’s play space. Formal play space (neighbourhood Area of Play – NEAP), children’s equipped area (Local area for play – LAP) and informal/casual play space (Local equipped area of play – LEAP) are clearly identified and described. In order to aid clarity the examples set within Paragraph 2.4.2 (Now Paragraph 3.4.2) should be linked with the types of children’s play areas already identified.
Amend Paragraph 2.4.2 (Now Paragraph 3.4.2) accordingly.
UDP formulation pre dates the publication of TAN 16 and was therefore not considered during its production. The requirements of TAN 16 will form the basis of preparatory work for the forthcoming LDP process. Work is currently ongoing on the production of open space audit which includes the assessment of the quantitative, qualitative and accessibility components of existing provision throughout the County.
Paragraph 2.4.3 – The calculation doesn’t make sense. This sets out the three types of Equipped Play Comments noted. The calculation incorrectly identifies three provision, not the three types of space provision. Surely they should be Formal Play Space, Equipped Play types of equipped play provision rather than three types of space Areas and Informal Play Space? provision.
Amend the calculation within Paragraph 2.4.3 (Now Paragraph 3.4.3) accordingly.
Home Builders Para 2.4.1 – This paragraph states that areas of open space should be provided in accordance with the The NPFA (FIT) standard is recognised as good practice in Federation National Playing Fields Association (NPFA) ‘Six Acre Standard’ for outdoor playing space which requires 2.4 TAN16 and forms the basis of Policy HC24 (Play Areas/Public hectares per 1000 population for public recreational and open space. However, it is now recognised that the Open Space) of the Adopted UDP. The primary purpose of this NPFA (or Fields in Trust) benchmark standards are not adequate as a stand-alone standard and should be SPG is to supplement the policies set within the UDP which will used as a starting point for the Council to undertake their own assessments of open space in order to ensure be in place until the adoption of the LDP (during the next 4-5 the standards for provision in each area of the Authority are justified and reasonable. years). It is acknowledged that additional survey work/research will need to be carried out by the Council where there are gaps in knowledge and understanding of the existing situation in order to inform the LDP and the subsequent review of the SPG. Work is currently ongoing on the production of open space audit which includes the assessment of the quantitative, qualitative and accessibility components of existing provision throughout the County. The requirements for this process are based on TAN 16 which given its recent release was not considered during the production of the UDP.
Amend all references to National Playing Field Association (NPFA) Standards and replace with FIT Standards (FIT).
In this context, Paragraph 2.7 of TAN 16 (2006) states that PPW does not prescribe particular standards of UDP formulation pre dates the publication of TAN 16 and it was open space provision, but states that these standards should be based upon the findings of an Open Space therefore not considered during its production. The primary Assessment, which will allow local authorities to develop evidence based policies and standards that reflect purpose of this SPG is to supplement the policies set within the local social, economic, demographic and geographical characteristics. The TAN goes on to state that an UDP which will be in place until the adoption of the LDP (during Open Space Assessment should allow local authorities to develop standards that reflect local distinctiveness the next 4-5 years). In addition, the guidance set out within TAN and should include: 16 purely reflects the requirements for the LDP process. It is acknowledged that the forthcoming LDP process will ensure the 1) Quantitative elements (whether new provision is needed for the area); provision of accurate and comprehensive baseline information 2) Qualitative component (against which to measure need for enhancement of existing facilities); and evidence. Additional survey work/research will therefore 3) An accessibility component (to whom and how is the provision accessible to the local community) need to be carried out by the Council where there are gaps in (TAN 16 - Paragraph 2.7). knowledge and understanding of the existing situation in order to inform the LDP and the subsequent review of the SPG. Work is currently ongoing on the production of open space audit which includes the assessment of the quantitative, qualitative and accessibility components of existing provision throughout the County.
In order to obtain the necessary evidence base to prove there are actual deficiencies in open space in The Fields In Trust (FIT) standard (formerly referred to as NPFA Swansea, it is essential that an open space assessment as described by TAN 16 is carried out. Even standards) forms the basis of Policy HC24 (Play Areas/Public though the Council has a policy that is based on the Fields in Trust (FIT) standards, any requirements still Open Space) of the Adopted UDP. The primary purpose of this have to be evidence-based and justified and it is not sufficient to merely state that if quantitative provision SPG is to supplement the policies set within the UDP which will falls below the FIT standards, this means there is an actual deficiency in that particular typology of open be in place until the adoption of the LDP (during the next 4-5 space in that particular area of Swansea. Identifying quantitative deficiencies of open space, based on the years). It is acknowledged that additional survey work/research FIT standard will not provide any detail on the nature of these deficiencies, or provide any explanation as to will need to be carried out by the Council where there are gaps in why these deficiencies exist in the first place. The reason for a perceived deficiency in certain types of open knowledge and understanding of the existing situation in order to space may be the result of many factors such as, a lack of demand for a certain sporting activity, in which inform the LDP and the subsequent review of the SPG. Work is case the provision of more land for that activity or monies to upgrade certain facilities would do nothing to currently ongoing in the production of open space audit which alleviate the problem. An appropriate open space assessment is a crucial factor in deciding these aspects includes the assessment of the quantitative, qualitative and and also in assuming the level of responsibility any new developments may have in ensuring any accessibility components of existing provision throughout the deficiencies are not exacerbated. County. The requirements for this process are based on TAN 16 which given its relatively recent publication was not considered Suggested Change: The SPG should state that where planning obligations for open space are sought, they during the production of the UDP. The NPFA (FIT) standard is will be evidence-based and justified by an appropriate Open Space Assessment as required by TAN 16 recognised as good practice in TAN16. Nevertheless, each case (2006). will be considered on its own merits having regard to existing provision in the locality.
Amend all references to National Playing Field Association (NPFA) Standards and replace with FIT Standards (FIT).
Meirion Howells Project From my experience owners and occupiers do not want open space alongside their houses. You are far Whilst it is acknowledged that parks such as Brynmill, Llewellyn Management. better placed to levy a contribution for the upkeep of existing parks or the creation of new ones on land and Morriston are community parks and were historically outside the development site such as under used fields. In terms of maintenance, who is responsible for positioned on the edge of communities, the provision/location of undertaking the maintenance and what happens if the equipment is not maintained? Parks were historically new outdoor play space/open space should be assessed on a provided on the edges of communities, Brynmill, Llewellyn, Morriston, to name but a few so that the greater case by case basis. Paragraph 2.4.2 (Now Paragraph 3.4.2) benefit could be gained by all the community and not just the development being considered. If a notes that the provision of a satisfactory level and standard of contribution were made then this could develop a sinking fund. outdoor play space will be sought on all new housing developments, where it can be demonstrated that existing provision in the locality is inadequate to meet the needs of future occupiers together with the needs of the existing population. With regard to the issue of maintenance, Paragraph 2.4.2 (Now Paragraph 3.4.2) highlights the fact that developers may be required to make appropriate arrangements for the future management of facilities an in some cases S106 Agreements may be sought to provide commuted sums for maintenance where it is to be carried out by the Council.
Charles Church Wales The confirmation of current levels of provision detailed through the ‘ongoing’ assessment of open space The NPFA (FIT) standard forms the basis of Policy HC24 (Play Ltd/ Barratt Homes referred to will need to be made widely available to complement the guidance document in order that Areas/Public Open Space) of the Adopted UDP. The NPFA (FIT) South Wales Ltd/Taylor developers are provided with the necessary information on specific areas in the Council area. This could standard provides sufficient scope to assess the outdoor play Wimpey UK Ltd establish at an early stage whether allowance should be made for on site open space provision and will space requirement for developments whilst the Culture and consequently be a major factor in influencing site layouts. Tourism Service can confirm current levels of provision within affected ward/locality and clarify whether there is a shortfall. It is acknowledged that further research is required and that the forthcoming LDP process will ensure the provision of accurate and comprehensive baseline information and evidence (in accordance with the requirements of TAN 16). Work is currently ongoing on the production of open space audit which includes the assessment of the quantitative, qualitative and accessibility components of existing provision throughout the County that will inform the LDP process and the subsequent review of the SPG.
Amend all references to National Playing Field Association (NPFA) Standards and replace with FIT Standards (FIT).
As with education provision, it should be stated that where no shortfall of provision exists and where little or Paragraph 2.5 highlights the fact that not all obligations relate to no contributions are necessary, more emphasis can be placed on meeting other forms of planning every development proposal – They provide an indication of what obligations. In this context developers will require prompt information on the scale of contributions in could be expected. For certain schemes not one of the preliminary stages of the development process. The Council will need to respond more effectively to measures may be appropriate whilst for others a combination requests for pre-application meetings where various officers can give an indication of likely requirements. could be required. It may be necessary to therefore determine Reference to the need for a co-ordinating S106 officer would, therefore, be appropriate in the document. the relative priority of different forms of provision in the context of individual circumstances and planning objectives relative to each development proposal. This element of flexibility in the process will ensure not to prejudice the viability of development schemes. The aim of this guidance is to provide clarity and certainty to developers, statutory consultees other organisations involved in the development process and also third parties/ local residents regarding the basis on which planning obligations will be sought in respect of applications for new development. Paragraph 3.1 advises that early contact with the Principal Planning Officer – Major Projects Team should take place and direct contact details are even set out within Appendix 6. The measures in place will ensure that the Council will be able to: 1) Respond more effectively to queries 2) Effectively monitor planning obligations 3) Ensure that contributions are received from developers at the appropriate time 4) Ensure that contributions are spent within a specified timescale.
Appendix 4 – Is welcomed as giving an indication of the likely scale of contributions. Comment noted.
Redrow Homes Where adequate public open space exists in the vicinity of a new development, additional provision should Comment noted. Paragraph 2.5 of the SPG makes it clear that not be sought. not all of the obligations relate to every development proposal and each proposal will be assessed on a case by case basis. In addition, Paragraph 2.4.2 (Now Paragraph 3.4.2) notes that the provision of a satisfactory level and standard of outdoor play space will be sought on all new housing developments, where it can be demonstrated that existing provision in the locality is inadequate to meet the needs of future occupiers together with the needs of the existing population.
Appendix 4 – Some of the costs relating to outdoor play spaces are unusually high. The “replaced The costings set out within Appendix 4 are based on the vandalised equipment” rate at £40,000 is more than twice the original provision amount. Is the Council really requirements set by the Parks Section of the Council and have expecting developers to provide new equipment three times in 10 years! These figures all need to be fair been implemented over a number of years. These figures are and reasonable. Please review all proposed costs and / or provide sufficient justification. reviewed annually to take into account changing circumstances. The exact level of developer contributions may vary from the figures illustrated to take account of individual site characteristics.
Abertawe Bro Paragraph 2.4.1 – Needs to refer to the new TAN: 16 Sport, Recreation and Open Space (Welsh Assembly UDP formulation pre dates the publication of TAN 16 and it was Morgannwg NHS Trust Government, January 2009) and to the new document Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play therefore not considered during its production. The primary (Fields in Trust), which replaces the now superseded NPFA Six Acre Standard. TAN 16 states that locally purpose of this SPG is to supplement the policies set within the generated standards should be based on robust evidence derived from an open space assessment. UDP which will be in place until the adoption of the LDP (during the next 4-5 years). In addition, the guidance set out within TAN 16 purely reflects the requirements for the LDP process. It is acknowledged that further research is required and that the forthcoming LDP process will ensure the provision of accurate and comprehensive baseline information and evidence. Work is currently ongoing in the production of open space audit which includes the assessment of the quantitative, qualitative and accessibility components of existing provision throughout the County that will inform the LDP process and the subsequent review of the SPG.
6) Transport
Consultee Comment Response/Action CCSC – Rod Jones: There is no detailed reference to public transport in the sense of developers subsidising the provision of Comments noted. The ability to consider contributions to fund (Deputy Head of Legal) buses or the operation of bus routes (or building bus stops etc) to serve routes where their developments public transport provision would be a useful tool. The existing either create a new destination or add to the need to run buses. In other authorities this type of S106 text and spreadsheet will be altered to reflect this. contribution is normal. I don’t know what our transport policy is in this respect – I would have thought that justification for such a contribution would not be difficult to provide where a large development is proposed. I Amend SPG accordingly. note that the issue of public transport provision is covered in the existing text but I suggest that it could be usefully amplified by some more details as to what may be asked for.
CCSC – Aeron Kirczey: Paragraph 2.5 (ii) – Should also identify that sometimes local data is held that differs from TRICS. In such Comment noted. When considering each application the Council (Assistant Transport circumstances we would adopt local data in preference to national data. will have regard to all evidence available including locally specific Engineer) information.
Charles Church Wales The ‘Accessibility Banding’ zones shown by the map included in Appendix 5, which highlight the areas The accessibility banding has been developed by means of an Ltd/ Barratt Homes which are most accessible to public transport and where contributions can be weighted accordingly, is noted. accessibility assessment which is based upon public transport South Wales Ltd/Taylor However, this banding concentrates the ‘High accessibility’ category in the main urban area of Swansea, and service provision and its impact upon the ability of residents Wimpey UK Ltd seems to ignore areas such as Gowerton, Pontarddulais and Llansamlet which have access to passenger within the study area to access key services and facilities. The rail facilities. banding has therefore been empirically developed and is not a subjective assessment.
Paragraph 2.3.2 – Relates to Triggers for Planning Obligations, including (i) Establishing the Need for a Comments noted. The guidance will be altered to reflect the role Developer’s Contribution. It is mentioned that there are also wider implications for transport and highway that ‘Safe Routes to School’ can play. measures. Where highway works are required, which may include ‘safe routes to schools’ etc, this should be taken into account in overall highway and education contributions required from a development, and Amend SPG accordingly. acknowledged in the guidance.
The basis for calculation of contributions on a unit by unit basis, and making reference to a theoretical The methodology by which the contributions are assessed has development of 225 units made up of a variety of unit sizes is useful in illustrating how calculations may be been developed upon schemes already in place in a number of carried out using the TRICS database. Despite emphasising that the figures, which amount to a total UK Local Authorities. In this sense the proposed methodology contribution from this development of £188,416, is a maximum level of contribution, the requirement is considers more factors than experienced elsewhere. This will somewhat prescriptive and there is no indication given of other factors which would have a bearing on therefore allow for a robust calculation to be established. It is impact on the transportation system, including the existing capacities of local roads and junctions to serve noted that further factors could be considered, but incorporation additional development. of further facets may overcomplicate the process and compromise the transparency of the approach.
A Transport Assessment would cover most of these issues.
Some new developments, by way of providing improved access to existing residential areas, by enhancing Comments noted. An approach on this basis is of course largely local parking or vehicle circulation, and/or by allowing for improved public transport penetration, will result in subjective. The proposed means of calculation is intended to improvements which should partially or wholly offset the need for contributions and this should be provide an objective and consistent means of assessing S106 acknowledged. contributions.
We therefore object to the Transportation section of the draft document on the basis that additional wording The calculations have been carefully developed to reflect the is necessary to reflect the above comments. Such additions could for example refer to the skills of planning means used in various other Local Authorities and therefore the and highway officers in balancing requests for contributions and ‘weighing up’ factors rather than simply calculated contributions are synonymous with the levels of applying a ‘roof tax’. Contributions need to be evidence based. support prescribed elsewhere. The skills of the planning and highways officers will still be involved in the process, but the methodology will allow for a consistent approach to be prescribed across all developments.
Taylor Wimpey (Bristol) Paragraph 2.3.3 (ii) – States that monies will be sought towards “appropriate transport / highways measures Comments noted. This will be monitored and governed by the to address accessibility issues” in relation to education contributions. Double counting of highway Planning and Highways Officers. contributions with those sought by the Council’s Highway engineers must not result.
Redrow Homes Paragraph 2.5.2 – The main sources of funding should also include retail, leisure and commercial Provision has already been made to include ‘commercial’ developments as these generate significant new traffic movements. developments and hotel uses. The uses described could be grouped into the leisure category.
This section should be totally re-written and re-presented for further comments. Furthermore if a “road tax” The schemes to which the S106 funds will contribute are to be is to be imposed via SPG it should state what scheme the money will be directly contributing to and an determined on a case-by-case basis and will be determined by opportunity to comment on these proposed projects provided. Planning and Highways Officers.
Abertawe Bro Paragraph 2.5.1 – Should acknowledge that most off-site highway improvements can be satisfactorily dealt A “Grampian” condition would require the completion of a Morgannwg NHS Trust with by Grampian-type planning conditions and do not need to be included in S106 Agreements. planning obligation prior to the commencement of the development but would also additionally prevent a delay in the processing of the application and uncertainty for the developer. The general principle of this approach would contradict the emphasis of front loading the planning process to the pre- application stage and would cause delays after a decision has been reached. There is also some debate as to whether such conditions can legally be used to require an applicant to complete a planning obligation. As a result we will not be using Grampian conditions to secure completed planning obligations unless Central Government clarifies otherwise, and if this is the case, they will only be used in exceptional circumstances.
In a limited range of appropriate circumstances it is possible to use ‘Grampian’ conditions to ensure that an action takes place prior to the development commencing. Grampian conditions are a negative restriction on the planning permission, restricting its implementation, in whole or in part, until some event has occurred. This event can involve land outside of the applications ownership, providing there are reasonable prospects of the action in question being performed within the time-limit imposed by the permission. One commonly used example of a Grampian condition is where specified highway works are required at the request of the Highway Authority e.g. ‘No development shall commence, until the highway improvements to a particular junction have been implemented in full.’
Even if the works are outside of the site, as long as they are within the highway boundary and the highway authority are in agreement then the above style of condition can be utilised. A Grampian Condition can also apply to actions on other land within the applicant’s ownership and any other land, where the prospect of implementation is reasonable. It may however be necessary for the applicant to enter into a further legal agreement with the Highway Authority, under the Highways Act, to ensure that the work is carried out to the appropriate standard.
Paragraph 2.5.2 – Seeks to introduce a levy for sustainable transport. This is one of a number of examples The accessibility banding function of the calculation has been where the intention of the Council appears to be secure financial contributions on a per unit basis regardless included to provide an objective means of assessing the local of local or specific circumstances. context and existing public transport provision.
7) Employment and Enterprise
Consultee Comment Response/Action CCSC – Steve Marshall: Re-draft the whole section – see below: The original version of the obligation set for Employment and (Business Development Enterprise has been redrafted to allay some of the concerns Manager) 2.6 Employment and Enterprise highlighted from the consultation process. The re-drafted version of the obligation represents the comments made by the 2.6.1 Policy Background Regeneration Section. The Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation identifies deprivation in Swansea based upon low income and low levels of employment with significant pockets of economic inactivity. The Swansea 2020 Economic Amend Employment and Enterprise obligation accordingly. Regeneration Strategy seeks to address these issues, particularly by bringing economically inactive people back into the labour market and developing employment progression routes to enable these people to move on to higher skilled, higher paid jobs, thereby raising their income levels. “Tackling poverty and promoting inclusion – Swansea 2020 not only seeks to raise prosperity levels in Swansea, but also to spread prosperity across the city and county. It aims to address barriers to entering the labour market and create an economic environment that provides opportunities for all Swansea’s citizens, therefore helping to lift individuals and households out of poverty.1” The Council recognises that promoting social justice and opportunities for non-employed people is a key element of the Welsh Assembly Government’s commitment to sustainable development. It has therefore included the above commitment in its Economic Development Strategy. To achieve this a specific initiative called “Beyond Bricks and Mortar” is designed to bring added value locally to the delivery of physical regeneration projects. It represents an approach to regeneration that will allow Swansea and the wider region to benefit and reflect the Council’s intention to deliver the strategic aims and cross cutting themes of the Economic Regeneration Strategy – Swansea 2020. Delivery of the strategy involves working with a wide range of public, private and third sector agencies, particularly with WAG and private sector developers. The framework for this co-operation is the Council’s Targeted Recruitment and Training (TR&T) protocol that is available separately from the Beyond Bricks and Mortar Team based at the Business Centre Swansea. The Council will use the TR&T protocol as a basis for negotiation and provide information to developers on the type of contribution and/or initiative that may be sought. The Protocol identifies opportunities which may arise during the Construction phase of a development.
2.6.2 Trigger For Planning Obligation In delivering regeneration projects, the Council’s approach involves ensuring that social benefit clauses are
1 Swansea 2020 Economic Development Strategy 2 A new entrant trainee is a school or college leaver or an adult that has not been employed in the construction industry during the previous 12 months and who is undertaking training towards a construction industry recognised qualification. 3 People not in employment can include school, college and university leavers, people claiming job-seekers allowance and incapacity benefits or income support, ex- offenders, refugees and asylum seekers that have the right to work, and people returning to the labour market. included in contracts and/or development agreements to promote initiatives that will allow local supply chains to benefit and local people to be employed and/or trained as an integral part of the physical development process.
Generally, social benefits will be considered and measured in two main areas: • Targeted recruitment and training; • Development of local supply chains
The Council may also seek to negotiate contributions, depending on the context of the site, including: • Provision of affordable business space; • Local procurement and supply chain measures; • Direct labour agreements, work experience, and or apprenticeship schemes, facilitated by appropriate local training providers; • Relocation assistance for existing businesses • Funding for training and recruitment and supply-chain activities linked to the development.
The contributions can support existing or new programmes carried out by the Council, the developer or others as agreed by the Council and the developer. As a part of any consultation on an individual scheme, there will be discussions regarding its scope and capacity to deliver social benefits, the availability of local supply chains, and the general supply side of any physical development/social benefit equation.
In addition there are likely to be significant opportunities to provide training and to develop employment skills throughout the post construction and “end-user” phases of a development. The Council therefore intends to continue to seek opportunities to expand the local labour market and provide training opportunities for non- working people to meet the training and recruitment needs of future occupiers.
Establishing the Need for a Developer’s Contribution Whilst it can be expected that some opportunities for non-employed people will be achieved through pre- employment programmes, there will be greater impact if developers and their contractors are pro-active about engaging with non- employed people, especially those that have participated in pre-employment training and need the opportunity to convert this into a marketable skill. Taking into account the likely labour requirements and trainee opportunities in the construction industry from developments, if 10% of these requirements are targeted at disadvantaged persons a positive impact in areas of deprivation and economic inactivity will result.
It is anticipated that in facilitating this process, there will be opportunities to identify the specific requirements of developers and contractors in order to deliver this added value. Establishing appropriate supply chains that provide support for engaging with those who would benefit from employment, and ensuring that training is in place and properly resourced, involves a wide-ranging commitment to engage with local networks.
Facilitating that process will be nominated officers in the Council’s Economic and Strategic Development Division’s Beyond Bricks & Mortar Team who have been appointed to make these important connections and the business case for each social benefit identified. However, the City & County of Swansea and their partners and agents do not promise or contract to provide suitable agencies, trainees or labour to contractor and employers. All appointment, recruitment, supervision and discipline responsibilities rest with the employers.
It is anticipated that in developments of a value of £2 million and over Social Benefits targets, in the form of TR&T requirements and supply chain initiatives in the first instance, will be set. However, notwithstanding this threshold of £2m all developers will be required to enter into dialogue with the Council to assess the possibility of a contribution to targeted recruitment and training and supply chain initiatives.
Other factors influencing the requirement for insertion of these Social Benefit Clauses are: • The nature and scale of the development • Likely employment generation from the development • The number of jobs and gross floorspace to be lost or replaced • The nature and number of existing jobs affected by the proposed development • In the case of vacant sites or premises the previous use and job creating potential/employment levels based upon worker/floorspace ratios for those uses • Identified recruitment and training issues or problems related to specific uses and local areas in general
2.6.3 Basis For Calculation In relation to the construction phase of development the following types of requirements may be included:
o a minimum of 52 person weeks employment for new entrant trainees2 recruited from a source agreed by the Council for each £1m in works value (and pro-rata); o an additional payment to Swansea Council of a deposit-sum of £65 per new entrant trainee week may also be required, such payments to be returned with interest (at a rate determined by Swansea Council from time to time) on the basis of a contractor’s Quarterly Performance Statements; o the provision of a minimum of 10 person-weeks of unwaged work experience per £1m in works value (and pro-rata); o every vacancy on site, including those with sub-contractors to be notified to agencies named by the Council, and candidates identified by these agencies are to have an equality of opportunity in the selection process. o support for the Council initiatives to identify and nurture additional supply-chain organisations; o the provision of Trainee recruitment notifications (signed by the trainee to permit the provision of personal data to the Council and its agents for contract monitoring purposes only) and Trainee completion or termination notifications; o maintaining a site security record that is available for inspection by the Council at any reasonable time and which includes the home address of each person engaged in the contract.
Calculation of TR&T Requirements in the Construction Phase A. Estimated Site Works Value = £…………..(enter figure) B. Labour Content: site works value x [40]% = £…………..(enter figure) C. Average gross weekly wage + on-costs = £…………..(enter figure)
D. Divide labour content by weekly wage = ……..total person weeks E. New entrant trainee target: D x 10% = ……. person weeks F. Unwaged work experience target: D x 2% = ……..person weeks
The above calculation forms the basis for negotiations. There is a requirement for a TR&T Method Statement, using the City & County of Swansea pro-forma, to be completed which will set out how the desired outcomes will be achieved.
