Agenda item

Priority: Finance and Resources

P34 – Objective 4 – Action a) Explore options for the regeneration of Spring Gardens – A Member raised concern that, despite the performance tracker showing a smiley face, the Spring Gardens and Oldbury Road Regeneration Member Reference Group had not met for some time and the Garden Town seemed to be being used as a reason for the delay so he sought an explanation for this.

The Head of Finance and Asset Management explained that the main reason for the delay was due to the consideration of the social and economic impact of the four options, as set out in the commentary box. This information had now been received and the parking survey was also largely complete. In terms of the Garden Town, the bid was based on transforming Tewkesbury as a whole and it was necessary to pay some attention to how that would feed into the wider picture but he stressed it was not holding up this particular project in any way.  He advised that it was his intention to hold a meeting of the Spring Gardens and Oldbury Road Regeneration Member Reference Group before Easter to update on progress.  In terms of the smiley face, Members were informed that the project was on target as at quarter three.

P34 – Objective 4 – Action b) Disposal of the Ministry of Food and Fisheries (MAFF) site – A Member questioned what the reasons were for the delay and whether this was related to the previous action in respect of Spring Gardens.

The Head of Finance and Asset Management advised that, when considering various sites, it was becoming very clear how linked they needed to be going forward so it was a case of putting the jigsaw together in the right order.  The parking survey information had suggested that it was right to retain the MAFF site and look at its potential for additional parking and other meanwhile uses.  This would be discussed with the Parking Strategy Review Working Group and the Spring Gardens and Oldbury Road Regeneration Member Reference Panel before a proposal was taken to Council.

Priority: Promoting and Supporting Economic Growth

P36 – Objective 2 – Action a) Deliver employment land through the Joint Core Strategy and Tewkesbury Borough Plan – A Member pointed out that the comments box stated that the Joint Core Strategy Issues and Options consultation was completed on 11 January 2018 and he questioned whether that date was correct.

The Head of Development Services confirmed that the date was incorrect as the consultation was completed in January 2019 and she apologised for the error.  She clarified that responses had now been considered so Officers were looking to progress to the next stage and a meeting had taken place that morning to discuss various changes such as having greater community involvement and infrastructure provision.  Further to that meeting, it was now intended to have a Regulation 18 version of the Draft Plan by the autumn; this would include a transport and infrastructure strategy which would require engagement with Gloucestershire County Council.

P38 – Objective 3 – Action b) Work with partners to secure transport infrastructure improvements around the borough, including the all-ways Junction 10, Junction 9 and A46 improvements – A Member queried what was meant by an “offline solution” in terms of Junction 9 and the A46 and sought clarification as to the Member representative on the J9/A46 Partnership.

The Head of Development Services apologised for the terminology used and explained that an “offline solution” in this context was one which would not involve improving or extending the existing carriageway i.e. potentially a new road.  She confirmed that Councillor Vernon Smith sat on the J9/A46 Partnership in his capacity both as a Tewkesbury Borough Councillor and a Gloucestershire County Councillor.

A Member raised concern that a lot of actions within the tracker referred to the Garden Town and he asked that this be kept separate where possible.  The Head of Development Services explained that these projects all came under the heading of infrastructure and the growth potential of the M5 junctions, specifically Junction 9, had inevitably evolved due to the Garden Town so that was referenced in the work in respect of J9/A46.  These were all relevant to Tewkesbury as a whole in any case and needed to be considered under the umbrella of the Garden Town.  It was noted that the Garden Town was a priority in the new Council Plan so would be included in the performance tracker going forward, notwithstanding this, the infrastructure projects would continue to be actions in their own right.

P39 – Objective 4 – Action b) Develop a programme with partners to progress Healings Mill and other key development opportunity sites to support the regeneration of Tewkesbury – A Member noted that discussions were being held with the developer and agencies to explore what options may exist and he questioned what options were being considered.

The Head of Development Services advised that the options related to how this would be delivered, for instance, whether this would be via developers or Homes England etc. and conversations were ongoing with existing landowners.  It was noted that the designation of Healings Mill as a listed building the previous year had added to the complications.  The Chair pointed out that the Committee had previously received a separate report on Healings Mill and had agreed that, as it was largely out of the Council’s control, it would continue to receive updates as and when appropriate.

P39 – Objective 5 – Action a) Explore with partners – including the Battlefield Society – the potential to increase the heritage offer at the Battlefield Site – A Member asked whether it was possible to see the project plan that had been produced and asked for more information about the 2021 Group and how this linked to this action.

The Deputy Chief Executive felt it would be beneficial to ask the Economic and Community Development Manager to attend a future meeting of the Committee to give an overview of the project plan and the 2021 Group.

