Agenda item

Scrutiny of the annual performance report prior to submission to Welsh Government.

Cabinet Member Paul Griffiths and Craig O’Connor introduced the report, Philip Thomas delivered a presentation, and they answered the members’ questions with Amy Longford and Andrew Jones.

Questions from committee members:

·        How was the backlog in enforcement overcome?

·        What does the percentage of affordable houses given on p6 equate to? Are we expecting more in 23/24?

·        What were the £110k consultancy fees used on?

·        Does the council use ‘lean principles’ to look at processes and determine waste?

·        The Planning committee is mentioned as a consultee – did the report go to that committee?

·        Is there a mistake on p28, with the number of applications received for this year being less than the number determined?

·        Is the table on p31 showing a £2.1m uplift reflecting the RLDP value?

·        Does the joint heritage service represent value for money? Do we receive sufficient funds from Blaenau Gwent to cover costs? Does it take away from valuable work in Monmouthshire?

·        Could members have a list of all S106 projects that have benefitted from funding in the last year? – Share list and info – ACTION

·        How will the Building At Risk strategy be expedited, and when will it be ready?

·        How do officers ensure that they get the balance right between applying the law but allowing development of heritage buildings?

·        How accurate is the collation of Planning’s data and what are our quality assurances?

·        How are we securing the best possible scheme for securing outcomes and can we have some detail and context? Have we approached academic institutions to develop those?

·        Has the Planning function been fundamentally reviewed and what guarantees can be given that if there were an inspection by Audit Wales or similar we wouldn’t be found severely wanting?

·        Is the Welsh Government likely to introduce comparative data in future years?

·        Are we sure that the phosphate stripping in Monmouth and Llanfoist will be adequate for future demand?

·        Is the proportion of planning applications approved a valid measure of performance? How confident are we that approvals are in line with planning policy?

·        Enforcement performance is low, with anecdotal reports of our failure to address continued breaches – does this potentially encourage others to breach regulations?

·        Is digitising microfiche cost-effective, considering the staff hours required to digitise vs how often it’s requested?

·        Can the £84m to the local economy be promoted, especially with businesses?

·        Is it possible to have a hyperlink that goes directly to the application?

·        Is the relatively small number of appeals due to good engagement with applicants?

·        The council lost 4 appeals – was that against big developers with big teams? What about appeals from local residents?

·        What cost are we incurring in appeals?

·        We need to ensure that we build back up the confidence lost in some residents due to the poor performance of 290 days for a positive enforcement action

·        Do we prioritise major applications over general ones? If so, is there a good value in prioritising the larger ones?

·        The inclusion of ‘opportunities moving forward’ is very welcome in the report, and is recommended to other services in their performance reports

·        Would it be a good idea to involve a planning officer from another authority to oversee the performance assessment, in order to make it as robust and objective as possible? – something officers can take away (Action? [Craig])

·        The report’s preface references wok being done ‘in a timely manner’, which seems to jar against the 290 days before a positive enforcement action – can they both be correct? Does the inclusion of this line undermine the report’s objectivity?

Chair’s Summary:

The report was moved and recommendation approved.