A model set of documentation is available from the Beyond Bricks & Mortar Team at the Business Centre Swansea
End-User Opportunities In relation to developments that will accommodate a workforce to seek to secure the following commitments from employers on the site: o to support the work of the Council to target employment opportunities at people registered with agreed agencies, including in particular new entrants and those returning to the labour market; o after discussions with Swansea Council and partner agencies to produce a Method Statement that will maximise the achievement of the following outcomes:
o [50%] of employees are residents of the City and County of Swansea, o [30]% of the vacancies in the first occupation of the employment premises are filled by people who were not in employment when selected3; o [20]% of subsequent staff turnover or business growth vacancies are filled by people who are not in employment when they are selected; o In relation to vacancies notified, to work with one or more of the agencies identified by Swansea Council from time to time for this purpose to develop pre-recruitment training and induction packages and provide candidates completing these packages or otherwise being put forward by the agency(ies) with a guaranteed interview. o Each person employed under the above sections to have a personal development plan that incorporates training, mentoring and support. o To provide the Council with a quarterly review that reports on the outcomes achieved against the agreed Method Statement, and provides a new Method Statement with agreed measures for the forthcoming period. Model documentation relating to end user opportunities is available from the Beyond Bricks & Mortar Team at the Business Centre Swansea Justification • High levels of unemployment, low incomes and deprivation persist in some areas of the City & County of Swansea because of barriers to employment that some people experience, most notably the lack of skills that are required in the jobs market. • Reducing deprivation is an essential part of developing socially sustainable communities, especially in growing and intensifying communities. • Sourcing local labour, and reducing the need to travel is a fundamental part of creating of sustainable communities. • Local Authorities have an express power to support sustainability under Section 2 (1) of the Local Government Act 2000 and the Local Government Best Value Order of 2002. (commonly known as the “well-being” power). Every local authority has the power to do anything which they consider is likely to achieve any one or more of the following objects: • the promotion or improvement of the economic well-being of their area; • the promotion or improvement of the social well-being of their area; and • the promotion or improvement of the environmental well-being of their area. • The inclusion and implementation of social benefit clauses makes a direct contribution to the City & County of Swansea’s Corporate Improvement Plan for 2008/2012 (Economy) and the Local Service Board’s priorities of “Economic Inactivity” and “Young People not in Education and Training.” (NEETS).
Home Builders Paragraph 2.6 – We object to this planning obligation requirement as it is not clear how it is justified. The Local Authorities have an express power to support sustainability Federation obligation is not based on an adopted UDP policy and therefore should not be included as a requirement. under Section 2 (1) of the Local Government Act 2000 and the Suggested Change: This planning obligation should be removed. Local Government Best Value Order of 2002. (commonly known as the “well-being” power). Every local authority has the power to do anything which they consider is likely to achieve any one or more of the following objects:
• the promotion or improvement of the economic well-being of their area; • the promotion or improvement of the social well-being of their area; and • the promotion or improvement of the environmental well-being of their area.
It is therefore considered that an employment and enterprise obligation is relevant to planning and does not put an undue burden upon developers or employers who should be keen to invest in their employees.
Meirion Howells Project How can a developer who is developing a speculative development ever be responsible for the employment The emphasis would be on contractors providing training Management. of unemployed job seekers. If you take as an example the Ethos Building or indeed the Life Science Building opportunities in the construction phase of any project, particularly in the University these buildings are meant for high tech users and this condition would inhibit such those with an element of public sector funding. This can take the developments. These developments are what we are seeking to promote for Swansea and not inhibiting form of contributing to apprenticeships and other work experience them. Unemployment has to be tackled by other means than planning conditions. All such schemes in the opportunities. Where direct recruitment is planned by a contractor past have failed. How would you manage the process? then employment of local qualified people who are unemployed is also encouraged. This is not designed to replace existing staff nor is to provide cheap alternatives to qualified people. The process involves linking contractors to those schemes already in existence that can provide people and funding and will be managed and supported by the Council’s Beyond Bricks & Mortar team. Research on pilot projects throughout the UK has shown that this can be achieved at little extra costs to the project or contractors. It is therefore considered that an employment and enterprise obligation is relevant to planning and does not put an undue burden upon developers or employers who should be keen to invest in their employees.
Charles Church Wales The section on employment and enterprise, in requiring contributions from residential schemes of more than Comment noted. The requirement for contributions from Ltd/ Barratt Homes 10 units, appears to be unreasonable and assumes that all forms of development, including residential uses residential schemes of more than 10 units has been removed in South Wales Ltd/Taylor and mixed use schemes will have a negative impact which will need to be compensated for by contributions the redrafting of this obligation. Wimpey UK Ltd of the type described. Amend Employment and Enterprise obligation accordingly.
Residential development, in particular, can have a number of positive impacts where there is a need for Comment noted. In addition, all public funded initiatives are housing – led regeneration. Such benefits include: required to demonstrate an immediate “impact on deprivation” (a) Sustaining community facilities by increasing catchment population; and address those negative aspects of the local economy that (b) Enhancing the local environment through the development of otherwise unsightly land; have been designated as a priority. Chief among these is the (c) Sustaining local businesses by increased spending in the area; plight of young people and the long term unemployed who (d) Contributing to a sense of place by good design; require opportunities to help them get back into employment. (e) Improving perceptions of an area; (f) Stemming population loss in areas affected by industrial decline; (g) Providing an improved range and choice of housing opportunities; (h) Contributing to a more balanced community.
Where housing is proposed on land allocated for employment uses, there may be merits in requiring Comment noted. This will be an issue for consideration for the contributions to offset the loss of such land. In this context there will be a need to apply more flexible policies forthcoming LDP process. in the retention of employment land through the new LDP process. Through the new Plan the existing supply of employment land will require review in any event.
It is considered that the timing of the publication of such a ‘shopping list’ to support UDP policies when the Given that the LDP is to be prepared over the course of the next Council is about to commence work on a new LDP can be questioned. The LDP is targeted for adoption 4 to 5 years planning applications will continue to be determined within 5 years and will be totally evidenced based. As such it will form a more sound and transparent in accordance with prevailing and recently adopted UDP policies framework for seeking contributions, including any for employment and enterprise. On this basis the section during this period. The SPG will be a starting point for all is objected to. negotiations but does allow for flexibility to take account of site specific circumstances and can be subject to review. Clearly the gaps in the evidence base needs to be filled to enable the policy to be applied on a comprehensive and consistent basis. However it is acknowledged that this will take time and resources and with this in mind the SPG has been prepared in a format that permits review and amendment of any particular part as evidence becomes available and/or in response to evolving national policy guidance. The provision of accurate and comprehensive baseline information and evidence is a fundamental requirement of the forthcoming LDP preparation process. Additional survey work/research will therefore need to be carried out by the Council where there are gaps in knowledge and understanding of the existing situation to inform the LDP.
Taylor Wimpey (Bristol) It is not considered that the provision/contribution towards a Work Place Co-ordinator during construction Comment noted. The provision of a WPC has been removed in meets the tests of W.O Circular 13/97 particularly of being necessary to make the proposed development the redrafting of this obligation. acceptable in planning terms. No geographic definition is given of ‘Local Area’ for sourcing jobs during the construction phase. It is queried how this will be enforced upon developers. Amend Employment and Enterprise obligation accordingly.
Redrow Homes There is no rationale whatsoever behind the need for new developments to find Work Place Co-ordinators. Comment noted. The provision of a WPC has been removed in Such a proposal fails to meet the tests for S106’s and this whole section should be removed from the SPG. the redrafting of this obligation. The funding of Council “staff” should be from the Council Tax generated from new developments and not a condition of the development. Amend Employment and Enterprise obligation accordingly.
Abertawe Bro Paragraph 2.6 – Seeks planning obligations in respect of employment and enterprise. This seems to go The guidance refers to what may be required of a development Morgannwg NHS Trust well beyond the stated purpose of planning obligations, which are intended “to overcome obstacles which and it is accepted that not every project may be suitable for the may otherwise prevent planning permission from being granted” (Paragraph 4.7.1 of Planning Policy Wales). inclusion of social benefit clauses. However discussions have This section talks about “added value” which, even if desirable, would not meet the tests for planning taken place with the Trust and the approach has been agreed in obligations as set out in Circular 13/97. principle and detailed discussions are scheduled over the coming months.
8) Biodiversity
Consultee Comment Response/Action Meirion Howells Project Again an unsustainable wish list. We are already working to BREEAM and this is adding considerably to The inclusion of a specific obligation for biodiversity is both Management. cost. What do you mean by suggesting "improvements of biodiversity". Are we required to put bat boxes on necessary and justified. The SPG reflects the requirement of the every building? UDP in setting out design principles and proposals to safeguard and enhance the historic and ecological landscape. Its purpose is to ensure that all new development adheres to the principle of biodiversity conservation by incorporating measures that maintain and enhance biodiversity.
It is important to note that the NERC Act (2006) requires all local authorities in England and Wales to have a duty to promote and enhance biodiversity in all of their functions. The act aims to raise the profile of biodiversity and to make sure that it is considered in all local authority decisions and policies. The official wording of the legislation, in Section 40 of the Act, states that: "Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity."
Charles Church Wales The guidance is informative, easy to read and includes well presented case studies in the appendices. It is Comment noted. Ltd/ Barratt Homes generally welcomed and supported. South Wales Ltd/Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd Paragraph 2.7.3 could be amended/expanded to refer to an earlier ‘initial enquiry stage’. Planning and Comment noted. Pre application discussion should take place at Countryside officers presumably have immediate access to biodiversity information via GIS overlays which the earliest possible stage in the formulation of the planning show SINCs, SSSIs, Ancient Woodland etc. It would be helpful when initial telephone requests are made for application process. Should the applicant require further information on specific sites, if potential developers and their agents are alerted at an early stage as to information at this stage then the Principal Planning Officer – whether nature conservation interests would be likely to be affected by development. This would certainly Major Project Team will act as the central contact point and will assist in avoiding further delays later in the process and would result in more meaningful pre-application be able to provide contact details for appropriate staff members. discussions.
A further point relates to common public perceptions, often in opposing development, that the take up of land Comment noted. Paragraph 2.7.1 (Now Paragraph 3.7.1) for residential uses constitutes the main threat to biodiversity interests. It needs to be emphasised in the highlights the fact that by adhering to relevant legislation, national guidance that many other factors, including agricultural practices, air and water quality standards, trespass, and local planning policies and guidance, biodiversity action and control of pets, are also potentially damaging. Sympathetic planting and use of features in garden areas plans and other biodiversity guidance at an early stage in the such as bat and bird boxes can encourage biodiversity. planning process, developments can be achieved that also meet biodiversity objectives.
Large areas of land are currently identified in the Swansea UDP as part of the Urban Greenspace system. The highlighted issues will be considered during the forthcoming These designations will need to be reviewed in the new LDP process. Some of these areas are of not LDP process. particularly good quality in terms of both landscape and ecology (infested with knotweed etc). More flexibility should therefore be given for housing development on parts of these areas where contributions can be used for securing benefits for upgrading wider areas of open land.
Redrow Homes Recognition should be given to the fact that new residential developments in many cases can improve the Comment noted. Paragraph 2.7.1 (Now Paragraph 3.7.1) biodiversity of a locality. highlights the fact that by adhering to relevant legislation, national and local planning policies and guidance at an early stage in the planning process, developments can be achieved that also meet and in some cases surpass biodiversity objectives.
9) Public Art
Consultee Comment Response/Action Meirion Howells Project Apart from the very good example of the South Dock and its environs can you point me to any other place in Where appropriate, the provision of a contribution in the region of Management Swansea that has benefited from a public art contribution. I know of one development where a substantial 1% of the capital costs towards the provision of specific works of art work was prevented by your department in favour of an unnecessary handrail which added nothing to the public art on significant sites is not a new requirement. The function of the building. To seek now an additional 1% levy is unconceivable. ‘Percent for Art’ SPG has been in place since 1990 and to date, the Council has been successful at seeking contributions and has seen no evidence that the requirement is deterring new development in the area. Paragraph 2.5 of the SPG makes clear that each case will be considered on its own merits and that issues surrounding viability and flexibility are fully taken into account.
Charles Church Wales The inclusion of a specific section on public art is surprising as it would seem that such a requirement would The inclusion of an obligation for public art reflects the fact that Ltd/ Barratt Homes be more appropriately included in a wider section on community benefits which is absent in the current there is a specific policy (Policy EV5 – Art in the Environment) set South Wales Ltd/Taylor guidance. within the UDP and an approved ‘Percent for Art’ SPG. A Wimpey UK Ltd specific obligation for community facilities (which the provision of public art could have formed part of) was sought however the basis of the calculations provided were not based on sound evidence and could not be justified. Additional survey work/research will therefore need to be carried out by the Council where there are gaps in knowledge and understanding of the existing situation in order to inform the LDP and the subsequent review of the SPG.
In seeking a contribution of 1% of the capital costs of development towards public art on ‘significant sites’, The Council has paid due regard to the contents of Circular 13/97 and related contributions on smaller sites, the guidance does not comply with the provisions of WO Circular in the preparation of the SPG, and is satisfied that complies with 13/97 “Planning Obligations” – in being necessary, relevant to planning and directly related to the proposed national guidance. The SPG outlines the types of obligations development. likely to be sought to address the impacts of developments which occur most often. It also makes it clear that each case will be considered on its own merits.
It is accepted that in certain circumstances, for example, where there is a need to acknowledge previous Comments noted. Each case will be considered on their own uses on a site which may have a local historic or cultural significance, a public art or commemorative feature merits and the examples provided illustrate potential scenarios. would be appropriate. There may also be circumstances where an existing feature which contributes to the legibility of the development as part of the overall design considerations can be adapted or used as a basis for a public art initiative.
Taylor Wimpey (Bristol) No quantification is given as to what is meant by an “enhanced contribution” towards public art on large scale Comment noted. The reference to an “enhanced contribution” development sites. This should be clarified. towards public art on large scale development sites should be deleted as each application will be considered on their own merits in light of local circumstances.
Amend Paragraph 2.8.3 (Now Paragraph 3.8.3) accordingly.
Redrow Homes ‘Percent for Art’ is an initiative that seeks to negotiate a contribution rather than require a contribution. The Comment noted. Each of the obligations set within the SPG seek SPG should reflect this sound philosophy. to negotiate rather than require a contribution. The SPG outlines the types of obligations likely to be sought to address the impacts of developments which occur most often. It also makes it clear that each case will be considered on its own merits.
Item No. 8 (C) (2)
Report of the Cabinet Member for Economic and Strategic Development
Council – 3rd December 2009
WALES AUDIT OFFICE (WAO) REPORT “DEVELOPMENT CONTROL”
Summary
Purpose: To provide a response to the Wales Audit Office on the outstanding recommendations contained within its report on the Planning Applications Service: “Development Control – City and County of Swansea”.
Policy Framework: None.
Reason for Decision: To comply with the Council minute of 9th April 2009 that the Task Group of Members under the chairmanship of the Cabinet Member should consider and recommend on the extent to which the recommendations of the Wales Audit Office report should be implemented.
Consultation: Legal, Finance
Recommendation(s): 1. That the following recommendations of the Planning Services Task Group in relation to the outstanding recommendations of the Wales Audit Office be accepted and reported back to the Wales Audit Office:
1. Service Options That the current level of service should be maintained; 2. Strategic Direction That the strategic direction of the service should focus on the delivery of the Council’s corporate priorities with particular reference to enhanced customer service and the regeneration programme; 3. Measures of Success That the customer satisfaction surveys, Wales Audit Office service descriptors, and “speed of determination” indicators be applied to measure the success of the service; 4. Targets The targets identified in appendix 1C of the appended report be adopted initially, and revisited periodically. 1. INTRODUCTION
The Wales Audit Office’s Report on the Planning Service required the Authority to give consideration to five major recommendations. These were:
R1. Address the outstanding recommendations from the Sanders report, particularly those referring to decision making and related elected member issues.
R2. Set out clearly the service delivery options along with their workforce, service configuration, budget, performance and customer satisfaction implications;
R3. Determine a clear strategic direction for the service based on an evaluation of service delivery options;
R4. Develop valid measures of success that will enable progress to be accurately monitored;
R5. Set clear targets for achievement based on agreed measures and ensure clear accountability for meeting these targets.
At the Council meeting on 30th July 2009, Members accepted the initial findings of the Task Group concerning the first recommendation, and resolved that committee numbers and sizes should remain unchanged, and speaking rights at committees should be extended.
The Task Group was charged with giving consideration to the other four recommendations and to report back to Council. Council also resolved that the Terms of Reference of the Task Group be extended to include any further issues raised during their deliberations.
The Planning Services Member Task Group has met monthly since its inception in May. Since the report to Council in July, it has met on 19th August, 9th September, 30th October and 16th November under my chairmanship, when full consideration was given to the remaining four recommendations (R2 to R5) of the Wales Audit Office’s report, in the light of detailed reports from the Head of Planning Service, the most recent of which is appended to this report (appendix 1).
2. CONSIDERATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 2 – Set out clearly the service delivery options along with their workforce, service configuration, budget, performance and customer satisfaction implications.
The Task Group gave detailed consideration to three levels of service delivery: the current service level, a base service level meeting the statutory requirements only; and an enhanced service, all of which are described in detail in appendix 1A of the appended report. The approximate relevant costs of the three options were taken into account. The Task Group resolved that the current level of service should be maintained, with the outstanding service descriptors provided by the WAO (see appendix 1B of appended report) being implemented where possible.
Recommendation 3 – Determine a clear strategic direction for the service based on an evaluation of service delivery options
The Task Group determined that the key priority for the service should be the contribution that it makes to the delivery of the Council’s corporate and strategic objectives, with particular reference to customer service and the regeneration programme.
Recommendation 4 – Develop valid measures of success that will enable progress to be accurately monitored
The Task Group considered that the WAO service descriptors, the existing customer satisfaction surveys, and the conventional ‘speed of determination’ indicators would together provide a comprehensive range of success measures that would be an effective monitoring regime for the service.
Recommendation 5 – Set clear targets for achievement based on agreed measures and ensure clear accountability for meeting these targets
The Group proposed that the targets set out in appendix 1C to the appended report for the prescribed measures of success should be adopted initially, with periodic review.
3. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There will be no additional financial implications over and above those arising from the delivery of the current service level.
4. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
None
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the following recommendations of the Planning Services Task Group in relation to the outstanding recommendations of the Wales Audit Office be accepted and reported back to the WAO:
1. Service Options That the current level of service should be maintained;
2. Strategic Direction That the strategic direction of the service should focus on the delivery of the Council’s corporate priorities with particular reference to enhanced customer service and the regeneration programme.
3. Measures of Success That the customer satisfaction surveys, Wales Audit Office service descriptors, and “speed of determination” performance indicators be applied to measure the success of the service.
4. Targets The targets identified in the appendix 1C of the appended report be adopted initially, and reviewed periodically.
Background papers: Wales Audit Office Report
Contact: John Lock 01792 635731 Legal Officer: Rod Jones 6th November 2009
APPENDIX 1
Report of the Head of Planning Services
To the Planning Services Member Task Group – 30th October 2009
WALES AUDIT OFFICE REPORT
SERVICE DELIVERY OPTIONS AND RELATED MATTERS
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Following consideration by Council on 9th April 2009 of the Wales Audit Office (WAO) report on the planning applications service, this Task Group was set up in May 2009 to determine how and the extent to which the recommendations of the WAO report should be implemented. The group is required to report back to Council with its recommendations on 3rd December 2009, and the purpose of this report is to summarise the key issues for consideration and identify decisions required by the Group.
2 WAO REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 The WAO report contained the following five recommendations:
R1. Address the outstanding recommendations from the Sanders report, particularly those referring to decision making and related elected member issues.
R2. Set out clearly the service delivery options along with their workforce, service configuration, budget, performance and customer satisfaction implications.
R3. Determine a clear strategic direction for the service based on an evaluation of service delivery options.
R4. Develop valid measures of success that will enable progress to be accurately monitored.
R5. Set clear targets for achievement based on agreed measures and ensure clear accountability for meeting these targets.
2.2 Recommendation 1 was the subject of a report to Council on 30th July and has therefore been addressed. The remaining recommendations are reviewed in the following sections.
APPENDIX 1
3 WAO RECOMMENDATION TWO: SERVICE DELIVERY OPTIONS
3.1 The Task Group considered detailed reports setting out service delivery options at the August and September meetings when more detailed information on the costs of the three different options was requested. This has now been incorporated into the schedule of service delivery options reported to the September meeting, and which is attached as Appendix One to this report.
3.2 Service Costs
3.2.1 The planning application service consists of a number of distinct but inter- related activities. These are set out in the Appendix. Each activity has been costed based on an analysis of staff time allocations and costs. The analysis shows that a minimum statutory service would cost approximately 82% of the existing budget, whilst an enhanced service would cost an additional 11% approximately.
3.2.2 As explained in the previous report whilst the service has been almost self- financing in recent years due to healthy fee income, in 2008/09 a dramatic fall in fee income because of the recession resulted in a budget shortfall of approximately £500,000. For 2009/10 the projected total cost of the planning applications service is approximately £1,541K whereas the projected fee income for the year is £1,010K. Whilst fee income has risen in recent months it is not anticipated that it will be sufficient to cover the total cost of the service. Posts are therefore being held vacant where the opportunity presents itself in order to minimise the budget deficit, but this is having an inevitable impact on service delivery and it is considered therefore that financial considerations must inform the Task Group’s recommendations.
3.2.3 There is also the potential to raise additional income by charging for pre- application advice, a subject which has been discussed briefly by the Group in previous meetings. However it is not possible to accurately predict at this stage how much income could be raised, and it is suggested that this is a subject which the Group could consider in more detail in 2010, as part of any future work programme. What also needs to be borne in mind, is that if introduced Swansea would be the only local authority in Wales that charges and the effect this may have on prospective developers particularly in a time of recession.
APPENDIX 1
3.3 Existing Service Levels
3.3.1 The existing service level is described in Appendix One and also analysed against the service ‘descriptors’ or indicators of best practice recommended by the WAO to help the Council identify the most appropriate service delivery option. This was reported to the Task Group on 19th August and the relevant part of the report is attached as Appendix Two.
3.4 Alternative Service Assumptions
3.4.1 It is envisaged that the minimum or base service, as described in the Appendix, would meet the Council’s statutory requirements and no more. Therefore it would not provide pre-application guidance, or seek to negotiate improvements to applications for proposed schemes; it would not provide corporate regeneration advice and guidance, and would not develop Supplementary Planning Guidance that advises developers of the Council’s requirements and informs decision making. Elements of the democratic process, in terms of numbers of committee site visits, and the granting of audience rights to third parties, would have to be reviewed.
3.4.2 The enhanced service, again as described in the Appended schedule, would in essence be pro-active rather than reactive, and would look to use more staff resources at the “front end” of the process to guide and advise applicants and interested parties. For example weekly surgeries, as discussed at the last meeting, could be held to provide “drop-in” guidance for Swansea residents. Additional professional staff would be employed to speed the determination of applications (additional officers involved in internal consultations, such as Highways development control officers, would also be required), including an additional architect/urban designer to develop schemes with applicants.
3.4.3 The current service level as viewed is positioned between these two levels.
3.5 Implications of Service Changes
3.5.1 The provision of a minimum or base service would be contrary to the objectives of the last Corporate Plan, which required the provision of a full pre-application advice service. The full reinstatement of the service has proved to be very popular with applicants and agents and this is reflected in the high level of customer satisfaction recorded in the quarterly surveys.
3.5.2 The contribution of the service’s major projects team to the regeneration of the City and County and the delivery of strategic and corporate priorities is a key element in the Council’s corporate approach to regeneration. The withdrawal of these services would not only be contrary to a key Corporate priority, but would also have a serious negative effect on the City’s regeneration programme. APPENDIX 1
3.5.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance, such as the Householder Design Guide and the forthcoming S106 Planning Obligations policy, plays a very important role in the development control process. It would be counter-productive to cancel further SPG, such as guidance on new residential development, AONB/rural design guidance, and a review of the parking guidelines.
3.5.4 The introduction of a base line service would also require a review of the democratic process and whilst Council have recently reaffirmed Members’ wishes to see the current Committee structure maintained, the introduction of third party speaking rights does have resource implications and would need to be reviewed.
3.5.5 The enhanced service would involve additional staff resources, which would have clear cost implications. However both customer satisfaction levels and performance would be improved, and the quality of development would also be enhanced through the additional help and guidance given to all applicants and developers at every stage of the planning process.
3.6 Performance and Customer Satisfaction
3.6.1 Previous reports to the Task Group have demonstrated that the current planning application service is achieving high levels of customer satisfaction, based on the quarterly customer surveys, with performance in terms of the total numbers of planning applications determined within eight weeks fluctuating between 54% and 65% per quarter in the last 18 months. More detailed information on performance over the last 18 months is provided in Appendix Three, and the issue of setting appropriate targets is addressed in section 6 below. However it should be noted that due to the shortfall in planning application fee income and the budget pressures facing the Council as a whole, the service is currently operating with a principal officer post in one of the area teams frozen, a planning assistant on secondment to another section, and the posts of Customer Service and Business Manager and Principal Buildings Conservation Officer also frozen. This has inevitably had an adverse impact on the planning applications service particularly in relation to the Customer Services/Business Manager post, the creation of which was a recommendation of the Sanders Report, and which plays a key role in the delivery of service improvements and interaction with all the services’ customers. The filling of any post now has to be considered in the context of the Workforce Retention Strategy and clearly there will be consequences for service delivery if this post in particular is not filled.
APPENDIX 1
3.7 Conclusions
3.7.1 It is considered that budget considerations will be a key factor in determining the level of service that the planning applications service will provide. As explained above the existing service will require subsidy, due to the fall in application fee income in the last two years, whilst the cost of even the minimum service would not be covered by existing levels of fee income. However these are decisions for Cabinet and Council, and this Group’s primary function is to advise Council on the level of service that it thinks the planning applications service should provide, and Members’ decision, whilst considering financial constraints, has to also take into account other factors.
3.7.2 Nevertheless, for the reasons given in paragraph 3.4.1 to 3.5.4 above, the minimum service level is not considered to be a realistic option, and whilst the enhanced service represents an ideal solution, it must also be questioned whether this is a deliverable alternative at the present time.
3.7.3 The Task Group are therefore recommended to focus on the existing service level as the preferred options to consider whether there are any aspects of the current service they would wish to changes and to advise in particular on the performance standards for speed in decision making which they consider to be appropriate.
4. WAO RECOMMENDATION THREE: STRATEGIC DIRECTION
4.1 This recommendation suggests the determination of a clear strategic direction for the service, based on an evaluation of service delivery options. Subject to members’ agreement it is considered that the strategic direction for the service would be based on the identification of customer responsiveness and satisfaction as the key priorities, at the expense of speed in decision making only should there be a conflict between the two. A second key priority should also be the contribution that the service makes to the delivery of the Council’s strategic and corporate priorities and the regeneration agenda in particular.
