16 January 2025
NEW FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL
Place and Sustainability Overview and Scrutiny Panel
Minutes of a meeting of the Place and Sustainability Overview and Scrutiny Panel held on Thursday, 16 January 2025
* Cllr Steve Rippon-Swaine (Chairman)
* Cllr Alvin Reid (Vice-Chairman)
|
Councillors: |
Councillors:
|
|
* Peter Armstrong * Allan Glass * Matthew Hartmann * Stephanie Osborne
|
Adam Parker Michael Thierry * Malcolm Wade
|
*Present
In attendance:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Councillors: |
Councillors:
|
|
Derek Tipp
|
|
Officers Attending:
James Carpenter, Andy Rogers, Chris Noble and Saqib Yasin
Apologies
Apologies for absence were received from Cllr A Parker.
|
22 |
Minutes |
RESOLVED:
The minutes of the meeting held on 12 September 2024 were confirmed as a correct record.
|
23 |
Declarations of Interest |
There were no Declarations of Interest.
|
24 |
Public Participation |
There was no public participation.
|
25 |
Corporate Plan: Key Performance Data for Quarter 1 and 2 |
The Panel reviewed Key Performance Indicator (KPI) data dashboards for quarters 1 and 2 for 2024/25. The Performance and Insight Manager explained the Key Performance Indicators and presented the report.
It was explained that the Performance Indicators had been developed in collaboration with services. The Council’s Executive Management Team reviewed all targets, and the report was the first performance report under the new Corporate Plan, and in line with the new performance management framework.
The report covered all portfolios, though the Panel’s relevant performance measures were numbered 16 – 33 in the dashboard, with the covering report summarising salient points.
The main points raised by the Performance and Insight Manager were as follows:
· On the structure and form of the new dashboards, there were 48 KPIs that had been organised by Corporate Plan theme and by Corporate Plan priority.
· Good practice and/or good performance is typically presented by an increasing or decreasing value.
· The return format shows the unit of the value being reported and the frequency shows how often the KPI is to be reported.
· In Q1, for Place and Sustainability, 12 measures were available out of a total of 18 and reference was given to planning measures which performed well. Although minor and major application determining times were listed as amber, it was explained that Council’s targets were set much higher than the Government prescribed targets.
· The total outstanding net dwelling supply was forecasted to fall short of the targets however remedial action is sought via the Delivery Action Plan.
· It was thought that the significant increase in household waste being sent to recycling was due to the introduction of the wheeled bins.
· Concerning water bottle filling stations, cooler weather over the Spring and Summer periods meant lower visitor numbers utilising the stations.
· There had to be a balance between residential and commercial space. The conversion of former office space to residential space in the district had countered the development of industrial employment land being developed over this period.
· On Q2, 27 of the KPIs were available out of 48 and the Council were able to reflect back using the Q1 position. 9 Place and Sustainability measures were available for Q2 with planning measures continuing to perform well.
· The planning major application determination time was below the Council’s target however the Council’s target was 25 percentage points higher than the Government’s prescribed target.
· 2 of the Council’s 15 appeals were approved, with 13 being dismissed, and these small numbers did tend to give a large variance against the target.
· The Garden Waste service continued to perform well.
· Fly-tipping remained ‘green’ rated.
Overall, the Performance Management Framework provided a sense-check against all of the Council’s priorities in a measurable way.
A member of the Panel asked why fly-tipping incidents were shown as divided by the population of the Forest. Some members questioned whether fly-tipping incidents were even made by residents of the District and, given the unique nature of the New Forest, wondered why the comparable, by-resident metric, was used.
It was explained that the ‘per population’ element of the metric gives a more discernible benchmark to compare against other authorities rather than an arbitrary figure that it is hard to measure as being ‘successful or unsuccessful. The Council would continue to provide the actual numbers in the narrative, alongside the per population KPI.
It was agreed the fly-tipping within the District was abhorred and the Council work closely with the Police and Forestry England to address this matter. It was heard that in the last couple of days data had been gathered that would hopefully lead to a prosecution for fly-tipping.