P40 – Objective 5 – Action b) Review the tourism resources to maximise the tourist provisions in the borough – A Member noted that funding had been agreed to carry out an independent tourism review and he asked when that would be undertaken.

The Head of Development Services explained that there were three elements to the review: Tewkesbury Tourist Information Centre; Winchcombe Tourist Information Centre; and the broader strategic issues around the potential of the towns.  Various options had been considered in terms of the relocation of Tewkesbury Tourist Information Centre but, due to issues in relation to the building, a decision had been made to remain in the current building for the short term.  Discussions were ongoing with Winchcombe Town Trust regarding the Tourist Information Centre provision within the town as a result of its successful bid for LEADER funding to develop a new heritage centre and it was noted that the service was temporarily being housed in Winchcombe Library whilst building works were progressing at the Town Hall.  In terms of the broader strategic issues, external expertise were essential and a proposal to carry out the rest of the review had been received the previous day and was currently being considered.  As work would continue into the new financial year, she suggested that the Economic and Community Development Manager could give an update on the review when he gave his report on the battlefield and 2020 project group.

Key performance indicators for priority: Economic Development

P41 – KPI 5 – Number of visitors to Tewkesbury Tourist Information Centre – A Member noted that the number of visitors had dropped in 2018/19 and again in 2019/20 and questioned whether this meant there were less tourists in the borough.

The Head of Development Services advised it was not necessarily that there were less visitors – or that the service was not effective - rather that people no longer used traditional Tourist Information Centres in the same way, as such, it was necessary to review how best to maximise the borough’s tourist potential, for instance, through the website and other methods.  In response to a query as to whether the reduction in footfall was a result of the changes to opening hours, the Head of Development Services clarified that opening hours were different at different times of the year, with longer opening hours in the summer, but that had been the case for the last two years.

Priority: Growing and Supporting Communities

P42 – Objective 1 – Action a) Work with partners to undertake the required reviews to the Joint Core Strategy and Action b) Prepare and adopt the Tewkesbury Borough Plan – A Member sought clarification as to the progress of these actions, given that the target dates kept being revised, and whether there was anything that could be done to drive them forward.  He raised particular concern that a lot seemed to link to the Tewkesbury Garden Town at Ashchurch which he did not feel was an appropriate reason to delay these important actions.

The Head of Development Services explained that the Joint Core Strategy review would seek to allocate the wider Tewkesbury Garden Town as a strategic allocation.  In terms of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan, unfortunately, several unanticipated issues had been raised during the consultation which had required negotiations with statutory consultees but Officers were now in a position to discuss these with Members at the Tewkesbury Borough Plan Working Group meeting the following day.  She could see no reason why the plan would not be submitted by the end of the month and, from that point on, the timetable would be in the hands of an Inspector and largely out of the Council’s control.

P43 – Objective 1 – Action c) Support communities in the preparation of the Neighbourhood Development Plans where they are brought forward – A Member noted that a number of Parishes were yet to deliver a Neighbourhood Development Plan and he questioned what help the Council could offer to put those plans in place.

The Head of Development Services clarified that Parishes were not obligated to adopt a Neighbourhood Development Plan, although a lot did have one particularly since the adoption of the Community Infrastructure Levy charging scheme which meant that there was an additional benefit of having a plan in place.  Sessions had previously been held for all Parish Councils in relation to how Neighbourhood Development Plans were prepared and a number of plans had been approved; Officers did all they could to help and support any Parishes which wanted to produce a Neighbourhood Development Plan.

P43 – Objective 1 – Action e) With partners, explore options for the provision of modular and innovative housing to meet housing needs – A Member questioned why this target date had been amended and if there was a problem with modular housing.

The Deputy Chief Executive explained that the Council had been working with Rooftop Housing on a scheme at Staverton which was due at the end of the month and conversations were also taking place with Bromford Housing regarding a potential site at Winchcombe.  He provided assurance that Officers were working well with the housing providers on the schemes which were subject to the normal planning processes.  Members expressed the view that because the target date had been moved it appeared as if nothing was being done so any progress should be reflected in the narrative.

P47 – Objective 4 – Action b) Achieve the Council’s affordable homes target by working with local housing providers – A Member noted that 142 affordable homes had been delivered against the target of 220 and he questioned whether this included all Joint Core Strategy sites which counted towards meeting the housing need of other local authorities, and why the target of 220 had been set when it seemed so unachievable.