5. WAO RECOMMENDATION FOUR: SUCCESS MEASURES
5.1 This recommendation suggests the development of valid measures of success that will enable progress to be accurately monitored, and the WAO report refers to the service descriptors listed in Appendix Two as a tool for achieving this objective. APPENDIX 1
5.2 It is considered that the service descriptors, the existing customer satisfaction surveys, and the conventional ‘speed of determination’ indicators would together provide a comprehensive range of success measures that would provide an effective monitoring regime for the service.
6. WAO RECOMMENDATION FIVE: TARGETS
6.1 This recommendation suggests the setting of clear targets for achievement based on agreed measures and clear accountability for achieving those targets.
6.2 Suggested targets for the service best practice indicators referred to above i.e. for dealing with different categories of planning application within 8 or 13 weeks, the achievement of the WAO service ‘descriptors’ and customer satisfaction levels, are set out in the final column of Appendix Three, as a basis for discussion at the meeting.
6.3 In terms of accountability for the achievement of all targets that are set, responsibilities will be clearly stated in the Annual Service Pan and the individual performance statements of relevant staff.
7. NEXT STEPS
7.1 Following today’s meeting a draft report to Council on 3rd December will be proposed setting out the Task Group’s views on the WAO report’s recommendations. The draft report will be presented to the next meeting of the Group on Monday 16th November for final approval.
7.2 It is also suggested that a report on the potential future work programme of the Task Group be presented to the next meeting. Issues which have been raised by members in previous meetings and which would benefit from further consideration include:
• Charging for pre-application advice.
• Speaking rights at Planning Committees – Detailed protocol.
• Scheme of Delegation including Member ‘call in’ procedures.
• Review of planning decisions/developments. APPENDIX 1 A
REPORT TO THE PLANNING SERVICES MEMBER TASK GROUP 30th OCTOBER 2009
SERVICE DELIVERY OPTIONS INCLUDING SERVICE COSTS
Ref SERVICE CURRENT SERVICE MINIMUM ENHANCED SERVICE COMMENTS ELEMENT STATUTORY SERVICE STATUTORY STATUTORY DESCRIPTOR WAO SERVICE REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT
1. General Pre- Pre-application guidance is given to No Pre-application Service As current service plus: No Yes This was a Corporate Aim Application all who request it on the need for Given; set in the Corporate Plan Service planning permission, and all other Provision of an increased ‘08/’09 & was achieved in & swifter pro-active pre- consents, the likelihood of Cessation of Production of December ’08. SPG’s (Residential Design application service for all permission being granted, and the applications; Guide etc.) The take up of this service practicalities of making an application. The recently adopted Introduction of surgeries has been high, with 81% of UDP and Supplementary Planning for Householder applicants responding to Guidance (SPG), where relevant Development; our survey in the second and available, provide the basis for quarter of ‘09 having used Continued Development this guidance, together with on-line the service. of SPG’s for: and published procedural Gower & Rural information. Meetings are held with Development; New developers once they have Residential Development; prepared sketch proposals. Car Parking Standards Consultations with relevant internal etc. sections (Environmental Health,
Highways, Nature Conservation etc.) are undertaken, and written appraisals of the schemes are provided. APPENDIX 1 A
REPORT TO THE PLANNING SERVICES MEMBER TASK GROUP 30th OCTOBER 2009
SERVICE DELIVERY OPTIONS INCLUDING SERVICE COSTS
2. Major Dev’nt Guidance on major developments No pre-application service As now, but with faster No Yes Anecdotal evidence from Pre-Application that require an Environmental provided, other than formal response times and more agents for major developers Guidance Impact Assessment (EIA) includes screening & scoping of comprehensive guidance is that they find the depth applications requiring on relevant matters, e.g. assisting and guiding the developer and speed of the pre-app. Environment Impact design and his agents through the EIA Assessments. service given by CCS to be scoping and screening comparable with the better requirements that necessitate the Authorities they deal with., LPA being the co-ordinating body & are pleasantly surprised for consultation with statutory that it is free. bodies such as the Countryside Council for Wales, the Environment Agency, the Health & Safety Executive etc.
Service Costs £214K £124K £260K 18% of Section’s current time. (loss of 2 Senior Officers (additional Principal (SO) & service restricted to Officer post) guidance on procedures & EIA screening only) APPENDIX 1 A
REPORT TO THE PLANNING SERVICES MEMBER TASK GROUP 30th OCTOBER 2009
SERVICE DELIVERY OPTIONS INCLUDING SERVICE COSTS
Ref SERVICE CURRENT SERVICE MINIMUM ENHANCED SERVICE COMMENTS ELEMENT STATUTORY SERVICE STATUTORY STATUTORY DESCRIPTOR WAO SERVICE REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT 3. Processing of The processing of applications Restricted service being re- Develop service in line 86% of applicants who Applications conforms to the statutory active & not pro-active. with unmet WAO Service responded to the customer requirements of relevant Planning Descriptors . Sets & survey in the 2nd quarter of meets higher targets for Legislation and Orders. The ’09 were satisfied with the speed of the following practices are adopted determination of determination process. above and beyond these statutory applications. requirements: A restriction on the service could give rise to reduced customer satisfaction; increased refusals & more appeals; increased complaints to the Council; public view of the Council as being non-interactive; political implications of reduced role of DC Committees.
3.1 Consultations Consultations and advertising of Meets the minimum As now. In Part Yes Responses from third party proposals exceeds the statutory statutory requirements respondents in the 2nd minimum in order that all those defined in the Orders, fewer quarter of ’09 should that APPENDIX 1 A
REPORT TO THE PLANNING SERVICES MEMBER TASK GROUP 30th OCTOBER 2009
SERVICE DELIVERY OPTIONS INCLUDING SERVICE COSTS
potentially affected by a letters sent & notices 78% of interested parties development know of it; all letters posted. felt adequate consultation received are acknowledged and had been undertaken, with reported, but particular 4% hearing of proposals points/questions raised in from neighbours & not the correspondence are not always LPA. responded to individually. Requests for meetings/site visits from 3rd parties are agreed.
3.2 Negotiations Negotiations are undertaken with No negotiations are entered Negotiations are entered No Yes Survey results show that developers where it is considered into. into with all applicants to 81% of applicants & agents that an application can be amended achieve improved are satisfied with the schemes, rather than to achieve improvements and constructive contact of seek amendments to enable approval of a scheme; failing schemes to enable officers processing their a positive applications. recommendation to be made, with swifter However, the amount of response times. negotiation has to be balanced with the extent that developers & their agents heed pre-application guidance when it has been sought.
Meetings are held with interested Not held. As now, but with ward No Yes This service is restricted to parties where appropriate, & with member involvement planning issues relevant to Ward Members; being formalised to be the the application. rule rather than the APPENDIX 1 A
REPORT TO THE PLANNING SERVICES MEMBER TASK GROUP 30th OCTOBER 2009
SERVICE DELIVERY OPTIONS INCLUDING SERVICE COSTS
exception.
Service Costs £682K £643K £727K 55% of Section’s current time. (SO post lost) (additional PO post) APPENDIX 1 A
REPORT TO THE PLANNING SERVICES MEMBER TASK GROUP 30th OCTOBER 2009
SERVICE DELIVERY OPTIONS INCLUDING SERVICE COSTS
Ref SERVICE CURRENT SERVICE MINIMUM ENHANCED SERVICE COMMENTS Y
ELEMENT WAO
STATUTORY SERVICE SERVICE REQUIREM STATUTOR DESCRIPTO 3.3 E.Govt. IT and the Web are used to Withdrawal of provision of As now, but with No Yes There are initiatives by facilitate the submission of on-line application increased information the Westminster electronic applications; to provide information. On-line being provided on major Government & WAG to submissions received. on-line information on applications; applications through the secure the provision of to enable the making of introduction of full government services and representations on applications; document imaging information through the and the provision of images at facilities. Web. CCS has complied Committees to improve the with requirements. presentation of applications; Applications can now be submitted on-line through the “Planning Portal”, forms can be down loaded, observations & objections can be made, & submissions viewed.
47% of interested parties used this facility in the 2nd quarter of ’09, an increase of 18% on the average usage in 07/08. APPENDIX 1 A
REPORT TO THE PLANNING SERVICES MEMBER TASK GROUP 30th OCTOBER 2009
SERVICE DELIVERY OPTIONS INCLUDING SERVICE COSTS
Service Costs Included in the administrative Included in the Included in the cost of processing applications administrative cost of administrative cost of processing applications processing applications but saving £20K but with additional capital cost of imaging (SC1/2 post lost) system (£100K approx.)
3.4 Customer A Customer User Group of local No customer involvement. As now, but with No Yes Current practice is in line Involvement architects and consultants has been development of user with WAG Best Practice, established, which is used to focus groups to develop and has the intentions of disseminate information on the service. not only informing agents professional issues and to obtain of legislative changes & feed back on the service. This professional issues, but supplements the 100% user survey establishes a spirit of that is undertaken of service users. partnership in the development management process which historically has been too adversarial.
Service Costs Included in the administrative Included in the Included in the cost of processing applications administrative cost of management cost of processing applications the Service but saving £12K
(0.5 SC2/3 post lost +annual cost of survey APPENDIX 1 A
REPORT TO THE PLANNING SERVICES MEMBER TASK GROUP 30th OCTOBER 2009
SERVICE DELIVERY OPTIONS INCLUDING SERVICE COSTS
processing )
Combined Combined saving of £32K Capital cost of £100K Service Costs (approx.)
APPENDIX 1 A
REPORT TO THE PLANNING SERVICES MEMBER TASK GROUP 30th OCTOBER 2009
SERVICE DELIVERY OPTIONS INCLUDING SERVICE COSTS
Ref SERVICE CURRENT SERVICE MINIMUM ENHANCED SERVICE COMMENTS
ELEMENT NT STATUTORY SERVICE WAO SERVICE REQUIREME STATUTORY STATUTORY DESCRIPTOR 4. Post decision Interested parties & consultees are No post decision contact As now. No Yes This either provides service informed of decisions; with interested parties. “closure” for third parties or alerts them to the need to consider further action should they be aggrieved through Judicial Review or complaint to the Ombudsman.
4.1 On request guidance is given to No guidance given. At present it is re- No Yes This is the positive side to applicants/agents to enable active, with the LPA post refusal activities, and refused schemes to be amended waiting for applicants & is another form of pre- where appropriate; agents to seek post application guidance. refusal guidance. An enhanced service would offer the service as well as the current practice of providing details of appeal procedures when they are notified of the APPENDIX 1 A
REPORT TO THE PLANNING SERVICES MEMBER TASK GROUP 30th OCTOBER 2009
SERVICE DELIVERY OPTIONS INCLUDING SERVICE COSTS
decision.
4.2 On Request guidance is given to No service given As now, but with No Yes This is a facet of the pre- applicants/agents on compliance recommended action in application service. with conditions attached to terms of use of permissions. materials etc. being provided as a rule rather on request.
4.3 Applications for post-decision Statutory 8 week period is Improved speed of Yes Yes There is a statutory 8 week approvals are determined as quickly met. determination & targets period for the processing of as possible but not always within set for less than eight details submitted to comply eight weeks weeks. with conditions. This is usually complied with.
Service Costs £124K £124K £160K 9% of Section’s current time. (additional SO post) APPENDIX 1 A
REPORT TO THE PLANNING SERVICES MEMBER TASK GROUP 30th OCTOBER 2009
SERVICE DELIVERY OPTIONS INCLUDING SERVICE COSTS
Ref SERVICE CURRENT SERVICE MINIMUM ENHANCED SERVICE COMMENTS Y
ELEMENT WAO
STATUTORY SERVICE SERVICE REQUIREM STATUTOR DESCRIPTO 5. The corporate The Major Projects Team provides None provided. As now, more staff time No Yes This is part of the dimension to planning guidance both to external allocated to it, with Corporate Aim of service delivery developers and to the Council’s compensatory re- providing seamless regeneration teams as well as allocation of case work to service delivery for major processing major applications. This the Area Teams. projects. ensures the provision of full design and policy guidance at the inaugural stages of corporately promoted and supported development schemes, and meets the Council’s stated aim of “joined-up” governance.
Service Costs £91K - £136K 4% of Section’s current time. (additional PO post) APPENDIX 1 A
REPORT TO THE PLANNING SERVICES MEMBER TASK GROUP 30th OCTOBER 2009
SERVICE DELIVERY OPTIONS INCLUDING SERVICE COSTS
Ref SERVICE CURRENT SERVICE MINIMUM ENHANCED SERVICE COMMENTS
ELEMENT NT STATUTORY SERVICE WAO SERVICE REQUIREME STATUTORY STATUTORY DESCRIPTOR 6. Democracy & Management of the Service & Management servicing of Planning Committee, Area Committees, site visits, agenda prep etc.
Service Costs £121K £99K £121K 6% of Section’s current time. (loss of 0.5 PO on (no additional services committee related duties) proposed) APPENDIX 1 A
REPORT TO THE PLANNING SERVICES MEMBER TASK GROUP 30th OCTOBER 2009
SERVICE DELIVERY OPTIONS INCLUDING SERVICE COSTS
Ref SERVICE CURRENT SERVICE MINIMUM ENHANCED SERVICE COMMENTS
ELEMENT NT STATUTORY SERVICE WAO SERVICE REQUIREME STATUTORY STATUTORY DESCRIPTOR 7. Appeals & £105K £105K £105K 8% of the Section’s Searches time. Searches are a statutory responsibility. The appeal work will diminish with the filling of the Appeal Team Leader’s post.
TOTAL SERVICE £1,337K £1,063K £1,509K The Base Service COSTS would save 18% of the (+ £100K Capital cost) Current Service costs, These are staff costs & the Enhanced only & exclude costs of Service an additional advertising of 11%. applications, ICT, training, etc. which currently adds approx. £204K APPENDIX 1 A
REPORT TO THE PLANNING SERVICES MEMBER TASK GROUP 30th OCTOBER 2009
SERVICE DELIVERY OPTIONS INCLUDING SERVICE COSTS
8. Performance No specific targets are currently set 80% target for dealing with Suggested improved Yes Yes In addition to these targets, targets for the service, pending the all applications could targets based on similar informal ones are set for outcome of this review. However, possibly be achieved but English authorities (WAG the provision of pre- has not published targets the targets for the service set in only on the basis of no application guidance & the other than the blanket 07/08 are given below: negotiations, reduced 80% of all applications extant of negotiations committee site visits, high within 8 weeks): entered into. Internal • 50% of major applications to be refusal rates, high appeal • 60% of major performance targets for determined within 13 weeks; allowed rates etc. applications to be each stage of the • 40 % of minor applications to determined within 13 processing of applications be determined within 8 weeks; weeks; are set & monitored. • 70% of householder • 65% of minor applications to be determined applications to be within 8 weeks ; determined within 8 • 65% of all other applications to weeks; be determined within 8 weeks ; • 80% of all other • 65% of all applications to be applications to be determined within 8 weeks; determined within 8 • 90% of applications to be weeks approved; • 100% achieved against POSW Quality of Service indicators.
APPENDIX 1B Report to the Planning Services Member Task Group 30th October 2009 WAO’s Descriptors of a Local Planning Authority Development Control Service with CCS’s Performance
OBJECTIVE D.1. THE SERVICE IS OPEN, FAIR AND TRANSPARENT Ref Descriptor of a Service that Meets In Place? Action Timescale Perform- the Objective & mile- ance stones Indicator
D.1.1 There is a user-friendly code of conduct Yes, but to be reviewed by Review Code 31/06/09 Code of dealing with the authority’s decision making the Officer Working Group. Conduct procedures and expected conduct of those available. councillors and officers involved in the planning process.
D.1.2. Advice is timely, clear and concise. Yes. Pre-app guidance is Introduction of full pre- See 1.6 Introduction of given within 6 weeks of application service (see above full service request in most cases. 1.6 above) Targets to be reviewed by the Officer Working Group.
D.1.3 Written guidance is available on how the Subject to Council approval SPG in preparation Report to Consultation Council will use and implement legal on 3rd December 09. Council on undertaken. agreements. 03/12/09
SPG adopted SPG adopted by 31/07/09
D.1.4 Written guidance is available on how to Yes – The Web site, printed Need to bring together On going Composite make a planning application and the role of guidance & Portal provide all relevant information document third parties and how they can make comprehensive advice into coherent series of published on representations on a planning proposal. documents. web & in hard copy D.1.5 Officer’s reports contain a fair description of Yes Published reports, On going Minutes of audit the application, a summary of consultation including delegated, meetings responses, relevant planning policies, an provide evidence of this Page 1 of 12 Last amended: 25/11/2009 @ 5:41:41 PM
APPENDIX 1B Report to the Planning Services Member Task Group 30th October 2009 WAO’s Descriptors of a Local Planning Authority Development Control Service with CCS’s Performance analysis of these factors and a descriptor, and are all recommendation. signed off by Team Leaders, Applications Manager or Head of Service.
D.1.6 Mechanisms are in place for third parties to Yes in part. Currently only Report on rights of On going Amendments to have the opportunity to be heard at petitioners have rights of audience for all Constitution & Planning Committee and written information audience. interested parties at DC implementation is available to explain how this process Committees has been of scheme operates. presented to CWG, and agreed in principle. Details of scheme are under consideration by the Member Task Group.
D.1.7 Sound planning reasons are given, in Yes All reports and decision On going Planning writing, for decisions. notices contain this application information. Committee reports & decisions are minuted, decision including decisions that Notices are contrary to officer recommendations
Page 2 of 12 Last amended: 25/11/2009 @ 5:41:41 PM
APPENDIX 1B Report to the Planning Services Member Task Group 30th October 2009 WAO’s Descriptors of a Local Planning Authority Development Control Service with CCS’s Performance
OBJECTIVE D.2. THE SERVICE INSPIRES PUBLIC AND BUSINESS CONFIDENCE. Ref. Descriptor of a Service that Meets In Place? Action Timescale Perform- the Objective & mile- ance stones Indicator
D.2.1 Corporate arrangements, such as using a Yes Close liaison takes On going Provision of named officer, are in place to co-ordinate a place with Regeneration Service response to major development enquiries. Dept. on all major applications.
D.2.2 The authority is consistent in the advice it Yes - in part. Officer advice & Implement Sanders Reviews of gives and the decisions it makes. decisions are consistent with Report appeal planning policies but recommendations (see decisions, Committee decisions do not 1.3, 1.4 & 1.5 above). awards of costs, always follow officer advice. JR’s, Ombudsman & other complaints, & DC Audit minutes
D.2.3 All elected members undergo training prior Yes, but needs reviewing in Chairs attended T&CP 25/02/2009 Conference to making planning decisions. the light of D.2.2 above & Conference. attended Saunders Report recommendations at 1.2, 1.4 & 1.5 above
Page 3 of 12 Last amended: 25/11/2009 @ 5:41:41 PM
APPENDIX 1B Report to the Planning Services Member Task Group 30th October 2009 WAO’s Descriptors of a Local Planning Authority Development Control Service with CCS’s Performance
Members’ Seminar on Section 106 22/04/2009 Seminar held Planning Obligations.
Seminar on WAO report Feb. 09 Seminar held
Members’ Seminar on Enforcement 10/06/2009 Seminar held Action.
D.2.4 Planning decisions are made Yes Refer to officer report (delegated and based on sound planning criteria committee). to minimise challenges, appeals D1.5 refers. and awards of costs.
D.2.5 Arrangements are in place for Yes. Customer Continued engagement. On going Minutes of User seeking stakeholders’ views and feedback forms in Forum these are used to inform policy regular use, with meetings, & and service delivery. responses being minutes of analysed. Agent forum stakeholder is now in place and meetings. meetings held with other stake holders (EA, CCW, GGAT etc.)
D.2.6 The authority pursues an effective Yes Adoption of Model Enforcement On going Continued enforcement policy in line with Standards for Wales produced by compliance with best practice and published POSW in Feb 2005; POSW service standards. standards Quarterly monitoring reports to Area Committees. D.2.7 There are no probity issues that Yes - Code of Conduct See D.2.3 above could undermine public in Constitution; confidence; Conduct of Committee Meetings complies & is monitored
Page 4 of 12 Last amended: 25/11/2009 @ 5:41:41 PM
APPENDIX 1B Report to the Planning Services Member Task Group 30th October 2009 WAO’s Descriptors of a Local Planning Authority Development Control Service with CCS’s Performance D.2.8 The service compares well No recent bench Review needed of selected comparable On going Outcome of against other similar authorities marking with similar authorities in England & Wales. review authorities undertaken. Comparators to be: POSW survey; Gwbert compliance; Pendleton points; KPI’s.
D.2.9 The authority can demonstrate Yes - In part (through Review to be developed. On going Review that it is sharing good practice POSW initiatives). undertaken and innovative ideas with others.
D.2.10 There are no critical audit and Yes – In part WAO has This exercise 31/03/09 Action Plan ombudsman findings. identified areas for adopted. service improvement in this report.
Yes - The Analysis of data annually Annual Review Ombudsman has review undertaken found against the Service 5 times in 35 complaints in the last 3 years;).
D.2.11 There is a low level of sustainable Yes - Corp Complaints Analysis of data annually Annual Review complaints. have been found to be review undertaken justified in 2 cases in 83 complaints in the last 3 years. (These figures are independently verified).
Page 5 of 12 Last amended: 25/11/2009 @ 5:41:41 PM
APPENDIX 1B Report to the Planning Services Member Task Group 30th October 2009 WAO’s Descriptors of a Local Planning Authority Development Control Service with CCS’s Performance
D.2.12 Press reporting is generally Mixed Monitor EP Annual Review positive. review undertaken
Be pro-active in conjunction with P.R. Annual Review Section; & respond to critical articles in a review undertaken consistent & constructive manner.
D.2.13 The service is cost effective Yes – in part. Review Comparative review needed via POSW Annual Review of Service undertaken & CIPFA data review undertaken as part of BIB process, but comparison with other LPA’s needed.
Page 6 of 12 Last amended: 25/11/2009 @ 5:41:41 PM
APPENDIX 1B Report to the Planning Services Member Task Group 30th October 2009 WAO’s Descriptors of a Local Planning Authority Development Control Service with CCS’s Performance
OBJECTIVE D.3. THE SERVICE IS CONTINUALLY IMPROVING THE QUALITY AND RESPONSIVENESS OF ITS OUTCOMES Ref. Descriptor of a Service In Place? Action Time Perform- that Meets the Objective scale & ance mile- Indicator stones
D.3.1 There are effective performance Yes – KPI ‘s reported Ongoing N/A Publication of management arrangements in quarterly & published KPI’s place with annually published annually. performance plans and evaluation.
D.3.2 The service has systematic Yes – User surveys Ongoing & annual review in-hand. N/A Production of arrangements for obtaining user are undertaken on report & Action feedback and uses this to help every application. Plan drive service improvement. Feedback is analysed & used to inform Action Plan
D.3.3 Outcomes and service standards In part. Customer Charter being produced On going Draft circulated are clearly defined. Refer to WAO report recs.
On going Charter published D.3.4 Corporately agreed arrangements Yes Ongoing are in place to deliver and review planning policy.
D.3.5 The agreed Local Development LDP process is to be WAG approval of Delivery Agreement Agreed with Timetable met Plan Delivery Agreement formally commenced. now obtained WAG timetable is adhered to.
Page 7 of 12 Last amended: 25/11/2009 @ 5:41:41 PM
APPENDIX 1B Report to the Planning Services Member Task Group 30th October 2009 WAO’s Descriptors of a Local Planning Authority Development Control Service with CCS’s Performance D.3.6 Resources are adequate to Currently under review See 1.2 above deliver the standards of service in light of introduction identified. of pre-app service & level of application submissions
D.3.7 The authority has a track record In part. Historic Reports taken to P&FM (in brief monthly Staff retained Establishment of retaining staff and has problem has been & more fully quarterly). & when not, maintained at conditions of service which enable addressed (pay Current recession & budgetary suitable planned levels them to fill vacated posts. supplement & PO JE implications of fee reduction have led to recruits exercise), redeployment of some DC staff & the found non-filling of vacancies.
D.3.8 The service meets the ‘Investors Yes – IIP status Reviewed as & when considered On going Retention of IIP in People’ standard for the achieved. appropriate by awarding body status. training and development of its work force.
D.3.9 ICT is being used effectively to In part. improve service delivery.
Introduction of M3 to Review annually. Review Action Plan facilitate web based undertaken & prepared. customer services. findings incorporated into Section’s Activity Analysis/ Action Plan.
OS base maps out of Replacement of Landmap OS base with 31/03/09. Mastermap in date. Mastermap place.
Scanning of Investigate internal & external proposals Review by Review applications inefficient for the provision of IMS 30/06/09 undertaken & time consuming Page 8 of 12 Last amended: 25/11/2009 @ 5:41:41 PM
APPENDIX 1B Report to the Planning Services Member Task Group 30th October 2009 WAO’s Descriptors of a Local Planning Authority Development Control Service with CCS’s Performance process because failure to install Document & Image Management System (IMS) system (Filenet).
D.3.10 The service uses comparative In part. To be reviewed (see D.2.8 above) Annual Review data to help drive improvement by the Officer Working review undertaken Group
Page 9 of 12 Last amended: 25/11/2009 @ 5:41:41 PM
APPENDIX 1B Report to the Planning Services Member Task Group 30th October 2009 WAO’s Descriptors of a Local Planning Authority Development Control Service with CCS’s Performance
OBJECTIVE D.4 THE SERVICE IS CITIZEN-FOCUSED Ref. Descriptor of a Service In Place? Action Timescale Perform- that Meets the Objective & mile- ance stones Indicator
D.4.1 Reception areas are accessible to Yes – use of Contact On going Annual Review all and provide appropriate public Centre has addressed review undertaken facilities such as meeting rooms, these issues. toilets, access to the authority’s website and access to information generally.
D.4.2 Mechanisms are in place to Yes. Comprehensive See 1.6 above Annual Review ensure that there is reasonable Pre-application service review undertaken access to advice to all parties in re-introduced. all aspects of the planning service.
D.4.3 A full range of planning policies, In part – UDP, SPG’s See D.1.1 above Annual Review procedures and standards of & other guidance review undertaken service are publicly available in available in hard copy user-friendly format. & on the web.