On employment, it was clarified that for KPI 33, the minimum-wage figure related to all individuals employed across the District.
The Strategic Director of Place, Operations and Sustainability explained that the KPIs had been through the relevant process and sign-off through the Cabinet.
A question was raised on Appletree Careline and the change of the phone lines. The Strategic Director for Place Operations and Sustainability said he would take this question away and relay it to the Strategic Director of Housing and Communities.
|
26 |
Portfolio Holders' Updates |
The Panel received an update on developments within the Planning and Economy Portfolio.
Cllr Geoff Blunden – Environment and Sustainability
It was noted that Cllr Blunden gave his apologies for the meeting.
Cllr Derek Tipp – Planning and Economy
The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economy provided an update. The main points were as follows:
· The Local Plan call for sites closed on 13th December 2024 at which point there had been 150 submissions, ready for review by the Council. More sites were expected to come forward in the coming weeks, however it was explained that the Council were unlikely to be able to meet their housing need as calculated by the Government’s formula despite the 150 site submissions.
· Following this, the Council’s next step in the Local Plan process would be preparing the Issues and Scope document which is due to be considered at the February Cabinet meeting where approval will be sought to consult with the wider stakeholders through February and March.
· BCP Council’s Local Plan examination starts on 21st January, and it was noted that they also faced challenges to meet their housing provision.
· The Hampshire County Council Mineral Waste plan will go to public examination on the 4th February. The Portfolio Holder reminded the Panel that this plan had also been considered by the Panel at a previous meeting.
· The Portfolio Holder explained that he had written a letter to the Secretary of State for Housing at the beginning of the year, expressing his serious concerns about the revised National Planning Policy Framework. This was due to the high level of constraints on development and what impact this would have for the Council on them achieving their housing targets in the Plan Area. No response had been received so far.
· On the Shared Prosperity Fund, last year’s total was £1.5m and the projects for that pot of money were nearing completion.
· For 2024/2025 10 case studies for projects had been uploaded to the UK Shared Prosperity Fund and Rural England Prosperity Fund website.
· For 2025-2026 the Council had been awarded £327,146 allocation of funding for these funds.
· Recruitment was taking place for a new Economy development manager and Officer. The Portfolio Holder reported that there had been a pleasing number of applications for the roles and the recruitment process would be finalised in the coming days.
· On building control, there was currently an audit by the building safety regulator taking place which was a standard process across the country following the Grenfell Tower tragedy.
· It was explained that the Community Infrastructure Levy fund pot stood at £1m. This money would be used for capital funding of local projects. The Panel heard that 77 bids had been received in total and that if all of these bids were approved, their total costs would be around £3m. This demonstrated the popularity of the fund and, in order to decide which projects would receive an allocation, it was explained that a Council Task and Finish Group would meet at the end of the January to review all of the bids.
A member asked whether there would be any implications for NFDC in BCP Council’s Local Plan examination. The Portfolio Holder explained that it would be interesting to see what the inspector’s report says given that BCP Council were also facing challenges in meeting the calculated housing supply.
Following a question on Fawley Waterside, the Strategic Director of Place, Operations and Sustainability explained that the Council continued to be in contact with the Fawley Waterside Consortium. The planning application was withdrawn due to concerns over the viability of site to deliver housing. It was, however, expected that the promoters of the site to come forward with a new application. There was a clear ambition to develop the site however as a brownfield site there were some challenges to development for housing.
A member asked whether designated sites that had already obtained planning permission were included and to be considered in line with the government’s housing supply calculation? It was explained that the sites that had obtained planning consent were included as part of the Housing Delivery Action plan, however it was noted that these types of sites were in a minority within the District when compared to other Local Authority areas and that the Council were powerless to make landowners or developers fulfil the schemes that they had obtained planning for.
|
27 |
Work Programme |
RESOLVED:
That the Work Programme be approved.
CHAIRMAN