Customer Charter in preparation. D.4.4 The service is accessible to Yes On going Departmental Review seldom heard groups. Annual undertaken Equality Impact Assessment Review.
D.4.5 Plain language is used in all Yes On going Annual Review Page 10 of 12 Last amended: 25/11/2009 @ 5:41:41 PM
APPENDIX 1B Report to the Planning Services Member Task Group 30th October 2009 WAO’s Descriptors of a Local Planning Authority Development Control Service with CCS’s Performance planning documents. review undertaken
D.4.6 Planning documents are available Yes On going Annual Review on request in Welsh and other review undertaken language translations and other formats.
D.4.7 Pre-application consultations are Yes See 1.6 above widely available.
D.4.8 Planning applicants are provided Yes – Case officer None Annual Review with the name of the relevant name & contact details review undertaken case officer. are given on letters & the Web Site.
D.4.9 Development Control application In part. Annual Review files are always readily available review undertaken for public inspection in paper form Public access is Review access to current files. and electronically, and include all restricted to Part 1 matters relevant to the application (deposit copy) only of including case notes, consultee the Register until after responses, correspondence from determination, after third parties and other relevant which the whole file information. becomes available.
.
Web based Corporate Doc. Man. Issue. (see D.3.9 Annual Review information is above) review undertaken restricted in terms of amount of information available on current files (issues with the size of files that can be scanned etc.), and is restricted on historic Page 11 of 12 Last amended: 25/11/2009 @ 5:41:41 PM
APPENDIX 1B Report to the Planning Services Member Task Group 30th October 2009 WAO’s Descriptors of a Local Planning Authority Development Control Service with CCS’s Performance files to last 2 years
D.4.10 Planning Committee papers are Yes. Available on the On going Annual Review user-friendly for members of the Council’s Web Site & review undertaken public. in hard copy on request.
D.4.11 Planning decisions are made Yes. Available on the On going Annual Review publicly available e.g., using ICT Council’s Web Site & review undertaken effectively to communicate with in hard copy on users, stakeholders and the request. public.
Page 12 of 12 Last amended: 25/11/2009 @ 5:41:41 PM
APPENDIX 1 C REPORT TO THE PLANNING SERVICES MEMBER TASK GROUP 30th OCTOBER 2009
PERFORMANCE TARGETS PROPOSED PI’S % 08/09 % Qu’s 07/08 10/11 1&2 09/10 % of Major Applications determined in < 13 30% 16% 50% 40% Weeks1 % of Minor Applications determined in < 8 44% 36% 40% 40% Weeks2 % of Householder Applications 71% 71% 70% 70% determined in < 8 Weeks3 % of Other Applications determined in < 8 51% 42% 65% 60% Weeks % of All Applications determined in < 8 58% 57% 65% 60% Weeks % of applications approved 78% 79% 90% 85%
POSW Quality of Service Indicators 100% 100% 100% 100%
WAO Indicators of Best Practice 63% 63%4 None set 95%
Applicants’ Satisfaction with Pre-App service No Survey in None set 85% service hand given Applicants’ Satisfaction with 83% 88%5 None set 85% Service 3rd Parties’ satisfaction with service 77% 72% None set 75%
1 For dwellings, a major development is one where the number of units is 10 or more, or has a site area of 0.5 hectares or more. For all other uses, a major development is one where the floorspace is 1000m2 or more, or where the site area is 1 hectare or more. 2 For dwellings, minor development is one where the number of units is between 1 and 9, or has a site area of less than 0.5 hectares. For all other uses, a minor development is one where the floor space is less than 1,000m2 or where the site area is less than 1 hectare. 3 Householder developments are developments within the curtilage of residential property which create no additional dwellings. 4 34% are met in part 5 1st quarter only. Item No. 8 (C) (3)
Report of the Cabinet Member for Economic and Strategic Development
Council – 3rd December 2009
PLANNING SERVICES MEMBER TASK GROUP – WORK PROGRAMME
Summary
Purpose: To provide information on the future work programme of the Planning Services Member Task Group further to the extension of the Group’s terms of reference by Council at its meeting on the 30th July 2009.
Policy Framework: None.
Reason: For Information
Consultation: Legal, Finance
Recommendation: It is recommended that the work programme set out in Appendix A be noted.
1. INTRODUCTION
Members will be aware that at the meeting of Council on 30th July the remit of the Planning Services Member Task Group was extended to address additional service issues beyond those identified by the Wales Audit Office in its report entitled “Development Control – City & County of Swansea”, once the initial work of considering the Audit Office report had been completed.
2. THE WORK PROGRAMME
The areas of service to be considered are set out in the appendix. These will be reported back to Council in due course, and additional areas for consideration identified if and when appropriate.
3. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None 4. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
None
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the work programme set out in Appendix A be noted.
Background papers: Wales Audit Office Report Contact: John Lock 01792 635731 Legal Officer: Rod Jones 01792 637652 17th November 2009 APPENDIX A
PLANNING SERVICES MEMBER TASK GROUP – DRAFT WORK PROGRAMME & ACTION PLAN NOVEMBER 2009
REF. IDENTIFIED WORK IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN TIME TABLE & COMPLETED PROGRAMME ITEMS MILESTONES
1. Scheme of delegation Report to be presented setting out current Next meeting of this including Member “call- practice, and proposed draft protocols to address Group, followed by report in” procedures issues of “blanket call-ins”, formalising contact to Constitution Working between officers & members regarding Group to approve changes recommendations. to Constitution to enable introduction at the start of the next Municipal Year.
2. Review charging for pre- Report to be presented on practice elsewhere & Future meeting of this application guidance WAG guidance. (Done in part by report to Env., Group, followed by report service Regen & Culture Overview Board). to Council in the New Year.
3. Speaking Rights at Draft protocol to be presented concerning Future meeting of this Planning Committee detailed working of scheme (notification of rights Group, followed by report & contact with interested parties, cut-off times for to Constitution Working audience rights, points of contact, Chairs’ Group to approve changes discretion, etc.) to Constitution to enable introduction at the start of the next Municipal Year.
APPENDIX A
4. Review of planning Report to be presented setting out proposals for Future meeting of this decisions/developments. the review of selected decisions. Sanders’ Report Group, followed by report identified the need to review major application to Constitution Working decisions, appeal decisions etc. Additionally, Group to approve changes Members should have the ability to call other to Constitution to enable specific determinations to be subject to post introduction at the start of decision review. The appropriate forum for this the next Municipal Year. needs to be decided upon, as does the format of review.
5. Review achievement of Report on Service descriptors & present Action Future meeting of this WAO Service Plan for achievement group in New Year. Descriptors.
6. Review achievement of Report on target achievement & amend as Future meeting of this Service Targets appropriate group in April 2010.
7. Develop Service Report on proposed PI’s to secure the Service Future meeting of this Performance Indicators Objectives of becoming customer and quality group in New Year. orientated.
Item No. 8 (D) (1)
Report of the Cabinet Member for Finance
Council - 3rd December 2009
COUNCIL TAX BASE CALCULATION 2010/11
Summary
Purpose: This report details the calculation of the Council Tax Base for the City and County of Swansea, its Community Councils and the Swansea Bay Port Health Authority for 2010/11. The Council is required to determine the Council Tax Bases for 2010/11 by 31 December 2009
Policy Framework: None
Reason for Decision: To comply with statutory requirements.
Consultation: Legal and Finance.
Recommendation(s): It is recommended that:
1) The calculation of the Council Tax Bases for 2010/11 be approved.
2) In accordance with the Local Authorities (Calculation of Tax Base)(Wales) Regulations 1995, as amended, the amounts calculated by the City and County of Swansea Council for the Year 2010/11 shall be as set out in paragraph 4.2.
1. Council Tax Base Calculation.
1.1 The City and County of Swansea Council is required to determine the Council Tax Base for 2010/11 based on its estimated position.
1.2 The Tax Base is used by the Council to calculate its Council Tax for 2010/11.
1.3 The South Wales Police Authority and the National Rivers Authority will be informed of the Council’s Tax Base in relation to their precepts and levies.
1.4 The Tax Base must be calculated as follows:
• take the number of dwellings for each valuation band as at 31 October 2009 • adjust for the estimated changes during the year, ie. additions, reductions ( including those for disabled adaptations), deletions and exemptions • reduce by the number of discounts allowed • convert each Band to a Band D equivalent by applying the relevant multiplier, eg. for Band A multiply by 6 and divide by 9 • sum the Band D equivalent for each band • multiply this by the estimated collection rate • add the Band D equivalent of exempt class O properties, ie. dwellings owned by the Ministry of Defence
The following assumption has been made –
• the collection rate will be 97.5%.
1.5 The estimated 2010/11 Council tax Base for the whole of the City and Swansea has been calculated as 86,504. The comparable figure for 2009/10 was 85,727.
1.6 The calculation of the Council’s Tax Base is set out in Appendix A. Percentage changes are shown in Appendix B.
2. Financial Implications.
2.1 The increased tax base will be reflected in the Revenue Support Grant which the Council receives from the Welsh Assembly Government, so that there will in total only be a marginal net impact of increased income to the Council.
3. Legal Implications
3.1 There are no legal implications.
4. Recommendation
4.1 The calculation of the Council Tax Bases for 2010/11 be approved.
4.2 In accordance with the Local Authorities (Calculation of Tax Base) (Wales) Regulations 1995, as amended, the calculation by the City and County of Swansea Council for the year 2010/11 shall be:
• For the whole area 86,504
• For the area of Community Councils:
Bishopston 1,908 Clydach 2,504 Gorseinon 2,965 Gowerton 1,960 Grovesend 398 Ilston 314 Killay 2,077 Llangennith, Llanmadoc & Cheriton 483 Llangyfelach 943 Llanrhidian Higher 2,249 Llanrhidian Lower 300 LLwchwr 3,130 Mawr 724 Mumbles 9,502 Penllergaer 1,137 Pennard 1,451 Penrice 421 Pontardulais 2,061 Pontlliw 969 Port Eynon 391 Reynoldston 290 Rhossili 187 Upper Killay 562
• For the area of the Swansea Bay Port Health Authority 60,100
Appendix A – Council Tax Base 2010/11 – Calculation Appendix B – Council Tax Base 2010/11 – Percentage changes
Background Papers: None.
Contact Officer: Derek Woolley 01792 635925 Legal Officer: Rod Jones File Reference CT base 2010/11
Council Tax Base 2010/11 - Calculation
Appendix A
Band *A A B C D E F G H I Total Estimated no of 15,621 26,297 21,939 14,666 11,537 7,431 3,548 1,040 451 102,530 dwellings Disabled Dwelling 32 129 -5 -12 -7 -40 -43 -32 18 -40 Sub Total (1) 32 15,750 26,292 21,927 14,659 11,497 7,388 3,516 1,058 411 102,530 Discounts -4 -2,611 -3,300 -2,305 -1,356 -911 -484 -193 -75 -23 -11,262 Sub Total (2) 28 13,139 22,992 19,622 13,303 10,586 6,904 3,323 983 388 91,268 Ratio to Band D 5/9 6/9 7/9 8/9 9/9 11/9 13/9 15/9 18/9 21/9 Band D Equivalent 16 8,759 17,883 17,442 13,303 12,938 9,973 5,538 1,966 904 88,722
Estimated Collection Rate% 97.5%
Sub Total 86,504
Class O - Band D Equivalent 0
Council Tax Base 2009/10 86,504
Appendix B
Council tax Base 2010/11 – Percentage Changes
2010/11 2009/10 No. % For the whole area 86,504 85,727 777 0.91
Bishopston 1,908 1,911 -3 -0.16 Clydach 2,504 2,515 -11 -0.44 Gorseinon 2,965 2,870 95 3.31 Gowerton 1,960 1,959 1 0.05 Grovesend 398 402 -4 -1.00 Ilston 314 319 -5 -1.57 Killay 2,077 2,086 -9 -0.43 Llangennith, Llanmadoc 483 487 -4 -0.82 and Cheriton Llangyfelach 943 943 Llanrhidian Higher 2,249 2,259 -10 -0.44 Llanrhidian Lower 300 302 -2 -0.66 Llwchwr 3,130 3,123 7 0.22 Mawr 724 720 4 0.55 Mumbles 9,502 9,531 -29 -.030 Penllergaer 1,137 1,129 8 0.71 Pennard 1,451 1,455 -4 -0.27 Penrice 421 435 -14 -3.22 Pontarddulais 2061 2,049 12 -0.59 Pontlliw 969 984 -15 -1.52 Port Eynon 391 393 -2 -0.51 Reynoldston 290 286 4 1.40 Rhossili 187 190 -3 -1.58 Upper Killay 562 567 -5 -.088
Swansea Bay Port Health 60,100 59,758 342 0.57 Authority
Item No. 9 (1)
Report of the Corporate Director (Social Services)
rd Council – 3 December 2009
CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
Summary
Purpose: To provide an update about Child and Family Services.
Policy Framework: Children and Young People Plan, Health, Social Care and Well Being Strategy and the Corporate Plan.
Reason for Decision: No decision is required.
Consultation: Legal and Finance
For Information: This report outlines the position regarding the overview of activity across Child and Family Services. Detailed analysis and discussion will continue to be addressed via the Child and Family Services Overview and Scrutiny Board.
1. Introduction
1.1 This is the fourth report to provide an update about the position for Child and Family Services. The same format has been used as for previous reports but on this occasion there are only two sections, i.e. the Child and Family Services Overview and Scrutiny Board along with the Intervention Board. The report to Council on the 25th November 2009 has addressed a number of key issues and there is nothing further to include at this time.
2. Child and Family Services Overview and Scrutiny Board
2.1 The further meetings of the Board have been such that the following letters have been exchanged between the Chair of the Child and Family Services Overview and Scrutiny Bard and the Cabinet Member for Social Services.
a. Letters by the Chair of the Child and Family Services Overview and Scrutiny Board
1. Letter of the 12th October, 2009 Appendix 1 2. Letter of the 26th October, 2009 Appendix 2.
b. Letters by the Cabinet Member for Social Services
1. Letter of the 16th November, 2009 Appendix 3 2. Letter of the 17th November, 2009 Appendix 4.
3. The Intervention Board
3.1 A key part of the visit in October was a presentation by the Chief Executive, Corporate Director (Education), Corporate Director (Social Services) and the Head of Child and Family Services to all members of the Intervention Board. This provided an opportunity to provide a more complete update about the progress that has been achieved.
3.2 Following the visit in October His Honour Graham Jones sent a letter to the Chief Executive which noted a number of matters. These were as follows:
a. The Board reported to the Minister as arranged.
b. The Minister confirmed that the Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales Inspection scheduled for January will proceed.
c. It is the intention of the Board to remain closely involved with the preparation for the Inspection. Individual members of the Board will engage with specific areas of work.
d. As a result of the presentation, the Board confirmed the progress achieved thus far in terms of strengthening the prospects for improvement.
e. The Board emphasised the need for improvements in the delivery of services and the safeguarding of children. Such changes need to be sustainable and must be demonstrated.
f. Council needs to satisfy itself that it is fully complying with the Statutory Guidance on the Role and Responsibilities of the Director of Social Services.
g. Concern was also expressed about the workforce issues that exist.
4. Financial Implication
4.1 There are no additional financial implications associated with this report.
5. Legal Implications
5.1 There are no specific legal implications associated with this report.
6. For Information
This report outlines the position regarding the overview of activity across Child and Family Services. Detailed analysis and discussion will continue to be addressed via the Child and Family Services Overview and Scrutiny Board.
Background Papers: Intervention Board letter.
Contact Officer: Chris Maggs Corporate Director (Social Services) 01792 636245
Reference: cm9n057/sd
Legal Officer: Janet Hooper
APPENDIX 1.
Councillor Tregoning Please ask for: Overview & Scrutiny Gofynnwch am: Cabinet Member for Social Services Direct Line: 01792 637257 Room 2.1.13 Llinell Uniongyrochol:
Civic Centre e-Mail [email protected] e-Bost: Oystermouth Road SWANSEA Our Ref Ein Cyf: SA1 3SN Your Ref Eich Cyf:
Date 12th October 2009 Dyddiad:
Dear Councillor Tregoning,
Child and Family Services Overview & Scrutiny Board – 8th September 2009
The Board received your letter dated 12th August which responded to discussions on the Strategic Delivery Plan. The Board endorses your concern and supports efforts to ensure that all Councillors are clear about their own individual and specific responsibilities concerning the corporate parenting and safeguarding agendas. We note your comments on the quality of data and you will by now have seen our letter following a lengthy session we held on the monthly performance reports in which we made observations. We will give consideration, as you request, to taking evidence from Looked After Children to get a view on the quality of service provision. We have noted your view that you do not expect notifications to Child & Family Services to drop to previous levels. You will therefore need to give thought to the adequacy of existing strategies / plans and take action to ensure that not only can this demand be met and workload managed, but that the quality of service and performance is better, and can be sustained in the longer-term. We are pleased that you acknowledge the need for longer-term planning to take the service forward and secure its future.
The focus of our last Board meeting was on services for disabled children & young people and their families. The CSSIW report expresses concern about the Authority’s ability to meet demand and the consistency of services. We took evidence from a cross section of people with an interest in service provision for disabled children & young people, and their families’ welfare in Swansea. This included service providers, campaign groups and parents, although for many their roles crossed these boundaries. We were keen to explore issues for disabled children & young people and their families, their engagement with the Council, and gather views on how services could be improved.
Cont’d
OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY / TROSOLWG A CHRAFFU
CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA / DINAS A SIR ABERTAWE CIVIC CENTRE, SWANSEA, SA1 3SN / CANOLFAN DDINESIG, ABERTAWE, SA1 3SN
www.swansea.gov.uk
First off we want to record our recognition of the amount of unpaid work that parents / carers do in Swansea (on top of supporting their own children) and their passion in supporting disabled children & young people.
It was generally considered that the CSSIW reports were a fair reflection of the state of service provision by Swansea Social Services to disabled children & young people in Swansea. It was felt that consistency, resource levels, support and service were not good and had not been so for some time. This concerned the Board, and was increased by the generally held view that despite the CSSIW reports, no discernible improvement had occurred, nor was any foreseen. In fact, the meeting with the Board was the first contact many had had with Swansea Council. There was hope however that this was the start of a fresh approach to engagement, but also concern that the Child & Family Services Action Plan does not go far enough to address issues regarding disability services. The views expressed contrasted significantly with the service provided by Education in Swansea, which was held in high regard, and seen as superior to that of neighbouring Authorities; however the Social Service provision by neighbouring Authorities was considered superior.
The key issues with regard to the quality of services included difficulties in gaining access to a Social Worker, access to respite / short break services, not seeing core assessments for every child, longer term funding, the transition to adult services, and the provision of information. The Board was told that many parents feel isolated and may be unaware of services that can help. Whilst it can be understood that resources are limited, the provision of information is an issue. There was general concern at the apparent slow progress in improving services. It was felt that high assessment thresholds were being used by the Authority to ration resources and workloads, rather than as tools to see what was needed for the child, and as a consequence all but the most severely disabled child or young person missed out on assistance that could make significant improvements in their and their family’s quality of life. The lack of specialist skills in Social Services, such as British Sign Language, was also seen as a barrier. Even if criteria are met, it may not necessarily guarantee the service as it is based on critical / substantial need. This means that depending on how well parents are deemed to be coping services are not accessible. However for such parents crisis is only around the corner. The CSSIW also commented on the way need is measured.
Communication was also a cause for concern, ranging from a lack of understanding of disability issues, no clear pathway to participation, a lack of contact with service users in the planning / evaluation of services, to a lack of feedback. The picture painted was one of parents in an ongoing struggle, and having to shout loudly to get anywhere. The Board was told that the same issues had been raised over a number of years without action. There was concern also that Councillors had not been aware of these issues. There was hope however that now would be the opportunity to resolve long-standing problems.
A number of suggestions were made on how to improve matters.
Many said that they wanted someone to act as a single point of contact (who did not necessarily need to be a qualified social worker), who understood the child’s disability and the family’s ability to look after that child, who was able to point them to various services that may help, to advise them on what help to apply for and how to do so, to advocate for them on occasions, to be there for a number of years, and even to just call in at times to see how things were. There is an example of such a ‘key worker’ system in Pembrokeshire. The ‘Team Around the Child’ pilot project could also be a model for supporting disabled children & young people.
Going even further, developing a disabled person’s service within the Council that would bring together a range of services currently scattered across the Council could be a way forward. This joined up approach would provide one point of access for disabled children or young persons and their families. There is a wealth of opportunity if organisations work together and combine resources. This can ensure the avoidance of duplication, better quality assurance and the ability to gauge the effectiveness, impact and benefits gained from services.
Concerns about the level of communication could be addressed with a forum for the planning of, and access to, services to enable meaningful participation and consultation with parents / service users. Some the improvements suggested may not have great financial implications. As a minimum the Council should actively involve parents of disabled children & young people in devising any future action plans for improvements. The Board would expect disabled children & young people to be represented on partnerships established under the Children & Young People Plan.
It was made clear to the Board that there are positive examples elsewhere in services to disabled children & young people and their families, particular in providing a certain level of ongoing support (even if not social work cases). Some cited the use of a ‘disability register’ as a positive and proactive way of ensuring that children and families get regular information and news about activities that can be accessed.
In order to mainstream disabilities Council may need to review the training that is provided to social workers to ensure the specific needs of disabled children & young people can be met, and consider the need for expertise for specific disabilities. It could perhaps encourage people with disabilities to train in this profession.
It must be said that the Board has not taken evidence from the Authority on its current provision, so this is not a balanced and final report on the subject, but the level of concerns raised with the Board at its meeting was such that the Board felt this area had been neglected for sometime. After the meeting the Board resolved to adjust its work plan to look into this matter in much greater detail immediately following the next CSSIW inspection.
I look forward to your reply.
Yours sincerely,
COUNCILLOR MARK CHILD Chairman, Child & Family Services Overview & Scrutiny Board [email protected] cc Cllr. Paxton Hood-Williams – Vice-Chairman of the Child & Family Services Overview & Scrutiny Board Cllr. Chris Holley – Leader Cllr. Mike Day – Cabinet Member for Education Cllr. Mary Jones – Cabinet Member for Business Improvement & Efficiency Corporate Management Team Chris Maggs – Corporate Director (Social Services) Steve Walker – Head of Child & Family Services APPENDIX 2.
Councillor Tregoning Please ask for: Overview & Scrutiny Gofynnwch am: Cabinet Member for Social Services Direct Line: 01792 637257 Room 2.1.13 Llinell Uniongyrochol:
Civic Centre e-Mail [email protected] e-Bost: Oystermouth Road SWANSEA Our Ref Ein Cyf: SA1 3SN Your Ref Eich Cyf:
Date 26th October 2009 Dyddiad:
Dear Councillor Tregoning,
Child and Family Services Overview & Scrutiny Board – 13th October 2009
At this meeting, Members considered your letter dated 5th October, which gave rise to some queries:
In your letter you wrote that “Staff within Child & Family Services (CFS) have increased their productivity substantially as a consequence of the dramatic uplift in both referrals and the numbers of children who have now become looked after.” The Board wondered whether you meant to say ‘despite’ rather than ‘as a consequence’ as it didn’t make sense to the Board that because demand has increased productivity also has.
Can you please inform us:
• of the current position regarding recruitment to the peripatetic social work team. • if the five additional posts created to address the issues surrounding the operation of the Public Law Outline and to provide additional supervision and support have these been filled? • whether the two principal officer posts being advertised are in addition to the 5 posts already existing? • what is being done to ensure the information that senior managers, Cabinet Members and the Overview & Scrutiny Board itself receive is timely and accurate? • of evidence in support of your statement that “… it is clear that our partners view child protection in Swansea as a responsibility for all organisations working together, and not just something that CFS alone must resolve”.
Could you please respond to these questions as soon as possible so that I can pass on to the Board.
OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY / TROSOLWG A CHRAFFU
CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA / DINAS A SIR ABERTAWE CIVIC CENTRE, SWANSEA, SA1 3SN / CANOLFAN DDINESIG, ABERTAWE, SA1 3SN
www.swansea.gov.uk
The Board also heard from Richard Parry, Lead Director for Children & Young People on the Children & Young People Plan Review, which we presume you are actively involved in. The Board welcomed the review and both broad and specific actions. The Board noted efforts to address shortcomings emerging from inspection reports, ensure that resources are focused in the areas of greatest need, and work to ensure the Plan is embedded across all services that come into contact with children, and that staff at all levels understand the core aims and the contribution they make.
The Board was pleased that the Lead Director is working closely with Steve Walker in examining demand within Child & Family Services, access to specialist services, and processes that will reduce the number of cases that are acute. The Board is pleased that the Director has met with 3rd tier officers from across the Council to improve understanding of the issues and complexity and difficulty within Child & Family Services and gained a commitment from each to finding solutions. The Board hopes that he can encourage all agencies to be part of this too. The Board is however anxious that the situation is closely monitored to ensure that universal and targeted services do not suffer as a consequence of focus at the sharp end. Resources at the preventative end of the scale will need to be used efficiently and better targeting of the Cymorth fund will be necessary going forward.
The Board also supported the proposed actions of the CYP Executive Board in effecting the sharing of information across agencies. The Board did suggest however that the Council itself can be culpable of not sharing information and departments producing data with regard to children & young people should share their work so that it can be layered in maps to help plan services and assess needs.
Finally, each of the Task & Finish Groups established by the Board to examine Assessments, Workforce, and Family Support Services, reported back to the Board on findings, conclusions and possible recommendations. The Board agreed that a formal report be prepared for submission to Cabinet as soon as possible on this work. I will alert you to the availability of this report at the earliest opportunity so that you can consider a formal response to Cabinet.
I look forward to your reply.
Yours sincerely,
COUNCILLOR MARK CHILD Chairman, Child & Family Services Overview & Scrutiny Board [email protected] cc Cllr. Paxton Hood-Williams – Vice-Chairman of the Child & Family Services Overview & Scrutiny Board Cllr. Chris Holley – Leader Cllr. Mike Day – Cabinet Member for Education Cllr. Mary Jones – Cabinet Member for Business Improvement & Efficiency Corporate Management Team Chris Maggs – Corporate Director (Social Services) Steve Walker – Head of Child & Family Services APPENDIX 3.
C ITY A ND C OUNTY O F S WANSEA ——————————————————————————————————————————————— D INAS A S IR A BERTAWE
Please ask for: Gofynnwch am: Cllr Nick Tregoning Councillor Mark Child Direct Line: 01792 637426 Chairman – Child & Family Services Llinell Uniongyrochol: Overview & Scrutiny Board [email protected] / City and County of Swansea E-Mail / E-Bost: [email protected]
Civic Centre Our Ref / Ein Cyf: NT/VH Your Ref / Eich Cyf: Date / Dyddiad: 16th November 2009
Dear Councillor Child,
Re: Child & Family Services Overview & Scrutiny Board
Thank you for your letter dated 12th October. My overarching priority at the present time is to ensure that the structures and activities that pertain within Child and Family Services (CFS) are sufficient to see that children in Swansea are safe insofar as it lies in their power to do so, and to ensure that such a situation continues to be the case in the future.
This must mean that such structures and activities are viewed in a dynamic manner so that changes in the operating environment can be accommodated by corresponding changes within CFS. That is why I am taking proposals for the restructuring of CFS to the Cabinet for approval, and why, exceptionally, Council will be asked to approve the necessary expenditure in the 2010-2011 budget now rather than during the budget round next year.
No organisational structure or strategy can be viewed as immutable where that organisation operates in a changing environment; and while I am confident that these proposals will enhance the present operation of the service, I do not rule out the need for further changes in the future should the circumstances in which CFS operates change sufficiently to warrant it.
COUNCILLOR/Y CYNGHORYDD NICK TREGONING CABINET MEMBER / AELOD CABINET
CABINET OFFICE, CIVIC CENTRE, OYSTERMOUTH ROAD, SWANSEA SA1 3SN SWYDDFA’R CABINET, CANOLFAN DDINESIG, HEOL YSTUMLLWYNARTH, ABERTAWE SA1 3SN
(01792) 637441 (01792) 636196 [email protected] www.swansea.gov.uk
C ITY A ND C OUNTY O F S WANSEA ——————————————————————————————————————————————— D INAS A S IR A BERTAWE
I appreciate that the Board were made aware of a number of concerns in respect of services to children with a disability. It is helpful that the Board recognises that further information needs to be sought and I am sure that discussions with the CFS management team will be of assistance. I look forward to seeing and responding to your further conclusions once you have had an opportunity to undertake more discussions.
It is important that concerns are addressed and it is also necessary to consider the current issues that are being actively progressed. At the moment the highest priority is to address the workforce arrangements so that the improvement for initial and core assessments continue.
Yours sincerely,
COUNCILLOR NICK TREGONING CABINET MEMBER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES
Copy to: Councillor Paxton Hood-Williams – Vice Chair C&F Services O&S Board Councillor Chris Holley – Leader Councillor Mike Day – Cabinet Member for Education Councillor Mary Jones – Cabinet Member for Business Improvement & Efficiency Paul Smith – Chief Executive Chris Maggs – Director of Social Services Steve Walker – Head of Child & Family Services Brij Madahar – Overview & Scrutiny Co-ordinator
COUNCILLOR/Y CYNGHORYDD NICK TREGONING CABINET MEMBER / AELOD CABINET
CABINET OFFICE, CIVIC CENTRE, OYSTERMOUTH ROAD, SWANSEA SA1 3SN SWYDDFA’R CABINET, CANOLFAN DDINESIG, HEOL YSTUMLLWYNARTH, ABERTAWE SA1 3SN
(01792) 637441 (01792) 636196 [email protected] www.swansea.gov.uk
APPENDIX 4.
C ITY A ND C OUNTY O F S WANSEA ——————————————————————————————————————————————— D INAS A S IR A BERTAWE
Please ask for: Gofynnwch am: Cllr Nick Tregoning Councillor Mark Child Direct Line: 01792 637426 Chairman – Child & Family Services Llinell Uniongyrochol: Overview & Scrutiny Board [email protected] / City and County of Swansea E-Mail / E-Bost: [email protected]
Civic Centre Our Ref / Ein Cyf: NT/VH Your Ref / Eich Cyf: Date / Dyddiad: 17th November 2009
Dear Councillor Child,
Re: Child & Family Services Overview & Scrutiny Board
Thank you for your letter dated 26th October. I am sorry if I didn’t make myself clear in my 5th October letter concerning the increase in productivity. The point that I was seeking (and clearly failing) to make was that the percentage figures do not tell the whole story. The dramatic increase in referrals that we have seen means that more initial and core assessments are being carried out than at this point in 2008 in numerical terms.
You ask about the latest position concerning a number of items. It is as follows: -
Peripatetic team: • Team Leader 1 • Senior Practitioners 5 3 vacancies • Social Workers 7 0.5 vacancy
Public Law Outline posts: • All five posts have been filled.
Principal Officer posts: • There were five posts in Child and Family Services originally. There will now be six.
COUNCILLOR/Y CYNGHORYDD NICK TREGONING CABINET MEMBER / AELOD CABINET
CABINET OFFICE, CIVIC CENTRE, OYSTERMOUTH ROAD, SWANSEA SA1 3SN SWYDDFA’R CABINET, CANOLFAN DDINESIG, HEOL YSTUMLLWYNARTH, ABERTAWE SA1 3SN
(01792) 637441 (01792) 636196 [email protected] www.swansea.gov.uk
C ITY A ND C OUNTY O F S WANSEA ——————————————————————————————————————————————— D INAS A S IR A BERTAWE
Information: • The process of validating information is continuing. Considerable effort has already been put into ensuring accuracy.
• As to the timeliness of information, it is the intention to ensure that the information produced for the Cabinet Member, the Corporate Management Team and the Overview and Scrutiny Board is aligned.
Partnership working: • Commitment to the Swansea Safeguarding Children Executive Board • Attendance at the Swansea Safeguarding Board (SSCB) • The financial commitment made by partners to the SSCB • Agreement over the priorities for the Children and Young People Plan • Joint working in pursuit of the substance misuse agenda • Agreed financial commitment by ABM and CCS to the establishment of a Multi- Agency Intensive Support Team to support children with complex needs.
Concerning the Children and Young People Plan Review, I can confirm that I have been involved, and have met with the Lead Director as well as the Lead Member for Children and the Cabinet Member for Education.
I concur with your observations concerning the need to ensure that more is done to divert referrals away form CFS to other agencies where that is an appropriate course of action, and for the need to ensure a better targeting of Cymorth funding. The Lead Director for Children and Young People is examining our use of Cymorth funding at present for this purpose, and one of the initial outcomes has been in the way funding offered to the Mayhill Family Centre and the Portage scheme where £0.21m of Cymorth funding has been identified that releases the same amount of funding from CFS.
I can confirm that I have received the final reports of the CFS Overview and Scrutiny Board Task and Finish Groups and am considering my response to Cabinet.
COUNCILLOR/Y CYNGHORYDD NICK TREGONING CABINET MEMBER / AELOD CABINET
CABINET OFFICE, CIVIC CENTRE, OYSTERMOUTH ROAD, SWANSEA SA1 3SN SWYDDFA’R CABINET, CANOLFAN DDINESIG, HEOL YSTUMLLWYNARTH, ABERTAWE SA1 3SN
(01792) 637441 (01792) 636196 [email protected] www.swansea.gov.uk
C ITY A ND C OUNTY O F S WANSEA ——————————————————————————————————————————————— D INAS A S IR A BERTAWE
Yours sincerely,
COUNCILLOR NICK TREGONING CABINET MEMBER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES
Copy to: Councillor Paxton Hood-Williams – Vice Chair C&F Services O&S Board Councillor Chris Holley – Leader Councillor Mike Day – Cabinet Member for Education Councillor Mary Jones – Cabinet Member for Business Improvement & Efficiency Paul Smith – Chief Executive Chris Maggs – Director of Social Services Steve Walker – Head of Child & Family Services Brij Madahar – Overview & Scrutiny Co-ordinator
COUNCILLOR/Y CYNGHORYDD NICK TREGONING CABINET MEMBER / AELOD CABINET
CABINET OFFICE, CIVIC CENTRE, OYSTERMOUTH ROAD, SWANSEA SA1 3SN SWYDDFA’R CABINET, CANOLFAN DDINESIG, HEOL YSTUMLLWYNARTH, ABERTAWE SA1 3SN
(01792) 637441 (01792) 636196 [email protected] www.swansea.gov.uk
Item No. 10 (1)
Joint Report of the Presiding Officer and Monitoring Officer Council – 3rd December 2009 PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE LICENSING COMMITTEE AND GENERAL PURPOSES PANEL
Summary
Purpose: To amend the terms of reference of the Licensing Committee to allow the Committee to consider appeals against an officer decision to refuse an application for approval to work as a driver or passenger assistant in vehicles for school transport purposes.
Policy Framework: Existing School Transport Policy and Terms of Reference for Licensing Committee.
Reason for Decision: To put in place a procedure that will as far as possible ensure a consistent approach to decisions made regarding the suitability of applicants to work as a driver or passenger assistant in school transport vehicles and to drive licensed hackney carriage and private hire vehicles.
Consultation: Legal and Democratic Services, Finance and Transportation.
Recommendation(s): It is recommended that:
1) the necessary changes as set out in paragraph 3.3 of the report are made to the Constitution to allow the Licensing Committee to consider appeals against an officer decision to refuse an application for approval to work as a driver or passenger assistant in vehicles for school transport purposes. 2) the changes to the Constitution take effect immediately following the close of the Council meeting.
1. Introduction
1.1 Currently applications for approval to work as a driver or passenger assistant in vehicles for school transport purposes are dealt with by the Transportation Section of the Environment Department. The Transportation Section deals with applications from minibus and bus drivers who are licensed to drive by the Department for Transport, as well as from Taxi and private hire drivers.
There is therefore an overlap with the work of the Licensing Division, which processes applications for hackney carriage and private hire licences. 1.2 Members of the Licensing Committee have expressed concerns regarding the consistency of the current arrangements and requested a review of the procedures with a view to securing as far as possible a consistent approach.
1.3 A review of the procedure has been carried out and the Licensing Committee on the 17th July 2009 considered a report regarding the proposal to amend the procedure.
2.0 Current Procedure
2.1 Currently officers from the Transportation Section receive applications for approval to drive vehicles or work as passenger assistants for school transport purposes. When an application is received, a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) Disclosure is obtained and where applicants are found to have previous convictions, a consultation is carried out with the Licensing Division to determine whether or not the applicant holds a hackney carriage or private hire driver’s licence. Where an applicant does not hold such a licence Licensing Officers confirm the action they would take if a licence application had been made to them i.e. whether the application would be approved by officers or referred to Licensing Committee for decision.
2.2 If it is confirmed that the application would be reported to Licensing Committee for decision, officers of the Transportation Section, having regard to the guidelines on the relevance of convictions used by the Licensing Division, interview the applicants. Following the interview officers then make a decision to approve or refuse the application. Currently any appeal against an officer decision would be heard by the General Purposes Panel.
2.3 Concerns regarding this approach are that officer decisions may differ from any decision by the Licensing Committee if the person applies for a hackney carriage or private hire driver’s licence at a future date.
3.0 Proposed Procedure
3.1 A review of the current procedure has been carried out as requested and in order to overcome the concerns of the Licensing Committee and to achieve as far as possible, a consistent approach to the decision making process, it is proposed that when an application is received for approval to work on vehicles for school transport purposes, Transportation Officers approve only those where the decision to approve under the agreed criteria is completely clear. In all other cases officers from the Transportation Section will refuse the application.
3.2 Applicants will then be given a right of appeal against the officer decision and any appeal will be heard by the Licensing Committee. It is considered that Licensing Committee is the most appropriate body to consider appeals of this nature as it is so similar in nature to the work already undertaken in relation to applications for hackney carriage and private hire driver licences.
3.3 To allow this proposal to be introduced changes to the Constitution and the terms of reference of the Licensing Committee would be required as follows.
Licensing Committee (Page 97) Add 6. To consider appeals against an officer decision to refuse an application for approval to work as a driver or passenger assistant in vehicles for school transport purposes.
General Purposes Panel (Page 105) Amend to read 1. To hear all appeals except for appeals specifically carried out by another Committee.
4.0 Conclusion
4.1 The Licensing Committee on the 17th July 2009 having considered the report agreed the proposed procedure in principle subject to a report to the Constitution Working Group and Council regarding the required changes in the Constitution and terms of reference for the Committee.
5.0 Financial Implications
5.1 There are no financial implications.
6.0 Legal Implications
6.1 Currently the Constitution requires that any appeals against an officer decision are reported to the General Purposes Panel. To allow the Licensing Committee to consider appeals against officer decisions to refuse an application for approval to work as a driver or passenger assistant in vehicles for school transport purposes changes to the Constitution and terms of reference of the General Purposes Panel and the Licensing Committee are required.
7.0 Recommendations
7.1 It is recommended that
1) the necessary changes as set out in paragraph 3.3 of the report are made to the Constitution to allow the Licensing Committee to consider appeals against an officer decision to refuse an application for approval to work as a driver or passenger assistant in vehicles for school transport purposes. 2) the changes to the Constitution take effect immediately following the close of the Council meeting.
Background Papers: Report to Licensing Committee 17th July 2009 Contact Officer: Lynda Williams 5087 Legal Officer: Rod Jones 7652 File Reference: ELH2823 Item No. 10 (2)
Joint Report of the Presiding Officer and Monitoring Officer
Council – 3rd December 2009
WALES AUDIT OFFICE REPORT “DEVELOPMENT CONTROL” SPEAKING RIGHTS AT PLANNING COMMITTEES
Summary
Purpose: To provide a report with regard to speaking rights at planning committees and to suggest changes to the constitution..
Policy Framework: None.
Reason for Decision: To comply with the Council minute of 9th April 2009 that a Task Group of Members, under the chairmanship of the Cabinet Member for Economic & Strategic Development, determine how and the extent to which the recommendations of the WAO report should be implemented.
Consultation: Legal, Planning, Finance
Recommendation(s):
1. That the conclusions of the Planning Services Task Group in relation to speaking rights be accepted and reported back to the Wales Audit Office. 2. That the amendments to the Council Constitution listed in Appendix 1 be adopted from the New Municipal Year in May 2010. 3. That the Council Procedure Rules be renumbered accordingly.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 At the Council meeting on 9th April 2009, Members resolved that Constitutional Working Group be requested to set up a Task Group of Members under the Chairmanship of the Cabinet Member for Environment to determine how and the extent to which the recommendations of the WAO report should be implemented.
1.2 The Planning Services Member Task Group has been meeting since the council resolution, under the chairmanship of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, following the transfer of Planning Services to his portfolio.
1.3 At those meetings the task group has discussed issues covered by the WAO report. Council received a report from the Task Group on July 30th and there is another report from the Task Group on the agenda for this meeting. This report is concerned with the question of speaking rights at planning committees.
2. SPEAKING RIGHTS AT PLANNING COMMITTEES
2.1 On 9th April 2009 a report entitled “Amendments to the Council Constitution“ was presented to Council recommending the extension of speaking rights at Area Development Control Committees and at Planning Committee. The report stated that Council had requested that Constitutional Working Group consider this issue which had formed one of the recommendations of the Wales Audit Office Report. Council referred the matter to the Planning Services Task Group for further consideration and recommendation.
2.2 Members of the task group have complied with this request and following detailed discussion the Task Group concluded that the amendments to the constitution set out in appendix 1 to this report should be accepted by Council. The amendments broadly reflect those which were recommended in the report to Council dated 9th April 2009. Provision has now been made in paragraph 33.1 that notification of intention to speak must be received by the Democratic Services team by 12 noon on the working day prior to the relevant meeting. There have also been some minor amendments to paragraphs 33.2 (b) and 33.2 (c).
3. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
Prior to implementation of the recommendation that speaking rights be extended as set out in this report the Constitution will require amendment as set out in Appendix 1 to this report. These amendments should not come into force until the Planning Committee has adopted the protocol on speaking rights referred to in paragraph 33.1 set out in Appendix 1. To allow time for the details of the protocol to be agreed, the recommendation is that the changes to the Constitution described in this report are adopted from the new Municipal Year, which starts in May 2010.
4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None.
5. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that:-
1. The conclusions of the Planning Services Task Group in relation to speaking rights be accepted and reported back to the Wales Audit Office.
2. The amendments to the Council Constitution listed in Appendix 1 be adopted with effect from the New Municipal Year in May 2010.
3. The Council Procedure Rules be renumbered accordingly.
Background papers: Wales Audit Office Report Contact: Roderic Jones 01792 637652 23rd November 2009
APPENDIX 1
A) Council Procedure Rules (CPR)
(1) Delete CPR 32.5 (which deals with Petitions to Area Development Control Committees). This CPR is at page 160 of the Constitution.
(2) Insert a new CPR 33 as follows:-
“33. SPEAKING RIGHTS AT AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEES AND PLANNING COMMITTEES”
33.1 Members of the public, Community Councils, residents groups and amenity groups and applicants and their agents have the right to address the Area Development Control Committees and the Planning Committee in relation to planning applications. These speaking rights can only be exercised in accordance with the terms of this CPR and also in accordance with the terms of any protocol on speaking rights which has been adopted by the Planning Committee. Speaking rights may only be exercised if prior notification of the intention to speak has been received by the Democratic Services team by 12 noon on the working day prior to the committee meeting.
33.2 At any meeting of an Area Development Committee, or of the Planning Committee where applications are being considered, when indications have been received that a person wishes to exercise their speaking rights, the applications where there are speakers should be dealt with in the following order:-
(a) The Chair of the Committee will introduce the item, and then will invite any parties who have indicated they wish to speak to address the meeting.
(b) Objectors to the application (including individuals, petitioners, Community Councils and amenity groups) can address the meeting for a maximum of 5 minutes in total between them, however many objectors there are except as provided for in Council Procedure Rule 33.5.
(c) Applicants and/or their agents and any supporters of an application can address the meeting for a maximum of 5 minutes in total between them, however many supporters there are (except as provided for in Council Procedure Rule 33.5). This rule also applies to any application made by the Council.
(d) If any member of the Committee wishes to clarify a point of fact with any speaker who has addressed the Committee they may at the end of the speaker’s presentation ask the Chair to put a question to the speaker.
(e) The Planning Officer will comment on any relevant issues raised by any speakers, provide any updates on the information contained in the report to Committee and advise Committee as to the material considerations and relevant issues to be taken into account with regard to the application.
(f) The members of the Committee shall debate the application.
(g) The Planning Officer will answer any questions from members and will summarise the key issues raised during consideration of the application.
(h) Committee will vote on the application.
33.3 No speaker will be able to ask questions to any other speaker, or to any officer or to any member of the Committee.
33.4 All speakers must refer only to planning matters relevant to the application under discussion and if any speaker starts to raise any irrelevant matters the Chair of the Committee can ask them to stop speaking and/or to speak only on relevant matters.
33.5 The Chair of the Committee can (with the consent of the Committee) vary the time allowed for speakers to address Committee so long as a consistent time is allowed for all speakers to address Committee.
33.6 The Chair of the Committee can (with the consent of the Committee) vary the order in which speakers will address Committee as set out in CPR 33.2 (b) and (c) above.
B) TERMS OF REFERENCE
Add a paragraph 3 to the Terms of Reference of Planning Committee (page 99 of the Constitution) as follows:-
“3) to agree the protocol relating to public speaking rights at Area Development Control Committees and the Planning Committee”
Item No. 10 (3)
Joint Report of the Presiding Officer and Monitoring Officer
Council – 3rd December 2009
AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNCIL CONSTITUTION
Summary
Purpose: To report back on amendments to the Council Constitution.
Policy Framework: None.
Reason for Decision: To adopt and note amendments to the Council Constitution.
Consultation: Legal, Finance & Presiding Officer
Recommendation(s): It is recommended that:
1) The minor corrections outlined in paragraphs 2.2 to 2.4 be received for information only; 2) The amendments to the Council Constitution listed in paragraph 3.be adopted following the closure of this meeting; 3) The recommendations listed in agenda item 10 (1) – Proposal to Amend the Terms of Reference of Licensing and General Purposes Panel be adopted following the closure of this meeting; 4) The recommendations listed in agenda item 10 (2) – Wales Audit Office Development Control – Speaking Rights at Planning Committees be adopted as outlined in the report;
1. Introduction
1.1 In compliance with the Local Government Act 2000, the City and County of Swansea has adopted a Council Constitution. A number of issues have arisen since adoption and in order to maintain the aims, principles and procedures set out in Articles 1 and 15 of the Council Constitution it is proposed that the amendments set out in paragraph 2 below should be made to the Constitution.
2. Delegated Minor Corrections to the Council Constitution
2.1 Following an exercise by Officers to review the content and accuracy of the document and to take into account changes made over the last few months several minor corrections have been made to the Council Constitution by the Head of Legal & Democratic Services. Some of these are listed below for Councillors information:
Terms of Reference Moved Planning Services from Environment Portfolio (p84) to Economic & Strategic Development Portfolio (p83)
Moved Central Transport Unit from Finance Portfolio (p85) to Environment Portfolio (p84) Housing Portfolio (p86) Amend reference to Building Services to read Building Services (Housing Stock) Provisions of advice, design, maintenance and refurbishment for the authority’s housing stock.
Finance Portfolio (p85) Add the following Building Services (Non Housing Portfolio) Provisions of advice, facilities management, design, maintenance, refurbishment and new build for the Public Buildings portfolio.
3. Amendments to the Council Constitution
3.1 The following amendments to the Council Constitution are recommended to Council for adoption:
3.2 Councillors ICT Working Group (page 131) 5) add Communities of Swansea 1
3.3 Local Development Plan Advisory Group(page 132) 1.1 Amend eleven to twelve (to include Communities of Swansea Group Member)
3.4 Student Liaison Forum (page128) 1. Delete reference to Mayals Electoral Division
3.5 Area Development Control Committee (page 160) Amend as listed in the recommendations in agenda item 10 (2).
3.6 Licensing Committee (Page 97) and General Purposes Panel (Page 105) Amend as listed in the recommendations in agenda item 10 (1).
A revised version of the constitution will be published on the internet at http://www.swansea.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=1758 and paper copies will be made available to Members on request.
3. Recommended that:
1) The minor corrections outlined in paragraphs 2.2 to 2.4 be received for information only;
2) The amendments to the Council Constitution listed in paragraph 3 be adopted following the closure of this meeting;
3) The recommendations listed in agenda item 10 (1) – Proposal to Amend the Terms of Reference of Licensing and General Purposes Panel be adopted following the closure of this meeting;
4) The recommendations listed in agenda item 10 (2) – Wales Audit Office Development Control – Speaking Rights at Planning Committees be adopted as outlined in the report.
Background papers: None
Contact: Democratic Services 01792 636820 25 November 2009 Item No. 11 (1)
Report of the Overview & Scrutiny Coordinating Group
Council – 3rd December 2009
OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY STRATEGIC WORK PROGRAMME 2009/10 - UPDATE
Summary:
The report provides an update on the Overview & Scrutiny Strategic Work Programme for 2009/10.
FOR INFORMATION
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 In order to ensure a coordinated approach to the work of overview and scrutiny, Overview Board and Scrutiny Board Work Plans are to operate within the framework of an overarching Annual Overview & Scrutiny Strategic Work Programme, which is overseen by the Overview & Scrutiny Coordinating Group (OSCG).
1.2 The work plans of the 9 Overview & Scrutiny Boards are guided by the respective roles agreed by Council:
Overview Boards Scrutiny Boards • engagement in the • holding the Council’s development of key executive (and other corporate policies, decision-makers) to account strategies and plans that for decisions or actions will impact on the future of taken Swansea • ensuring that public • contributing to the services are delivering for development of partnership the people of Swansea strategies and plans • action plan / corporate • developing & reviewing the performance and project Community Strategy monitoring • involving the community in • ensuring a ‘citizen centred’ policy development approach to improving service delivery.
2. OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY STRATEGIC WORK PROGRAMME 2009/10
2.1 The work of the 9 Overview and Scrutiny Boards includes a mix of in-depth reviews, service / policy briefings, follow up of previous reviews, referrals, and monitoring. Taken together these form the overall Overview & Scrutiny Strategic Work Programme.
2.2 The Strategic Work Programme attached as Appendix A provides a forward look for a period of three months, and also provides a mechanism to report back on the outcome of monitoring and assessment activities.
2.3 Whilst Boards set their own work plans, the Coordinating Group has a role in ensuring that the work of overview and scrutiny is: • manageable, realistic and achievable given resources available to support activities; • relevant to corporate priorities and focus on significant areas; • adding value and having maximum impact; • coordinated and avoids duplication.
2.4 It is expected that the work of overview and scrutiny should represent a significant and constructive programme of activities that will: • help improve services; • provide an effective challenge to the executive; • engage Members in the development of polices, strategies and plans; • engage the public.
3. NEXT STEPS
3.1 An update on the Overview & Scrutiny Strategic Work Programme will be reported to every OSCG meeting and onward to Council.
3.2 The Group has an important role in monitoring progress with the Work Programme and providing the forum for resolving issues with regard to either processes or in tackling specific pieces of work, sharing of experiences positive and negative, and improving the effectiveness of this work.
3.3 To encourage involvement in the work of the Boards, the Strategic Work Programme will also be publicised through the website (www.swansea.gov.uk/scrutiny), and the 'Open Source' briefing, which provides a regular communication to all Councillors, officers and external partners. Updates on the work of the Boards are also posted on Twitter, a free social networking and micro-blogging service (www.twitter.com/swanseascrutiny).
Background Papers: None
Contact: Brij Madahar, Overview and Scrutiny Coordinator Ext. 7257 Legal Officer: Rod Jones
Date: 23rd November 2009 APPENDIX A Overview & Scrutiny Strategic Work Programme 2009/10 (Nov - Jan) - as at 23rd November [KEY: CYP – Children and Young People; ERC – Environment, Regeneration & Culture; FABI – Finance, Audit & Business Improvement; HSCWB – Health, Social Care & Well Being; C&FS – Child & Family Services]
1. Current Reviews Review Board Stage Next Steps
Effects of Child CYP Evidence Task & Finish Group - Poverty on Scrutiny Gathering 11/1/10: Evidence from Educational Cabinet Member(s) & Attainment Directors of Social Services and Education Completion Expected: January 2010 Development of CYP Evidence Board - 02/12/09:Youth Youth Support Overview Gathering Support Services Work Services with Schools & Information on the Professional Youth Completion Expected: Network March 2010 Task & Finish Group – 9/12/09: Stakeholder Consultation Results & Research Findings Developing Cycling ERC Conclusion Draft Final Report – Action Plan Overview 30/11/09
Completion Expected: November 2009 Communities First ERC Conclusion To consider conclusions / Scrutiny recommendations 23/11/09 Draft Report 04/01/10 Completion Expected: January 2010 Medium Term FABI Evidence Progress report to Board – Financial Planning Overview Gathering 30/11/09 Task & Finish Group to hold a series of meetings with each Head of Service Completion Expected: to discuss service May 2010 prioritisation
Provision of Support HSCWB Evidence Series of Task & Finish for the Elderly Living Scrutiny Gathering Group meetings: at Home Cost Analysis – November
Website: www.swansea.gov.uk/scrutiny E-mail: [email protected] Assistive Technology - Completion Expected: November April 2010 Charging – WAG documents - November Task and Finish Group - Consultation with staff and service users – December 2009 to January 2010
2. Child & Family Services Overview & Scrutiny Activity Meeting
Discussion on Preparedness for Board – 1/12/09 the CSSIW Re-Inspection Policy Briefing – Permanence Board – 1/12/09 Policy Discussion on Current Proposals Board – 1/12/09 – Restructuring of Assessment & Case Management Teams / Consultation on Closure of Children’s Homes.
3. Previous Reviews / Recommendations to Cabinet Review Board Stage Progress Effective Partnership HSCWB Awaiting To be scheduled for Working Scrutiny Decision Cabinet Swansea Metro Project ERC Awaiting Cabinet – 28/1/10 Scrutiny Decision Integrated Service CYP Action Cabinet Decision – 27/8/09 Provision for Children & Overview Plan and Council 25/11/09 (for Young People info) Youth Offending CYP Action Action Plan expected – Service Scrutiny Plan 15/01/10 Working with the ERC Follow Action Plan accepted – Community to Reduce Scrutiny Up 26/1/09 Crime Monitoring Implementation – 14/12/09 Social Services HSCWB Follow Action Plan accepted – Community Transport Scrutiny Up 15/7/09 Monitoring Implementation – 16/12/09 Older People’s Respite HSCWB Follow Action Plan accepted – Services Overview Up 9/9/09 Monitoring Implementation – 02/12/09 School Attendance CYP Follow Action Plan accepted – Scrutiny Up 22/9/08 Monitoring Implementation 08/03/10
Website: www.swansea.gov.uk/scrutiny E-mail: [email protected] Energy Management FABI Follow Monitoring Implementation Scrutiny Up – 10/3/10 Population Estimates & FABI Follow Action Plan accepted – The Census Overview Up 23/2/09 Monitoring Implementation – 7/09/09 Further monitoring required – TBA Compact with the FABI Follow Monitoring Implementation Voluntary and Overview Up - TBA Community Sector
4. Scheduled Briefings Topic Meeting Date For Public Conveniences ERC Overview 30/11/09 Board Flexible Working Policy FABI Overview 30/11/09 Board Stand Up & Take Action FABI Overview 30/11/09 Board Campaign New Futures Job Fund CYP Overview 02/12/09 Board Residents Parking Councillor Forum 09/12/09 All Councillors Civil Parking Enforcement Councillor Forum 09/12/09 All Councillors Highways Costing Process ERC Scrutiny 14/12/09 Board De-Criminalised Parking ERC Scrutiny 14/12/09 Board Budget 2010/11 FABI Scrutiny 16/12/09 Board Child & Family Services Councillor Forum 06/01/10 All Councillors Update Children's Commissioner Councillor Forum 06/01/10 All Councillors for Wales Better Swansea FABI Overview 11/01/10 Board Partnership Member Engagement in FABI Overview 11/01/10 Board Programmes & Projects Pennington Inquiry into E- Councillor Forum 20/01/10 All Councillors coli Outbreak NEETs Policy Update CYP Scrutiny 25/01/10 Board Team Around the Child – CYP Scrutiny 25/01/10 Board Review / Evaluation Family Intervention HSCWB Scrutiny 27/01/10 Board Partnership
5. Monitoring & Assessments Item Board Date Assessment Performance Monitoring – FABI 19/10/09 Continued concern about Quarter 1 Scrutiny the value of some of indicators, as well as time taken to produce reports. Board following up on a number of areas. Task &
Website: www.swansea.gov.uk/scrutiny E-mail: [email protected] Finish Group to be established for Board to identify critical suite of indicators of most interest and format of information required. Estyn Review of CYP 02/11/09 Board to discuss further on Education Services – Scrutiny 14/12/09 in particular Inspection Report and recommendation made on Action Plan the scrutiny of the service Youth SS Inspection CYP 02/11/09 Board accepted action plan Report and Action Plan Scrutiny but highlighted the need for the partnership to address shortcomings in the three areas that have been graded by the inspection as 4 as a matter of urgency. Corporate Performance & FABI 02/12/09 Financial Monitoring – Scrutiny Quarter 2 Annual Performance – CYP 14/12/09 Exclusions Scrutiny Annual Performance - CYP 14/12/09 School Attendance Scrutiny Educational Attainment CYP 14/12/09 (including wider spectrum Scrutiny of data on specific pupil groups) Internal Audit - Quarterly FABI 16/12/09 Monitoring Scrutiny BME Housing Action Plan HSCWB 16/12/09 Scrutiny Relationship Manager's FABI 27/01/10 Audit Letter Scrutiny
Website: www.swansea.gov.uk/scrutiny E-mail: [email protected] Overview & Scrutiny Unit – Contacts
Board Support Children & Young People Scrutiny Michelle Roberts Children & Young People Overview Michelle Roberts Health, Social Care & Wellbeing Overview Delyth Davies Health, Social Care & Wellbeing Scrutiny Delyth Davies Environment, Regeneration & Culture Overview Spencer Martin Environment, Regeneration & Culture Scrutiny Spencer Martin Finance, Audit & Business Improvement Overview Karen Shadrach Finance, Audit & Business Improvement Scrutiny Brij Madahar Child and Family Services Overview & Scrutiny Brij Madahar, Delyth Board Davies Research Jenna Tucker Other Support Team Leader Dave Mckenna Overview & Scrutiny Coordinating Group Brij Madahar Business Forum Spencer Martin Councillor Forum Dave Mckenna / Michelle Roberts Better Swansea Partnership / Local Service Board Liz Jordan Councillor Training & Development Dave Mckenna / Delyth Davies Community Strategy Development & Review Dave Mckenna / Karen Shadrach Stakeholder Survey / Web Editor Jenna Tucker
Telephone: Dave Mckenna O & S Manager 636090 Brij Madahar O & S Coordinator 637257 Karen O & S Coordinator 636292 Shadrach Delyth Davies O & S Officer 637491 Michelle O & S Officer 637256 Roberts Spencer Martin O & S Officer 636734 Jenna Tucker O & S Research Officer 637732 Liz Jordan Project Officer 637314
Website: www.swansea.gov.uk/scrutiny E-mail: [email protected] Item No. 12 (1)
Report of the Chief Executive
Council – 3 December 2009
COUNCILLORS ALLOWANCES HANDBOOK
Summary
Purpose: To update the Councillors Allowances Handbook following guidance from the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales.
Policy Framework: Councillors Allowances Scheme.
Reason for Decision: To comply with the guidance set by the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales and to improve guidance for Councillors on their allowances.
Consultation: Constitution Working Group, Legal and Finance.
Recommendation(s):
1) The revised Councillors Allowances Handbook be adopted; 2) The mobile phone be removed from the Conservative Group Leader on 1 May 2010. This course of action brings current practise in line with the Handbook; 3) The new mileage rates take effect from 1 January 2010 and be reviewed annually at the Annual Meeting of Council (commencing in 2010).
1. Introduction
1.1 The Councillors Allowances Handbook provides administrative guidance on the application of the Councillors Allowances Scheme. Following new regulations from the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales and a need to clarify and update some issues, the handbook has been revised.
1.2 The Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales met with Councillors and Officers in May 2009 and they will be reporting back in due course with further recommendations. These in turn will be reported to Council.
1.3 The amendments were initially reported to Council on 30 July 2009, but were referred to the Constitution Working Group in order to allow further consideration of some areas within the handbook.
1.4 The Constitution Working Group considered the report on the 17 August and 16 November 2009 and have clarified some areas within the Handbook and made recommendation to Council on other areas.
2. Proposed Amendments
2.1 Attached as Appendix 1 to this report is the draft copy of the amended Councillors Allowances Handbook. The draft has had a number of minor amendments made to it in order to reflect inaccuracies or changes of responsibility. These changes are not highlighted in the report.
2.2 The draft Handbook highlights key areas that have been identified as needing clarification and / or to reflect the recommendations from the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales. The rationale for these amendments are listed below (the paragraphs refer to the actual paragraph within the Councillor Allowances Handbook).
2.3 Paragraph 2.2.1 “Basic Allowance”. This simply clarifies the period that a Councillor shall be in the receipt of the Basic Allowance.
2.4 Paragraph 2.2.3 “Council Mobile Phones”. This clarifies exactly who should be in receipt of a Council provided mobile phone (Cabinet Members, Presiding Officer and the Leader of the main opposition Political Group). However, following a decision in January 2009, the Conservative Group Leader was also provided with a Council mobile phone.
2.4.1 The Constitution Working Group recommends to Council that the paragraph should remain unaltered and the mobile phone be removed from the Conservative Group Leader on 1 May 2010. This course of action brings current practise in line with the Handbook.
2.5 Add Paragraph 2.2.5 “Mobile Phone Tariffs”. The additional paragraph to read ”Officers within the Cabinet Office and Members Support Unit consult with the relevant ICT Officer in order to establish the most appropriate tariff for the Councillor. Tariffs should be reviewed on a quarterly basis on receipt of the bill.”
2.6 Paragraph 2.4.2 “Special Responsibility Allowances (SRA) Roles”. This paragraph has been deleted in its entirety as it is replicated within Part 6 of the Council Constitution. Its removal will avoid any confusion as to which is the latest version.
2.7 Paragraph 2.5.2 “Care Allowance”. This additional paragraph reflects the guidance provided by the Remuneration Panel for Wales.
2.8 Paragraph 3.6 “Travel by Private Car”. Council on 15 May 2008 resolved that following growing public interest in Councillors mileage and allowances that the existing arrangements at that time should be reviewed.
2.8.1 This led to Council resolving to pay Councillors mileage claims based on the mileages listed on the RAC Route Planner (http://route.rac.co.uk/); postcode to postcode, rounded up to the nearest half mile for a return journey from 1 June 2008. The intention was to provide a system that is clearly defined, unambiguous and accessible to all.
2.8.2 As a result of the Council decision on 15 May 2008, the Member Support Unit (MSU) prepares and holds a list of the distances relating to the most frequent or routine journeys undertaken by each Councillor based on the RAC Route Planner and not on the actual miles travelled by the Councillor.
2.8.3 The onus was placed on Councillors to submit accurate and valid claims. Despite the fact that Officers will undertake checks on the forms submitted this does not negate the responsibility of the Councillor.
2.8.4 Whilst the guidance outlined in the Councillors Allowance Handbook is helpful, it now needs clarifying in order to give clear guidance to Councillors and Officers and to keep the Council at the forefront of other Public institutions in being open and transparent with regard Councillors claims against the public purse.
2.8.5 The amendments clarify how the postcode to postcode facility will be utilised i.e. by using the home postcode as the start and end point with the destination being entered as the via point. The reason for this is to reflect that distances can alter for return journeys especially when one considers traffic systems such as one way road systems.
2.8.6 The paragraph has been further amended to put the onus on the MSU Officers to review the RAC website on an annual basis and report any mileage changes to the Annual Meeting of Council as part of the Councillors Allowances Handbook. Any changes to a Councillors mileage will then be implemented from day 1 of the month that follows the Council meeting.
2.8.7 For clarity, should Council adopt these changes today (Council – 3 December 2009), any Councillors that have a change to their mileage will commence on the new mileage rates from 1 January 2010. The new rates will then be reviewed at the next Annual Meeting of Council.
2.8.8 The Council Constitution will also need to be amended to show that the Councillors Allowances Handbook is to be presented to each Annual Meeting of Council.
2.9 Paragraph 3.6.2 “Mileage Claims from a Councillors Private Place of Work”. Paragraph 3.6.2 currently reads:
”3.6.2 Mileage Claims from a Place of Work - Councillors are expected to personally cover the cost of their travel:
• To or from their place of work; • When attending any venue in a private capacity; • When undertaking their electoral division duties.
Therefore travelling allowances for journeys from a place of work, private venue or other electoral division duty, to carry out an approved duty will be based on the extra distance incurred e.g. place of work to home is 14 miles; place of work to Civic Centre to home is 16 miles; claim is for 2 miles.”
2.10 The Constitution Working Group recommends that paragraph 3.6.2 be amended to read:
“3.6.2 Mileage Claims from a Councillors Private Place of Work - Councillors shall personally cover the cost of their travel:
• To or from their private place of work; • When attending any venue in a private capacity; • When undertaking their electoral division duties.
Therefore travelling allowances for journeys from a Councillors private place of work, private venue or other electoral division duty or to carry out an approved duty will only be for the normal amount that a Councillor would have claimed if they were coming from their home to the Civic Centre, other appropriate Council building, location of approved duty or their place of work whichever is the lesser."
2.9 Paragraph 3.6.7 “Travelling more than 100 miles”. The Constitution Working Group recommends that this paragraph be amended to read:
“If a Councillor will be travelling over 130 miles in total (from a starting point of the Civic Centre, Swansea, SA1 3SN) then the Councillor must consider the best financial interest of the Council by the possible use of public transport, a hire car etc. If that Councillor chooses to use their own vehicle they would only receive the cost of their fuel used for the journey at the current rate per mile. A valid VAT receipt MUST be submitted in order for any payment to be made.”
2.10 Paragraph 3.10.1 “Travel by Bicycle”. This paragraph now reflects the guidance provided by the Remuneration Panel for Wales.
2.11 Paragraph 4.1.4 “Subsistence Payments will only be made if Accompanied by a receipt”. This paragraph now reflects the guidance provided by the Remuneration Panel for Wales.
2.11.1 Paragraph 4.1.7 “Subsistence”. This paragraph has been deleted in its entirety as it is no longer relevant following the guidelines outlined in paragraph 4.1.4 above.
2.12 Paragraph 8.1 & 8.2 “Income Tax”. The amendments reflect the latest guidance in relation to Income Tax.
2.13 Paragraph 11.3 “Insurance & Capital Sum Payable”. The amount had been incorrectly quoted as £150,000. The correct amount is £100,000.
2.14 Appendix A “Rates of Allowances”. Council resolved as part of the Revenue Budget 2009 / 2010 on 23 February 2009 to freeze the “Basic Allowance”, “Care Allowance” and “Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) payable to Councillors at 80% of the allowances which they were entitled to on 1 April 2007.
2.14.1 The SRA to be paid to the Second Opposition Leader was incorrect. The sum should actually be £3,243. There is no issue of over or underpayment here however as the Second Opposition Leader would only be entitled to the payment if the Political Group s/he represented had at least 10% of the seats on Council. Currently that Political Group falls short of this requirement.
2.14.2 Appendix A “Travelling Allowances”. The table has been amended to reflect the guidance given by the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales.
3. Financial Implications
3.1 The amendments outlined in this report will have little impact on the overall expenditure for Councillors allowances which will consequently remain fully funded from within existing resources.
4. Legal Implications
4.1 A Councillors Allowance Scheme is required under “The Local Authorities (Allowances for Members of County and County Borough Councils and National Park Authorities) (Wales) Regulations 2007”. The Councillors Allowances Handbook provides administrative guidance on the application of the Scheme.
5. Recommendations
5.1 That the revised Councillor Handbook be adopted;
5.2 The mobile phone be removed from the Conservative Group Leader on 1 May 2010. This course of action brings current practise in line with the Handbook;
5.3 The new mileage rates take effect from 1 January 2010 and be reviewed annually at the Annual Meeting of Council (commencing in 2010).
Background Papers: Councillors Allowances Scheme
Contact Officer: Huw G Evans – Democratic Services & Complaints Manager 01792 63 7347
Legal Officer: Rod Jones
Appendix 1
COUNCILLORS ALLOWANCES HANDBOOK
CONTENTS
SECTION
1. Introduction
2. Councillor Allowances
3. Travel Expenses
4. Subsistence
5. Payment
6. Claim Form & Claiming
7. Interests, Gifts and Hospitality of Councillors
8. Income Tax
9. National Insurance Contributions
10. Social Security Benefits
11. Insurance
12. Further Information Contact List
APPENDICES
A Rates of Allowances
B Overseas Allowances
C Interests, Gifts and Hospitality
D Sample Claim Form
E Confirmation of Councillor Attendance (with Officer) Form
F Confirmation of Councillor Attendance (Outside Body) Form
G Guidelines on Approved Duties
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The remuneration of elected Councillors is determined on the basis of a Scheme approved by the Council in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 and the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. The elected Councillors of the Council are not employees, although the treatment of their remuneration for most purposes is the same as if they were employees.
1.2 This guidance provides Councillors with practical information relating to the operation of the Scheme and any queries in the first instance should be directed to the Member Support Unit (MSU).
2. COUNCILLOR ALLOWANCES
2.1 The Council Constitution sets out the executive, scrutiny and regulatory arrangements which the Council has adopted. It contains the Members Allowances Scheme which sets out the entitlement to the different types of Allowances (and expenses) and the roles and responsibilities associated with them. The categories of Allowance are shown below:
• Basic Allowance; • ICT Allowance; • Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA); • Care Allowance.
2.2 Basic Allowance
2.2.1 Basic Allowance is payable from the date in which a Councillor signs the “Declaration of Acceptance of Office” following election and ceases either on the fourth day after the election (LG Act 1972 S35 (1)) or on the date that the Councillor resigns from Office. It is payable at the same rate to all Councillors to recognise their responsibilities in undertaking the role of a Councillor. The payments are made through the Payroll system on monthly basis.
2.2.2 Councillors are to meet their home and personal mobile telephone bills from the Communication (Voice & Data) element within their Basic Allowance.
2.2.3 Council Mobile phones will be provided and paid for by the Authority for Cabinet Members, the Presiding Officer and the Main Opposition Political Group Leader. When a Councillor ceases to become a Cabinet Member, Presiding Officer or Main Political Group Leader, their mobile phones MUST be returned to the Cabinet Office or the Members Support Unit.
2.2.4 Councillors entitled to a Council mobile phone MUST reimburse the Council via the Cabinet Office or Member Support Unit for their personal mobile phone usage.
2.2.5 Officers within the Cabinet Office and Members Support Unit consult with the relevant ICT Officer in order to establish the most appropriate tariff for the Councillor. Tariffs should be reviewed on a quarterly basis on receipt of the bill.
2.3 Information Communication & Technology (ICT) Allowance
2.3.1 The Council adopted arrangements for the provision of ICT to Councillors in 2006. In essence Councillors can either be provided with Council laptops or they are able to choose to purchase their own equipment. (Councillors should familiarise themselves with the ‘ICT provision to Councillors’ policy.)
2.3.2 If a Councillor wishes to purchase their own ICT equipment they must comply with the current Council requirements set out in the ‘ICT provision to Councillors’ policy. The ICT Allowance will be paid to the Councillor concerned. Councillors will need to comply with the administrative procedures in order to receive the ICT Allowance.
2.3.3 Where a Council laptop computer is provided for a Councillor the ICT Allowance will not be paid. The Council laptops supplied are in effect being funded from ICT Allowance.
2.3.4 Should a Councillor choose to return the Council’s laptop and purchase their own ICT equipment then payment of the ICT Allowance would not commence until the Council’s laptop had been returned to the Member Support Unit.
2.3.5 Where a Councillor has chosen not to take a Council laptop or purchase their own ICT equipment the ICT Allowance will be not be paid.
2.3.6 The Council will provide broadband connections for all Councillors at their home address. The cost of the broadband connection and the standard monthly package (agreed as part of the ICT arrangements) will be met by the Council.
2.3.7 Where a Councillor uses their own privately provided Broadband connection they will receive a payment towards their Broadband costs. The amount is set out in Appendix A.
2.4 Special Responsibility Allowances (SRA)
2.4.1 In addition to the Basic Allowance and ICT Allowance, a Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) can be paid. The roles and definitions attached to each of the positions for which an SRA is payable, and the current amounts payable, is set out in Part 6 “Members Allowances” of the Council Constitution.
2.5 Care Allowance
2.5.1 Councillors are able to claim a monthly “Care Allowance”. The amount which can be claimed is outlined in Appendix A.
2.5.2 The scheme allows payment to a Councillor of the authority an Allowance in respect of such expenses of arranging for the care of children or dependants as are necessarily incurred in the carrying out of that Councillor’s duties as a Councillor, providing that no payment is made in respect of:
• A Care Allowance in respect of any child over the age of fifteen years or dependant unless the Councillor satisfies the authority that the child or dependant required supervision which has caused the Councillor to incur expenses that were necessary in respect of the care of that child or dependant in the carrying out of that Councillors duties as a Councillor; • A Care Allowance to more than one Councillor of the authority in relation to the care of the same child or dependant; or • More than one Care Allowance to any Councillor of the authority who is unable to demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction for the care of different children or dependants.
2.6 Foregoing Of Allowances
2.6.1 Councillors may elect to forego any part of their entitlement to an Allowance by giving written notice to the Monitoring Officer / Head of Legal and Democratic Services who will liaise with the Head of Finance and then inform payroll.
2.6.2 However, Social Security rules take into account any income that is available to Councillors even if they choose not to take advantage of it. Thus, even though Councillors may elect to forego their Allowances, the Benefits Agency or the Council’s Housing Benefits Section can treat Councillors as if they had been paid and reduce their benefits accordingly.
NOTE: See additional Guidance:
• Income Tax is outlined in Section 8; • Social Security Benefits is outlined in Section 10.
3. TRAVEL EXPENSES
3.1 Councillors are able to claim for travel and subsistence expenses incurred when undertaking an ‘approved duty’. Travel and Subsistence Expenses are paid in addition to the Basic and Special Responsibility Allowances and are subject to the following rules:
3.2 Approved Duty
The current Regulations define an ‘approved duty’ as: a) Attendance at a meeting of the authority or of any committee of the authority or of any body to which the authority makes appointments or nominations or of any committee of such a body; b) Attendance at a meeting of any association of authorities of which the authority is a member; c) Attendance at any other meeting the holding of which is authorised by the authority or by a committee of the authority or by a joint committee of the authority and one or more other authorities; d) A duty undertaken for the purpose of or in connection with the discharge of the functions of an executive where the authority is operating executive arrangements within the meaning of Part II of the 2000 Act; e) A duty undertaken in pursuance of a standing order which requires a member or members to be present when tender documents are opened; f) A duty undertaken in connection with the discharge of any function of the authority which empowers or requires the authority to inspect or authorise the inspection of premises; g) Attendance at any training or development event approved by the authority of its executive or board; h) Any other duty approved by the authority, or any other duty of a class so approved, undertaken for the purpose of, or in connection with, the discharge of the functions of the authority or any of its committees.
3.3 Clarity of interpretation relating to Approved Duties – to establish greater clarity and transparency the Handbook will include guidance on the nature of meetings for which Councillors can claim.
3.3.1 Examples where meetings would constitute an approved duty:
• Meetings with Officers called to cover a specific item of council business at which there are at least the Chief Executive/Chief Officer or Head of Service present. These meetings will have been ‘summoned’ i.e. either formally convened or requesting a Councillors attendance by letter or email (see Appendix E).
3.3.2 Examples where meetings would NOT constitute an approved duty:
• Personal meetings with the Chief Executive/Chief Officers to discuss private matters. • Group meetings • Meetings relating to Ward matters • Member only meetings
3.4 Administration via Member Support Unit
3.4.1 The Member Support Unit should make all bookings associated with travel requests on behalf of Councillors. Where possible any costs will be covered by the use of the Corporate Purchasing Card.
3.5 Travel by Rail
3.5.1 Councillors (and Officers travelling with Councillors) will travel standard class unless first class rail travel can be found cheaper than the standard class open ticket as advertised at the www.trainline.co.uk website.
3.5.2 Incidental costs associated with rail travel, such as parking at stations, taxi, tube, etc. will be reimbursed subject to production of receipts.
3.5.3 Rail cards may be purchased for all eligible Councillors who intend travelling on the Council’s behalf where it will reduce the cost. The cost to the Council of rail travel can be reduced significantly if Councillors, who are eligible, have one of the following rail cards: Senior Railcard or Disabled Persons Railcard. An eligible Councillor should provide all the necessary documentation for the relevant railcard to MSU who will obtain the railcard on the Councillors behalf. Privately purchased rail cards will be reimbursed providing it is deemed to be of benefit to the Authority.
3.6 Travel by Private Car
3.6.1 Mileage Claims from home - The Council will pay Councillors mileage claims based on the mileages listed on the RAC Route Planner website (http://route.rac.co.uk/), postcode to postcode.
In relation to single journeys, Members Support will enter the Councillors home postcode and the destination postcode. The quickest route will always be selected. The distance will be rounded up if over 0.5 of a mile or down if less than 0.5 of a mile.
In relation to return journeys, Members support will enter the Councillors home postcode as the start and end point and enter the destination postcode using the “via” option. The quickest route will always be selected. The distance will be rounded up if over 0.5 of a mile or down if less than 0.5 of a mile.
The Authority will hold a list of the distances relating to the most frequent or routine journeys undertaken by each Councillor. This list will be reviewed and updated on an annual basis by the Members Support Unit using the RAC website and reported back to the Annual Meeting of Council.
3.6.2 Mileage Claims from a Councillors Private Place of Work - Councillors shall personally cover the cost of their travel:
• To or from their private place of work; • When attending any venue in a private capacity; • When undertaking their electoral division duties.
Therefore travelling allowances for journeys from a Councillors private place of work, private venue or other electoral division duty or to carry out an approved duty will only be for the normal amount that a Councillor would have claimed if they were coming from their home to the Civic Centre, other appropriate Council building, location of approved duty or their place of work whichever is the lesser."
3.6.3 Site Visits - Councillors are expected to use the transport provided to attend Site Visits as this reduces the overall cost to the Council and as such Councillors cannot claim mileage in respect of site visits. However, in some cases the distance to Civic Centre from home to pick up the transport provided would be in excess of the mileage to the Site Visit itself. Where this is the case mileage can be claimed
3.6.4 Councillors should where possible travel together.
3.6.5 Authorised journeys within Wales are reimbursed at the approved mileage rates for Councillors (see Appendix A) subject to 3.6.7 below.
3.6.6 Authorised journeys outside Wales are also reimbursed at the approved mileage rates, set out in the Appendix A, but only if it is deemed reasonable in the circumstances. Reasonable is taken to mean to be cost effective in terms of time and money subject to 3.6.7 below.
3.6.7 If a Councillor will be travelling over 130 miles in total (from a starting point of the Civic Centre, Swansea, SA1 3SN) then the Councillor must consider the best financial interest of the Council by the possible use of public transport, a hire car etc. If that Councillor chooses to use their own vehicle they would only receive the cost of their fuel used for the journey at the current rate per mile. A valid VAT receipt for the fuel MUST be submitted in order for any payment to be made.
3.6.8 Where transport is provided, Councillors will not be entitled to claim mileage if they choose to take their own vehicle unless otherwise agreed in writing (preferably e-mail) with the Chief Executive.
3.6.9 Incidental costs associated with travel by private car such as fuel, tolls, ferries and parking fees will be reimbursed subject to production of receipts and the completion of a claim form. Relevant VAT receipts for fuel are required for all mileage claims i.e. the dates on the receipt must reflect the period of the claim. If a VAT receipt for fuel is not attached then the payment will only be paid on an exceptional basis and with the written authorisation of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services.
3.7 Travel by Hired Car
3.7.1 Councillors and Officers will hire a C Class vehicle but the opportunity to choose to hire a D class vehicle will remain if they feel it is appropriate*.
*Discretion would need to be exercised on all occasions. Examples of circumstances that may deem an upgrade appropriate could include the ability to work on the journey, the length of the journey or the time of the journey.
3.8 Travel by Taxi
3.8.1 Normal public transport fares are paid, unless it is unreasonable, when actual taxi fare may be claimed subject to production of receipts. Actual taxi fares claimed for journeys taken on a regular basis within normal working hours will only be allowed with prior authorisation by the Head of Finance.
3.9 Travel by Air
3.9.1 The actual fare is payable in appropriate circumstances and Councillors should, therefore, consult the Monitoring Officer / Head of Legal and Democratic Services in advance in each individual case. Flights will be arranged via the MSU. Councillors and Officers will travel Standard Class.
3.10 Travel by Bicycle
3.10.1 A cycling allowance will be available to Councillors as outlined in Appendix A.
3.11 Travel By Bus
3.11.1 Bus fares will be reimbursed subject to the production of the appropriate tickets.
4. SUBSISTENCE
4.1 Councillors are able to claim for travel and subsistence expenses incurred when undertaking an ‘approved duty’. They are paid in addition to the Basic and Special Responsibility Allowances and are subject to the following rules:
4.1.1 Subsistence within the Authority’s area is paid as a fixed round sum Allowance. The sum currently payable is shown in Appendix A.
4.1.2 Subsistence outside the Authority’s area is payable for absences from Council Offices or from a Councillors’ residence and / or work as shown in Appendix A.
4.1.3 The right to claim for subsistence covers both the time spent on Council business and also the expenditure that Councillors have incurred on meals during the periods specified (which may overlap).
4.1.4 Subsistence is payable only where receipts are attached to the claim form. These must be itemised receipts not just a credit card receipt. Expenses incurred can be re-claimed up to a maximum as shown in Appendix A. Claims without a receipt will not be authorised.
4.1.5 In determining the duration of a Councillor’s duties for the payment of this Subsistence Allowance, the method of calculation is as follows:
• Actual travelling time, plus • Actual length of time of the meeting
These are the only times allowable in the calculation of subsistence and must conform to the requirements detailed in Appendix A.
4.1.6 Where meetings are held on the same day both inside and outside the Authority’s area then subsistence is payable for the outside meeting only and should be calculated as described above. The time taken for the meeting within the Authority’s area is not to be included in this calculation.
4.2 Inclusive Costs
4.2.1 Where seminar or conference fees paid direct by the Authority are inclusive of accommodation but do not include meals then any meals incurred will be paid at the approved rate as shown in Appendix A. Where meals are included, no additional Allowance will be paid.
4.3. Overnight Costs
4.3.1 Where an approved duty involves an overnight stay the accommodation must be organised via the MSU. If a rail warrant, hire car or flight is required this must also be arranged via the MSU. Any additional subsistence incurred in respect of meals taken during the period of absence will be paid at the approved rate as shown in Appendix A.
4.3.2 The circumstances in which it would be considered reasonable to stay overnight in order effectively to perform an approved duty, are as follows:
• Where the round trip is more than 250 miles and the relevant meeting / duty starts before 12.00 noon (for the night before) and / or where the relevant meeting / duty finishes after 4.00 pm (for the night after);
• Where the round trip is more than 500 miles and the relevant meeting / duty starts before 1.00pm and / or finishes after 3.00pm.
NOTE: It is important to stress that Councillors must have incurred overnight expenditure in order to claim reimbursement.
4.4 Overseas Allowances
4.4.1 Councillors MUST gain authority from the Chief Executive prior to travelling abroad. Detailed guidance on the procedure and entitlement is set out in Appendix B.
4.4.2 Foreign Currency - To obtain foreign currency a Councillor would be required to obtain a cash advance for this purpose and arrange to have the money converted into the appropriate currency themselves, retaining the receipt for submission with the appropriate paperwork.
5. PAYMENT
5.1 The payment of Basic and Special Responsibility Allowances is incorporated into the monthly payroll system and paid automatically by bank credit transfer without any action required by Councillors.
5.2 These payments are enhanced by the Travelling and Subsistence Allowances claimed for the previous month. Claims must be submitted on the appropriate form to the MSU within 3 months of the meeting to which the expenditure refers. Travelling expenses may not be claimed via cashiers and must be processed through payroll.
5.3 The current day for monthly payment is the 25th of each month or the previous working day if falling on a Saturday, Sunday or Bank Holiday.
5.4 Cash advances of Travelling and Subsistence Allowances exceeding £50 can be made through the Cashiers Office, if authorised by the Head of Finance.
6. CLAIM FORMS AND CLAIMING
6.1 Attendance at Meetings - Councillors must sign the Members attendance book and check the published minutes to ensure that their presence was recorded, otherwise they will be deemed not to have attended meetings. For ease of reference Councillors are required to print their name along with their signature.
6.2 Meetings with Officers – As part of the daily business of the Council there are some meetings which take place with Officers that can be classed as an Approved duty. These will generally be when the meeting has been initiated from the Officer. Where this is the case a form will be signed by the Officer for submission with the Claim Form by the Councillor (see Appendix E).
6.3 Representation on Outside Bodies – When claiming for attendance at Outside Bodies the onus is on the Councillor to be able to provide adequate evidence of attendance at the meetings claimed for. A standard form will be produced should Members require it that can be signed by the Chair of the relevant body to confirm attendance (see Appendix F). The MSU team will spot check claims.
6.4 Claim Form
6.4.1 Appendix D sets out a sample claim form for travel and subsistence claims as a guide to completion.
6.4.2 Councillors must complete the claim forms themselves, no one else should be allowed to insert additional expenses. In the case of errors any alteration must be initialled by the Councillor. The responsibility lies with the Councillor for the accuracy of the claim.
6.4.3 All sections must be completed by the Councillor. When attending more than one meeting a day and claiming more than one journey, the times and place of ‘commencement’ and ‘completion’ of duties must be inserted for each and every journey. The form must be signed and dated.
6.4.4 All receipts for petrol, taxi fares, meals etc. must be retained and attached to the claim form
6.4.5 To ensure that the information provided is adequate for verification purposes in future the details entered onto the Claim Form will need to include the location of the meeting or activity being claimed for. For non routine journeys i.e. those not identified on the list mentioned in 3.6.1 above postcodes to identify the start and end of each individual element of the journey would be required.
6.4.6 Councillors are required to complete the Claim Form with all relevant information in a legible manner. Forms that are either illegible or incomplete will not be processed.
6.4.7 Councillors must forward expense claim forms to MSU for validation no later than 5th of the month if they wish to receive payment on the 25th of the month. Following validation, MSU will refer validated expense forms to payroll by 9th of the month for payment.
6.4.8 All claim forms must be submitted within a three month period. For clarity this requires that claim forms submitted for payment in any pay period can only be for claims for the preceding three calendar months (e.g. claims submitted at the beginning of December for payment in the December payroll should only be for September, October and November. Ideally Councillors should submit their claim forms on a monthly basis.
6.5 Claiming
6.5.1 Councillors need to keep an accurate record of expenses claimed:
• in order to minimise the risk of duplication of claims; and
• in order to demonstrate that amounts claimed are fully supported by evidence of expenditure incurred.
6.5.2 Councillors claiming more than one return journey when attending more than one meeting a day must spend, either at home or work, a minimum period of ½ hour between each meeting. If the period between meetings spent at home or work is less than ½ hour then Councillors will only be entitled to claim one return journey.
6.5.3 Councillors must therefore judge whether it would be constructive whenever possible to remain within the area if meetings are within a reasonable period of one another. This also applies to rota visits. Councillors are requested where possible to visit establishments in the same vicinity at the same time.
6.5.4 When claiming subsistence outside the boundary of the Authority and overnight Allowances Councillors must be aware of the various rates allowable and that the time taken for Council duties within the boundary performed on the same day cannot be included in the calculation of hours spent on duties outside the boundary when subsistence and overnight Allowances are involved.
6.6 Overseas Claims
6.6.1 Any claims relating to overseas duties must be approved by the Chief Executive. A detailed itinerary of the trip giving the names of all people travelling, modes of transport between venues and specifying items of expenditure which have been paid in advance by the Authority or provided by an outside body should be attached to the claim form.
6.6.2 In any cases of urgency, approval must be obtained under the Chief Executive’s delegated powers, exercised after consultation with the Leader.
6.7 Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA)
6.7.1 Councillors are required to submit all claims on the relevant forms for WLGA (blue) duties direct to the Authority for payment. These claims must be submitted as soon as possible in order for the Authority to reclaim the amounts from the WLGA on a monthly basis.
6.8 Claims not Allowable
6.8.1 Councillors are not entitled to claim expenses for ‘Civic Duties’, ‘Group’, or ‘Governors’ meetings. In respect of ‘Governors’ meetings any expenses incurred must be claimed direct from the school.
6.8.2 Councillors are not allowed to claim for meetings of ‘Outside Bodies’ unless they are the named representative or substitute. In the event that a Councillor is requested by the whips to represent the Authority instead of the named representative or substitute then the Councillor concerned must ensure that the Head of Legal and Democratic Services has been informed accordingly.
6.8.3 Rota visits outside the designated periods will not be paid.
6.9 Checking of Travelling and Subsistence Allowances Claim Form
6.9.1 The onus is on the Councillor to submit accurate claim forms.
6.9.2 The Cabinet Office / Member Support Unit will perform the following checks to assist in verifying the claim forms:
• Checks against Attendance Records • Checks on attendance at Outside Bodies (if form not attached to claim) • Checks on attendance at Officer meetings (if form not attached to claim) • Checks on other unclear entries
6.9.3 The Payroll Section will perform the following checks to assist in verifying the claims forms:
• Checks on the arithmetic • Check on receipts
7. INTERESTS, GIFTS AND HOSPITALITY OF COUNCILLORS
7.1 Attached as Appendix C is an extract of the Council Constitution. The extract outlines the Code of Conduct and makes reference to Interests, Gifts and Hospitality of Councillors.
8. INCOME TAX
8.1 Basic and Special Responsibility Allowances are taxable and Councillors will be taxed at the basic rate under the normal PAYE system, with the exception of £120 per year, which is a tax free element. However, Councillors should contact the Payroll section for a P46 form if they feel they are entitled to Allowances against this income.
8.2 Currently there is no “profit” element on Mileage due to the fact that the Council pays the Inland Revenue rate of 40p per mile . As it is deemed there is no profit, no end of year report is submitted.
9. NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS
9.1 Since the current levels of Councillors Allowances (Appendix A) exceeds the current lower earnings limit for all Councillors under 65 years of age (60 for women), there is a liability for Class 1 National Insurance contributions at the standard rate.
9.2 Married women and certain widows who have exercised their right not to pay the full rate will need to produce their reduced liability certificate.
9.3 Each employment is considered separately for contribution purposes and no account is taken of the fact that a Councillor may have another job or be self employed.
9.4 However, there is an annual maximum for contribution liability and in certain instances a Councillor may be entitled to a refund. Information regarding this can be obtained from the local Benefits Agency.
10. SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS
10.1 Social Security benefits is an area of growing complexity and detailed specialist advice must be obtained from the local office of the Benefits Agency.
10.2 Councillors must notify the Department of Social Security Office from which they receive the benefits that they are an elected Councillor.
10.3 If a Councillor is minded to renounce all or part of his / her Basic or Special Responsibility Allowance, because of the potential impact on benefit entitlement, he / she should consult the Benefits Agency before doing so. In most cases it is the amount to which a Councillor is entitled, not the amount actually claimed, which will be taken into account in calculating benefit.
10.4 The treatment of Councillor’s Allowances varies from benefit to benefit. For some benefits, the very fact that they are undertaking Council duties (whether or not they get paid for them) can affect their rights to claim. In other cases, it is the level of income from the Allowance that affects entitlement.
11. INSURANCE
11.1 The Council maintains a personal accident insurance policy which provides cover for Councillors who sustain bodily injury by accidental, external, violent and visible means as a result of which death or disablement occurs within 24 months of sustaining such injury. This also covers bodily injury resulting from violent or criminal assault, including attack with explosives, providing that such assault or attack arises solely from the injured persons being Councillors.
11.2 Councillors have to be engaged on Council business, which can be anywhere in the world, at the time of the injury. This includes, for example:
• Attending meetings of and duties carried out for the Local Authority Associations;
• Service, on behalf of or with the approval of the Council, on Committees of Other Authorities or Bodies (e.g. LEA appointed representatives on School Governing Bodies);
• Direct travel;
• Councillors’ surgeries;
• Complementary activities.
11.3 The Capital Sum payable in the event of death, loss of limbs or eyes, total loss of hearing or speech or permanent total disablement from usual occupation is £100,000. Lesser injuries of a permanent nature will attract benefits in accordance with a sliding scale based on the capital sum but relatively minor injuries, especially where there is no permanent effect, will not necessarily rank for any payment.
11.4 In the event of minor injury, the Policy covers temporary disablement from engaging in or giving attention to usual profession or occupations for a maximum period of 104 weeks, the benefits being £330 per week for total disablement and £165 per week for partial disablement.
11.5 Personal effects consisting of money, articles of clothing, footwear and other property worn or carried by a Councillor whilst engaged on Council business are also covered without limit in the event of injury. At any other time, the limit is £400, with a maximum for loss of cash of £100.
11.6 Councillors cars are not covered for damage and Councillors are advised by their respective insurers should they want to extend coverage.
12. FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT LIST
For further information or queries, please contact in the first instance:
Name Title Tel: Allison Lowe Councillor Support Officer 636424 Sonia Hansford Cabinet Support Officer 636141
Other Relevant Contacts:
Paul Smith Chief Executive 637501 Jack Straw Executive Director / Section 151 637510 Officer David Daycock Monitoring Officer / Head of Legal 636699 and Democratic Services Marge Tanner Payments Officer 637750 Huw Evans Democratic Services & Complaints 637347 Manager Andrew Taylor Deputy Democratic Services & 637290 Complaints Manager Caroline Davies Member Support Unit 636923 Katherine Jones Karen Thomas Victoria Hartson de Vulgt PA’s to Cabinet Officer 636141 Caroline Miller Jane Walters
APPENDIX A RATES OF ALLOWANCES
Basic Allowance £12,334 per annum
ICT Allowance £384 per annum. This is the ICT element of the Basic Allowance. It is only paid to those Councillors that have purchased their own ICT equipment.
Broadband Allowance £21.13 per month
Care Allowance £384 per month (maximum)
Special Responsibility Allowances (SRAs)
No. Office £ 1 Leader 32418 1 Deputy Leader 17830 8 Cabinet Member 16209 1 Presiding Officer 9725 1 Deputy Presiding Officer 6484 9 Overview & Scrutiny Board Chair 9725 8 Overview & Scrutiny Board Vice Chair 6484 2 Area Planning Chair 9725 2 Area Planning Vice Chair 6484 1 Chair of Licensing 9725 1 Vice Chair of Licensing 6484 1 Main Opposition Leader 9725 1 Second Opposition Leader 3243 *Note
Note:
1) The Council has 72 Councillors. Only 50% (36 Councillors) are allowed to be in receipt of SRAs; 2) One of the Scrutiny Vice Chairs has declined his SRA; 3) The Second Opposition Leader will not automatically receive a special responsibility Allowance as the statutory provision requires the group to have at least 10% of the seats on Council to be eligible.
Where an authority operating executive arrangements has more than one deputy cabinet leader the additional sum of 10% payable by way of special responsibility allowance for such responsibility may be apportioned amongst those deputy leaders.
The role and definitions attached to each of the positions for which an Special Responsibility Allowance is payable as set out in the Council Constitution.
Subsistence Allowances
Subsistence Allowance (within City and County of Swansea £140.00 Council boundary)
Travelling Allowances:
Private motor vehicle Rate per Mile – Up to 10,000 miles 40p Rate per Mile – Over 10,000 miles 25p Passenger Supplement (per passenger per mile) 5p Private Motor cycles (per mile) 24p Pedal Cycle (per mile) 20p
Subsistence Allowances Outside of the City and County of Swansea Area
The day subsistence rate for 2009/10 is a maximum of £28 per day (including breakfast when not provided as part of overnight accommodation). This would be a reimbursement of actual costs for approved duties with receipts to be provided.
Overnight allowances for accommodation is as follows:
London - £124 Elsewhere - £95 (with receipts to be provided for approved duties).
A maximum of £25 can be claimed for an overnight stay with friends or relatives whilst on approved duty.
Overseas overnight allowance - £12
APPENDIX B OVERSEAS ALLOWANCES
Claims Procedure
Claims for overseas duties must be approved by the Chief Executive. The Council Minute authorising attendance must be quoted on the claim form, together with a detailed itinerary of the trip giving the names of all people travelling, modes of transport between venues and specifying items of expenditure which have been paid in advance by the Authority or provided by an outside body. In any cases of urgency, approval must be obtained under the Chief Executive’s delegated powers, exercised after consultation with the Leader.
Travelling Allowances
Whilst abroad reasonable travelling expenses will be determined by the Head of Legal and Democratic Services in consultation with the Head of Finance may be claimed at actual cost but the normal rules will apply to any part of the trip within the UK.
Subsistence Allowances
Reasonable Subsistence Allowances for accommodation and main meals (breakfast, lunch and dinner), if not included in the cost of the accommodation or otherwise provided, may be claimed at actual cost upon production of valid receipts.
(Note: Receipts must be formal documents showing the name of the business, the date and the nature of the supply. Basic non detailed till roll receipts are not acceptable).
If a proper receipt cannot be produced the maximum amount that will be paid is as per the Subsistence Allowance rate (see Appendix A).
All other items, e.g. tea, snacks, etc. are covered by the overnight Overseas Allowance (see Appendix A) which is payable for each 24 hours abroad. This also covers any private telephone calls made.
If Subsistence is claimed for travelling time within the UK then full details of departure and arrival times must be given in the itinerary.
Other Expenses
Foreign Currency - To obtain foreign currency a Councillor would be required to obtain a cash advance for this purpose and arrange to have the money converted into the appropriate currency themselves, retaining the receipt for submission with the appropriate paperwork.
Business telephone calls and any other valid business costs relating to the trip will only be paid on production of the relevant receipts.
Appendix C
Interests, Gifts and Hospitality of Members
PART 1 THE REGISTER OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS
Registration of Financial and Other Interests and Memberships and Management Positions
1.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (3) and (4), you must, within 28 days of— (a) your authority’s code of conduct being adopted or the mandatory provisions of this model code being applied to your authority; or (b) your election or appointment to office (if that is later), register your financial interests and other interests, where they fall within a category mentioned in paragraph 10(2)(a) in your authority’s register maintained under section 81(1) of the Local Government Act 2000 by providing written notification to your authority’s monitoring officer. (2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) You must, within 28 days of becoming aware of any new personal interest or change to any personal interest registered under sub-paragraph (1), register that new personal interest or change by providing written notification to your authority’s monitoring officer. (3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply to sensitive information determined in accordance with paragraph 16(1). (4) Sub-paragraph (1) will not apply if you are a member of a relevant authority which is a community council when you act in your capacity as a member of such an authority.
Sensitive information 2.—(1) Where you consider that the information relating to any of your personal interests is sensitive information, and your authority’s monitoring officer agrees, you need not include that information when registering that interest, or, as the case may be, a change to the interest under paragraph 15. (2) You must, within 28 days of becoming aware of any change of circumstances which means that information excluded under sub-paragraph (1) is no longer sensitive information, notify your authority’s monitoring officer asking that the information be included in your authority’s register of members’ interests. (3) In this code, “sensitive information” means information whose availability for inspection by the public creates, or is likely to create, a serious risk that you or a person who lives with you may be subjected to violence or intimidation.
Registration of Gifts and Hospitality 3. You must, within 28 days of receiving any gift, hospitality material benefit or advantage above a value specified in a resolution of your authority, provide written notification to your authority's monitoring officer of the existence and nature of that gift, hospitality material benefit or advantage.
The Monitoring Officer shall maintain a Register for the declaration of any gifts or hospitality of more than £25 in value in accordance with of the Code of Conduct.
Appendix D
C I T Y A N D C O U N T Y O F S W A N S E A CLAIM FOR TRAVELLING AND SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES ______D I N A S A S I R A B E R T A W E
Councillor: ______Vehicle Registration No: ______Engine Size: ______Address: ______Month Ending: ______
Start of Duty End of Duty Travelling Allowances Subsistence
Date Place Time Place Time Description of Travel by Fares, Allowance Outside the Totals Vehicle Tolls, Authority’s Approved Duties Parking, Claimed Area Only Miles Rate etc (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) p £ p £ p £ p £ p
Where travel is by own vehicle, please state vehicle registration no and engine size TOTAL If the mileage rate claimed in column 8 is the higher mileage rate please give Less payment received or claimed reason for claiming at this rate: from any other body or authority Amount Claimed
A I declare that I have necessarily incurred expenditure on travelling and subsistence for the purpose of enabling me to perform approved duties as For Office Use a member of this Authority and that I have actually and necessarily paid the fares, fees and made the other payments shown in column 9 and incurred the actual mileage in column 7 above. The amounts claimed are in accordance with the rates determined by the City and County of Checked by: ______Swansea. B I declare that the statements above are correct. Except as shown above I have not made, and will not make, any claim under any enactment for travelling or subsistence expenses in connection with the duties indicated above. Payroll No: ______
Date ...... Signature of Councillor ...... Month Paid: ______
Z:\Committees\A Agenda Pack\Council\2009-10\09Dec03\12 1 (2 of 2) - Cllrs Allowances Handbook - Appendix 1.doc
a Appendix E (OFFICER)
Confirmation of Councillor Attendance
This form provides confirmation of your attendance at a meeting with an Officer as an approved duty. Please attach this signed form to any expense claim form submitted for this meeting. Refer to Appendix G “Guidelines on Approved Duty”.
Councillor Name:
Reason for Meeting:
Date of Meeting: Time of Meeting:
Location of Meeting:
Post Code:
Attendance Confirmed
I confirm that the named Councillor was present at the meeting as detailed above. Officers Signature:
Name of Officer:
Position:
Contact Number:
Date:
Z:\Committees\A Agenda Pack\Council\2009-10\09Dec03\12 1 (2 of 2) - Cllrs Allowances Handbook - Appendix 1.doc
a Appendix F (OUTSIDE BODY)
Confirmation of Councillor Attendance
This form provides confirmation of your attendance as a representative on an outside body. Please attach this signed form to any expense claim form submitted for this meeting. Refer to Appendix G “Guidelines on Approved Duty”.
Councillor Name:
Reason for Meeting:
Date of Meeting: Time of Meeting:
Location of Meeting:
Post Code:
Attendance Confirmed This section MUST be completed and signed by a representative of the Outside Body.
I confirm that the named Councillor was present at the meeting as detailed above. Signature:
Name:
Position:
Contact Number:
Date:
Z:\Committees\A Agenda Pack\Council\2009-10\09Dec03\12 1 (2 of 2) - Cllrs Allowances Handbook - Appendix 1.doc
Appendix G (Approved Duty)
Approved Duty
1. The current Regulations define an ‘approved duty’ as:
a) Attendance at a meeting of the authority or of any committee of the authority or of any body to which the authority makes appointments or nominations or of any committee of such a body; b) Attendance at a meeting of any association of authorities of which the authority is a member; c) Attendance at any other meeting the holding of which is authorised by the authority or by a committee of the authority or by a joint committee of the authority and one or more other authorities;
d) A duty undertaken for the purpose of or in connection with the discharge of the functions of an executive where the authority is operating executive arrangements within the meaning of Part II of the 2000 Act;
e) A duty undertaken in pursuance of a standing order which requires a member or members to be present when tender documents are opened;
f) A duty undertaken in connection with the discharge of any function of the authority which empowers or requires the authority to inspect or authorise the inspection of premises;
g) Attendance at any training or development event approved by the authority of its executive or board;
h) Any other duty approved by the authority, or any other duty of a class so approved, undertaken for the purpose of, or in connection with, the discharge of the functions of the authority or any of its committees.
Examples where meetings would constitute an approved duty:
• Meetings with Officers called to cover a specific item of council business at which there are at least the Chief Executive/Chief Officer or Head of Service present. These meetings will have been ‘summoned’ i.e. either formally convened or requesting a Councillors attendance by letter or email.
Examples where meetings would NOT constitute an approved duty:
• Personal meetings with the Chief Executive/Chief Officers to discuss private matters. • Group meetings. • Meetings relating to Ward matters. • Member only meetings.
Z:\Committees\A Agenda Pack\Council\2009-10\09Dec03\12 1 (2 of 2) - Cllrs Allowances Handbook - Appendix 1.doc Item No. 13
Council – 3rd December 2009
COUNCILLOR QUESTIONS
PART A - SUPPLEMENTARIES
1. Councillors R H Kinzett, P R Hood-Williams, M Smith and A C S Colburn
To ask the Cabinet Member to a) provide details for performance measurements this Authority is subject to in the area of payment of invoices and b) provide the performance data applicable to Swansea against the Welsh and UK comparators.
Response of the Cabinet Member for Finance
The national statutory performance measure is to pay invoices within 30 days of receipt of invoice.
Performance against this target over the last five years is as follows:
Year Percentage of invoices paid within 30 days Swansea Welsh average England average 2004/05 78% 84% 87% 2005/06 82% 89% 86% 2006/07 71% 87% no data 2007/08 82% 87% 90% 2008/09 79% 88% 89%
A plan has been in place for the last six months to improve performance. The plan includes:
- the production of performance information for each service area - the consideration of performance data by Directorate Management Teams - systematically targeting areas of poor compliance - the provision of additional training and support to staff managing invoice payments - the introduction of efficiency initiatives to improve payment performance and reduce invoice volumes. Examples include ebilling, purchasing cards and consolidated billing.
As a result of the above, performance has improved steadily over recent months as follows:
May 80% June 79% July 85% August 87% September 90% October 94%
The above represents an average of 86% for the year to date. This is 1% higher than the target (85%) set for the year. The current performance level (94%) represents top quartile performance . The challenge will be to stay at this level / further improve performance.
In addition to the national performance measure, the Welsh Assembly Government has recently set councils a target to pay businesses within 10 days. Whilst there is limited comparative information on this additional target, payment performance within 10 days has improved from 26% (April 2009) to 44% (October 2009).
2. Councillors D Phillips, J Burtonshaw, J Miles, B Lloyd, C Thomas, M Child, C Richards, P Matthews, R Francis-Davies and R Stewart
Will the Cabinet Member for Housing confirm that these are the seven elements of the Welsh Quality Housing Standard?
Houses must be:
1) In a good state of repair 2) Safe and secure 3) Adequately heated, fuel efficient and well insulated 4) Contain up-to-date kitchen and bathroom 5) Well managed 6) Located in attractive and safe environments 7) As far as possible suit the specific requirements of households
Will he give Council an update on progress against each one?
Response of the Cabinet Member for Housing
I can confirm that the Welsh Housing Quality Standard (WHQS) is comprised of the seven component parts as set out in the question.
A comprehensive report to Cabinet on the 17th September 2009 set out that achieving the WHQS is a Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) objective for all social housing in Wales. However, in Swansea, there is a significant shortfall between the amount of money the Council can access under the current financial rules and the amount that needs to be spent in order to achieve this standard.
The Cabinet report also set out in some detail the amount required to meet the WHQS on an element by element basis together with a comparison of what is achievable within current resources and I would refer the questioners to appendix 1 of that report in particular.
The policy of the WAG is that for authorities where such a shortfall exists, the only option to secure the additional investment is to transfer the stock to another Registered Social Landlord. It is also WAG policy that there can be no stock transfer without a ballot of tenants. Swansea Council tenants have previously rejected such a proposal in a confidential ballot.
The strategy set out in the report to Cabinet is for tenants and other key stakeholders to be engaged on how the stock should be improved over the longer term. In the meantime, Council housing repair and maintenance programmes will be focused on ensuring the structural integrity of the stock is maintained and where possible, their thermal efficiency is improved.
As also set out in the Cabinet report, work is currently ongoing to develop and populate a comprehensive database that in due course will reflect in more precise terms the contribution that current investment is making towards the WHQS on a more measurable building element by element basis.
3. Councillors R L Smith, M E Gibbs and G Seabourne
With regard to “Pool Cars”, can the Cabinet Member confirm the number of vehicles in the “pool,” how they are allocated and the cost to the Authority for the last financial year? Who is responsible for the procurement process with regard to these vehicles and what is the criteria?
Response of the Cabinet Member for Environment
There are 73 pool cars currently within the Authority and the cost for 2008/2009 was £338,000 (including fuel) inclusive. The number of pool cars was reduced by 14 during the Transport Review and corporate arrangements put in place to maximise shared use of these vehicles. The individual services determine their needs to meet their operational requirements. However, the numbers are monitored closely by the respective Heads of Service.
These vehicles are procured by the Fleet Management team based in Pipehouse Wharf who do so with assistance from the Corporate Procurement team. This Authority has been instrumental in agreeing a national framework for procurement of vehicles. This has been developed to ensure authorities purchase vehicles that are fit for purpose, are fuel efficient and have a guaranteed supply chain for service arrangements and replacement parts.
4. Councillors D Phillips, J Burtonshaw, J Miles, B Lloyd, C Thomas, M Child, C Richards, P Matthews, R Francis-Davies and R Stewart
Will the Cabinet Member for Housing confirm that residents are leaving modernised accommodation on Heol Maes Y Gelynen for unmodernised accommodation in Cwmrhydyceirw? Will he give (and explain) the reasons for this?
Response of the Cabinet Member for Housing
The properties at Heol Maes y Gelynen were refurbished during 2004 – 2007. The works consisted of wall tie renewal; insulated render; new doors & canopies; weatherboards and rainwater goods; paths and steps, garden clearance and new fencing
During 2009 two tenants transferred to Cwmrhydyceirw. Both properties previously had various improvement works carried out to them, such as roof repairs; new wall ties and render, double glazing; rewiring and new boilers. Both tenants transferred due to the need to move to larger accommodation. The transfers took place in February and May.
5. Councillors G Seabourne, R L Smith and M E Gibbs
There has recently been an increase in companies who wish to purchase unwanted gold, precious metals and scrap jewellery. The majority of traders are genuine, reputable and offer the seller a market valuation and price. Can the Cabinet Member confirm if dealers are monitored? Are there trading terms they must adhere to, is their equipment checked for accuracy to ensure that the seller receive the correct weight and allowance, as the price per gram for precious metals fluctuates on a daily basis.
Response of Cabinet Member for Environment
All retail trading premises are risk assessed to a common system developed by LACORS (Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services) that is applied throughout the United Kingdom. This risk assessment will determine the frequency with which the business is subjected to a programmed routine inspection.
Premises of this nature are usually assessed as a medium risk which will result in them being subjected to a programmed routine inspection once every two years.
During a routine inspection the matters addressed will include a check to ensure that any equipment being used to weigh precious metals is capable of weighing to the fine denomination needed for goods of this nature and that it is accurate by reference to the working standards weights held by the Council.
In addition checks will be undertaken to ensure that description applied to describe the service of buying precious metals is accurate, truthful and unlikely to mislead.
Premises that sell gold silver and other precious metals are required to display statutory notices under the Hallmarking Act 1973 and checks are undertaken to ensure that these are clearly displayed.
In the event that the premises is offering a service to loan money against goods, including jewellery, and that these items can be redeemed within an agreed period, a licence is required to be held under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the agreements made must be in a prescribed form. Checks are undertaken to ensure the licence is held by the proprietor of the business and that agreements are being completed in the prescribed manner.
If complaints are received about consumer goods or services these are investigated by the Trading Standards Division. Any action taken will depend on whether there is any legal non compliance in order to rectify it in a proportionate manner.
6. Councillors D Phillips, J Burtonshaw, J Miles, B Lloyd, C Thomas, M Child, C Richards, P Matthews, R Francis-Davies, R Stewart, B G Owen and W J F Davies
Will the relevant Cabinet Member advise Council
a. What steps have been taken to maximise the use of Earlsmoor, including both the building and the services provided there, and b. What alternative service provision to Earlsmoor Respite Care exists?
Response of the Cabinet Member for Social Services
a. What steps have been taken to maximise the use of Earlsmoor
Access to Social Services is via a community care assessment that will determine if a person has eligible needs and how we can help to meet those needs. Assessments require to be needs led and outcome focussed and should not be determined by what services are available. Therefore, if it is agreed between the cared for and carer that a short break away from the caring situation is required then social services staff will support the family to find the best solution for them. One such option is Earlsmoor Respite.
Choice should be at the heart of all we do. We regularly update and publish information via a number of different mediums that inform people about our services and how to access them.
b. What alternative service provision to Earlsmoor Respite Care exists?
There are a number of alternatives already available to Earlsmoor and we hope to expand those options in the future.
People can have respite in their own homes for blocks of several hours during the day.
We purchase placements in the private sector care homes both locally and nationally.
We provide respite within Ty Waunarlwydd for older people with dementia, placements are available within Caewern - LA run home in Neath Port Talbot.
We are considering developing the following as part of the review of respite:
Development of a flat within the extra care complex at Family Housing Association Sketty.
Development of a family placement scheme.
Access to information around suitable holiday accommodation.
An alternative in-house respite unit with modern facilities.
Direct payments to tailor support to individual needs.
Residential respite across UK.
Flexible personal care to be provided whilst on holidays.
More flexible respite within own home.
Continued use of Caewern and private sector.
Development of in-house home care and day opportunities to compliment any respite at home plans.
Joint arrangements with health regarding meeting more complex health needs.
In summary, we wish to develop a range of services that support the different needs and preferences of a wider range of people, rather then the current one size fits all approach.
7. Councillors D Phillips, J Burtonshaw, J Miles, B Lloyd, C Thomas, M Child, C Richards, P Matthews, R Francis-Davies, R Stewart and R Doyle
The Authority is currently proposing to issue 90 day notices in respect of Ty Cwm & Ty Gwaun children’s homes. Could the relevant cabinet Member advise Council a. What factors the Cabinet considered when agreeing this proposal? b. What alternative provision will exist if (and when) these homes close, such that will not lead to a reduction in service available locally to these very vulnerable children? c. Why these two facilities have been ‘bed blocked’ since February ’09 and the consequences of this action? d. How this proposal is consistent with his Administration’s stated intentions in regards to the improvement of services to vulnerable children and families in need and the assurances given to the WAG Intervention Board?
Response of the Cabinet Member for Social Services
I appreciate that this question was posed before the detailed Child and Family Services report had been considered by the Extraordinary Council meeting on the 25th November. All Councillors will now have had the opportunity to consider the issues that are identified within the report.
The one question which is not addressed in the report is item c. i.e.
Why these two facilities have been ‘bed blocked’ since February ’09 and the consequences of this action?
It has been necessary to refurbish Ty Cwm given the concerns that had been expressed by the Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales. In addition, during the last few months the position regarding accommodation services has been reviewed and the proposals are contained in the report to Extraordinary Council on the 25th November.
Given the situation that has occurred it has been necessary to consider the relevant implications and in so doing careful consideration has been given to the impact on the young people who were using the service.
8. Councillors M E Gibbs, G Seabourne and R L Smith
In relation to the current Authority housing crisis, can the Cabinet Member inform council is the “Right to Buy” scheme still available to tenants? What is the discount structure offered, what is the minimum length of time for a tenant to reside at a property to meet the criteria to qualify for this scheme.
Response of the Cabinet Member for Housing
The ‘Right to Buy’ scheme is available to Council tenants and discounts (up to a maximum of £16,000) are offered on the market value of the property as follows:
Qualifying Period in Houses % Flats % Years Discount Discount 2 32 44 5 35 50 10 40 50 15 45 70 20 50 70 25 55 70 30 60 70
The original minimum qualifying period of 2 years was extended to five years under the Housing Act 2004 for people who became tenants on or after the 18th January 2005. There is no minimum time that a tenant has to reside at the property they are applying to buy as the time they have been a social housing tenant (whether with this or a different Council or a Registered Social Landlord) will count towards the overall qualifying period and not just the time that they have been living at their current property.
9. Councillors R H Kinzett, P R Hood-Williams, M Smith and A C S Colburn
To ask the Cabinet Member to give performance figures for the Authority on the range of indicators applicable to recycling and to provide these alongside the Welsh and UK comparators.
Response of the Cabinet Member for Environment
The details below show the present position across a range of indicators. This information is reported regularly to Cabinet. It is not possible to compare other UK authorities directly as the definitions of waste and indicators are slightly different fo England. However, an extract from the Environment Agency’s Wastedataflow is in below for Unitary Collection Authorities. There is the possibility that changes in legislation will require recycling in the future by householders and business but at moment participation is purely voluntary.
PI Reference, Previou Target Actual 2008/09 Trend 2008/09 Desired s Year 2008/09 2008/09 Wales of Comment Direction of 2007/08 Averag Imp. Travel & e PI Description WMT/001i 22.51% 23.50% 22.73% 23.12% The (formerly voluntary WMT/001bi) nature of The percentage participatio of municipal n by the waste public and reused/recycled businesses of existing recycling initiatives mean that the outcome of this PI is not solely in the hands of the Council. As recycling rates increase, then assuming the growth in waste is not greater, the waste sent to landfill will reduce. WMT/001ii 7.63% 11.50% 8.84% 12.76% Biodegrad (formerly able waste WMT/001bii) recycling is The percentage voluntary of municipal and not waste solely in composted or the hands treated of the biologically in council. A another way poor (Improvement summer Agreement) also contributed to lower than anticipated tonnages. The weekly collection of kitchen waste has since been introduced with an expected increase in compostibl e material
PI Reference, Previou Target Actual 2008/09 Trend 2008/09 Desired s Year 2008/09 2008/09 Wales of Comment Direction of 2007/08 Averag Imp. Travel & e PI Description WMT/002 64.26% 62.50% 62.55% 57.02% The The percentage voluntary of bio- nature of degradable participatio municipal waste n by the sent to landfill public and businesses of existing recycling initiatives mean that the outcome of this PI is not solely in the hands of the Council. As compostin g rates increase, then assuming the growth in waste is not greater, the waste sent to landfill will reduce. WMT/004 68.94% 67.40% 67.66% 59.98% The The percentage voluntary of municipal nature of waste sent to participatio landfill n by the public and businesses of existing recycling initiatives mean that the outcome of this PI is not solely in the hands of the Council. As compostin g rates increase, then assuming the growth in waste is not greater, the waste sent to landfill will reduce. WMT/007 49.89% 53.50% 53.81% 55.93% The percentage of municipal waste received at a household waste amenity site that is reused, recycled or composted
PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD WASTE SENT FOR RECYCLING, COMPOSTING OR RE-USE for 1st Quarter 2009/1
AUTHORITY
Bath and North East Somerset Council 44.23% Blaenau Gwent CBC 26.65% Bournemouth Borough Council 44.02% Bridgend CBC 33.18% Bristol City Council 35.91%
Caerphilly CBC 39.64% Caradon District Council - Cardiff County Council - Carmarthenshire County Council 41.89% Carrick District Council - Ceredigion County Council 41.84% Cheltenham Borough Council 35.88% Christchurch Borough Council 35.77% City and County of Swansea 38.97% Conwy CBC 45.88% Cornwall 38.98% Cotswold District Council 66.39% Council of the Isles of Scilly 19.15%
Denbighshire County Council 53.50%
East Devon District Council 31.14% East Dorset District Council 42.63% Exeter City Council 34.84%
Flintshire County Council 48.77% Forest of Dean District Council 46.54%
Gloucester City Council 34.70% Gwynedd Council 39.78%
Isle of Anglesey CC 53.10%
Kennet District Council - Kerrier District Council -
Mendip District Council 41.36% Merthyr Tydfil CBC 32.27% Mid Devon District Council 49.48% Monmouthshire CC 44.36%
Neath Port Talbot CBC 33.00% Newport City Council 40.69% North Cornwall District Council - North Devon District Council 42.76% North Dorset District Council 32.93% North Somerset Council 40.81% North Wiltshire District Council -
Pembrokeshire County Council 38.26% Penwith District Council - Plymouth City Council 34.06% Poole Borough Council 44.10% Powys County Council 40.85% Purbeck District Council 31.46%
Restormel Borough Council - Rhondda Cynon Taff CBC 33.68%
Salisbury District Council - Sedgemoor District Council 27.52% South Gloucestershire Council 43.67% South Hams District Council 58.75% South Somerset District Council 42.72% Stroud District Council 25.21% Swindon Borough Council 49.25%
Taunton Deane Borough Council 48.65% Teignbridge District Council 57.71% Tewkesbury Borough Council 34.84% Torbay Council 35.06% Torfaen CBC 47.89% Torridge District Council 41.97%
Vale of Glamorgan Council 41 .24%
West Devon Borough Council 45.82% West Dorset District Council 32.11% West Somerset District Council 29.05% West Wiltshire District Council - Weymouth and Portland Borough Council 42.23% Wiltshire 44.47% Wrexham CBC 47.24%
10. Councillors R L Smith, G Seabourne and M E Gibbs
Can the Cabinet Member give an explanation on the following response received by ward councillors regarding a request for a pothole or highway damage repair? “Although there are a few defects in the carriageway, the majority do not meet our current intervention criteria” As this is a “recent innovation”, it appears to be based on costs.
Response of the Cabinet Member for Environment
I am pleased that members have raised this issue as it gives me an opportunity to clarify the position. The Highway Service has a set of standards and level of service that was recently approved by Council. This states that emergency defects will be responded to within 24 hours and less urgent defects within 28 days. The intervention criteria are depth of pothole, or height or trip hazard etc. is consistent with that set by other local authorities. Inevitably, response to requests for repairs is dependent on funding available and achieving a balance between reactive and planned maintenance.
Moving forward, I have asked the Head of Service to examine an alternative strategy that will enable ward members to be more actively involved in the repairs programme. I hope to announce a revised regime when we publish to second 5 year programme early in 2010.
11. Councillors D Phillips, J Burtonshaw, J Miles, B Lloyd, C Thomas, M Child, C Richards, P Matthews, R Francis-Davies, R Stewart and R Doyle
Will the relevant Cabinet Member(s) explain to Council why Council Officers did not convene a meeting with the Swansea Astronomical Society (SAS) as requested by the society in the letter sent to the Authority on the 22nd May 2009? Will the authority now arrange such a meeting as a matter of urgency?
Response of the Leader
From the 22nd May onwards events overtook the original request, although a meeting of senior members and officers took place in order to address the issues.
Communication continued throughout the subsequent period and this included 6 letters/e-mails from City and County of Swansea to Swansea Astronomical Society (SAS), as well as telephone conversations.
There would never be any issue with meeting SAS, or any other organisation which requested a meeting. The issue of a meeting was not subsequently raised by SAS during telephone conversations with Council officers or in correspondence between SAS and the Council until the 4th November.
A meeting was offered to SAS on 12th November and the meeting took place on 19th November 2009.
12. Councillors R H Kinzett, P R Hood-Williams, M Smith and A C S Colburn
To ask the Cabinet Member to provide peformance indicators applicable to start up business activities, against Welsh and UK comparators.
Response of the Cabinet Member for Economic & Strategic Development
It is difficult to provide an exact answer to this question as data collection for comparison purposes is normally restricted to VAT registrations and takes little account of those enterprises that fall below the VAT threshold. The latest figures that are available in this regard relate to 2007 which in terms of actual numbers see Swansea as second in Wales with a figure that is slightly less than half of the UK average. The 2008 figures will be available later this month.
VAT registrations for the United Kingdom, and Wales LAs, 2007 2007 VAT AREA TYPE AREA Registrations
UK UNITED KINGDOM 205,725 WALES WALES 6,820 UA Cardiff 850 UA Carmarthenshire 440 UA Swansea 440 UA Rhondda, Cynon, Taff 435 UA Flintshire 430 UA Powys 390 UA Monmouthshire 330
UA Newport 325 UA Pembrokeshire 320 UA Caerphilly 315 UA Wrexham 315 UA Gwynedd 300 UA Bridgend 275 UA The Vale of Glamorgan 270 UA Conwy 245 UA Denbighshire 240 UA Neath Port Talbot 210 UA Ceredigion 185 UA Torfaen 170 UA Isle of Anglesey 150 UA Blaenau Gwent 100 UA Merthyr Tydfil 85 Source: BERR Enterprise Directorate Analytical Unit Published Friday 28 November 2008.
The Business Centre Swansea’s work with both VAT registered and non-VAT registered new businesses is completed under contract to the Welsh Assembly Government’s (WAG) Department for Enterprise and Training (DE&T). DE&T set the budget, the parameters and the targets for this work. However they only collate the number of new businesses that will reach a turnover of over £80K per annum (12K above the VAT threshold). This is WAG’s definition of what they term a “Growth Start,” Although in addition to this figure the business also demonstrates that it will create employment within its first year and that the owners have made a personal investment of at least £10,000 into the business.
The Business Centre has achieved 29% of the total growth starts for South West Wales for the first six months of this year. It should be recognised that the Business Centre Swansea is not the only service provider that contributes to the overall Swansea total so Swansea’s total percentage figure is likely to be higher. Due to reasons of commercial confidentiality, that figure is yet to be made available to us.
Although our contract with WAG no longer requires us to monitor the number of Non Growth starts, (i.e. new businesses that will not create employment nor reach a turnover of £80,000) we do report them as part of our key performance indicators. At the six month point for this year, we had started sixty new businesses which represented 72% of our target set for this year. There are no national comparators for this activity. Also 74% of the businesses that started with the Business Centre Swansea two years ago were still trading at the end of September. Again there are no national comparators for this achievement.
End of year data - DEV05
78
76
74
72 Perf Target 70
years of trading of years 68
66 the support of Business Centre Business Centre of support the Swansea & are still operating after 2 after operating still &Swansea are % of businesses that have started with with have started that businesses of % 64 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Year
13. Councillors D Phillips, J Burtonshaw, J Miles, B Lloyd, C Thomas, M Child, C Richards, P Matthews, R Francis-Davies, R Stewart and R Doyle
Will the relevant Cabinet Member(s) please outline what plans the City & County of Swansea have for the Marina Tower Public Observatory?
Response of the Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance
Should the building become vacant the intention would be to consider all options. These may include to place it on the open market or offer its use to other organisations.
14. Councillors R H Kinzett, P R Hood-Williams, M Smith and A C S Colburn
To ask the Cabinet Member to provide figures relating to post-16 destinations of school leavers in Swansea, broken down by each secondary school.
Response of the Cabinet Member for Education
The information requested is held by Careers Wales West who are in the process of releasing the information for 2009. Once the information is received it will be circulated.
PART B – NO SUPPLEMENTARIES
15. Councillors D Phillips, J Burtonshaw, J Miles, B Lloyd, C Thomas, M Child, C Richards, P Matthews, R Francis-Davies and R Stewart
Will the relevant Cabinet Member a. provide a comparison of the costs of caring for a child in a locally based home, say Ty Gwaun & Ty Cwm, and ‘out-of-county’ facilities both private and other? b. Will he also state the number of children currently in care and how many of those are in facilities more than 10 miles from Swansea?
Response of the Cabinet Member for Social Services
It is important to consider the position regarding costs and the following identifies the range of support that is available.
1. Foster Swansea - Average cost of £236.53 per week.
2. Independent Foster Agency - Average cost of £711.02 per week.
3. Ty Gwaun / Ty Cwm - The actual average cost for in-house residential care for 2008/09 was £3,344.
4. Independent Sector Care Homes - There are two organisations that are often used and their costs are £3,900 and £4,600 per week. It is important to note that these costs are often considered on a tri-partite basis between Social Services, Education and Health. As a consequence the costs for the Local Authority may vary but are typically within the range of £2,000 - £3,000 a week.
There are currently 504 Looked After Children and 156 placements are outside of the boundaries of the City and County of Swansea. Of these 156 placements 127 are 10 miles from the boundaries. It might also be helpful to know that of the 156 placements 101 are within the Local Authorities of Carmarthenshire, Powys and Neath Port Talbot.
16. Councillors D Phillips, J Burtonshaw, J Miles, B Lloyd, C Thomas, M Child, C Richards, P Matthews, R Francis-Davies and R Stewart
Will the Cabinet Member for Regeneration tell Council what outstanding repairs have been requested in Penlan Leisure Centre? What is the cost of these repairs and when will they be completed?
Will he also give Council a list of outstanding repairs in Community Leisure Centres and Community Centres in the City and County of Swansea?
Response of the Cabinet Member for Culture, Recreation & Tourism
There is currently only one minor job recorded as issued but not complete at Penlan which relates to an additional door latch to the disabled changing cubicle. All work will be complete within the next week and the budget cost for the work is £80.
There are also a range of repairs that have been requested that have not been authorised. These include works to guttering, external cleaning, work to staff room, shower repairs and general building repairs. Unfortunately due to budget restrictions these repairs have been deemed as non urgent as they do not meet the priority criteria and therefore have not been authorised and are unlikely to be so in the near future. In addition, a request has been received to install a ramp compliant with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act to the Activa area. This however falls outside the revenue maintenance budget and costs are being sought with a view to including it within the future DDA programme alongside the other corporate priorities.
The recent issue affecting storm damage is also currently being investigated so that the repairs can be actioned as soon as possible
In relation to the remaining Community Leisure Centres there are currently a total of 4 jobs issued which are not yet complete covering a range of minor mechanical, electrical and building related works with a total budget cost of £2,000. It is envisaged that these will be completed over the next 2 to 4 weeks. The Community Centres have a total of 19 jobs issued which are yet complete totalling £28,000, although many of these are in progress. It is envisaged that most will be completed prior to Christmas although some may be carried out in the new year.
Finally, there are a range of repairs to both Community Leisure Centres and Community Centres which have not been actioned due to budget constraints. This list is continually reviewed with additional repairs instructed if budgets permit or the priority of the repair changes.