In response, the Head of Community Services advised that this was an aspirational, notional target because the delivery of affordable homes was largely outside of the Council’s direct control as it was dependent on when developers chose to bring schemes forward.  He suggested that this needed to be changed to a performance measure or aim, as opposed to a target, and should be relevant for the duration of the new Housing Strategy which was due to be developed in the next financial year; he pointed out that the target for the previous year had been exceeded so the Council was performing well in this area but the way it was being reported was misleading in some respects.  In response to a query as to whether there was a national target for delivery of affordable homes, Members were advised that there was a national aspiration but not a specific target.  In terms of the 2019/20 target for affordable housing, the Head of Development Services explained that this was based on a rough calculation of the policy requirements for 35% or 40% affordable housing – depending on whether it was a strategic site in the Joint Core Strategy – and the total work expected split by year; however, houses were not always delivered within a particular year and tended to happen in tranches.

In terms of the figures meeting the needs of other authorities, the Strategic Housing and Enabling Officer advised that the Cooper’s Edge development included properties to meet the needs of Gloucester City and Stroud District.  Gloucester City had originally planned for 100% of houses to meet its own need but this was not acceptable from Tewkesbury Borough Council’s point of view and consideration had been given to a 50/50 split; however, this was not manageable in terms of monitoring so an agreement had been reached that they would be allocated based on who applied and their local connection so that it would be market-led.  The Head of Community Services clarified that this was an Executive Committee decision and was intended to ensure that the properties did not remain vacant as a result of applicants being from a different local authority area to that where the properties had been built.  He stressed that this was a reciprocal arrangement so there would be properties within Gloucester City’s strategic allocation which Tewkesbury Borough residents could apply for.

The Head of Development Services confirmed that a decision had been made some time ago regarding the need to co-operate and the Joint Core Strategy identified specific allocations which would help to meet Gloucester City’s housing need.  Affordable housing was a separate issue and there was a reciprocal arrangement that an element of new affordable homes built as part of the development at Twigworth would be available for Tewkesbury Borough residents, as well as Gloucester City residents.  She went on to advise that, where the properties were not serving the need of Tewkesbury Borough residents, they did not come off the Tewkesbury Borough Council target – for example, if there was a need for 10,000 houses in Tewkesbury Borough but Gloucester City had a need for 2,000 properties which could not be accommodated within the allocations in its own area, they could potentially be built within Tewkesbury Borough meaning there would be 12,000 houses overall, 10,000 of which would count towards Tewkesbury Borough Council’s housing supply figures and 2,000 which would count towards Gloucester City’s housing supply figures.

P49 – Objective 4 – Action d) Develop a programme to work with landlords to ensure residents have a supply of rented properties to meet their needs – A Member noted that a pilot scheme was due to start at the beginning of the year and she asked for a progress update.

The Head of Community Services confirmed that the pilot had been launched in January and was targeting landlords through agents initially; unfortunately, the launch event had not been well-attended despite Officers encouraging every landlord in the borough to engage.  There was flexibility to try different things, as other authorities were doing but, to date, nothing had been hugely successful.  He provided assurance that landlords were strongly encouraged to take on tenants with lower incomes but this was proving to be difficult, even with active encouragement, and part of the pilot would be to establish what would incentivise landlords.  The timescale for the pilot had been extended by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which he was grateful for, and he undertook to revise the target date to reflect that and to report back to the Committee once the pilot had finished.  A Member indicated that the action referred to a ‘programme of work’ and he asked whether this could be made available to Members.  The Head of Community Services clarified that it was not a formal plan and was constantly changing, as such, he suggested it would be more beneficial for the relevant Officer to attend a forthcoming meeting of the Committee to give an update on the work undertaken to date.  In the interim, he would be happy to circulate the presentation which had been given to landlords at the launch event.

Key performance indicators for priority: Growing and supporting communities

P50 and 51 - KPIs 8, 9 10 and 11 in relation to housing applications and homelessness – A Member noted there was no direction of travel for these KPIs and it was unclear if they were performing well or not.  She had raised this at the meeting in December when the quarter two performance information had been considered and she had been advised that legislative changes meant that the information being compared was not like for like and it was intended to review the KPIs ready for 2020/21 to coincide with the new Housing Strategy; she questioned whether Officers were confident that could still be achieved and whether there was any cause for concern in terms of the quarter three performance.

The Head of Community Services confirmed that it was still intended to review these KPIs to make it easier for Members to see how they were performing.  In terms of the homelessness figures, Officers were more effective in terms of keeping people in accommodation than in previous years so performance was generally very good.

The Head of Corporate Services explained that the new Council Plan had recently been adopted so all KPIs would need to be reviewed to ensure they remained relevant. The first quarterly performance report of 2020/21 would be brought to the Committee in September.

P52 – KPI 12 – Percentage of ‘major’ applications determined within 13 weeks or alternative period agreed with the applicant, KPI 13 – Percentage of ‘minor’ applications determined within eight weeks or alternative period agreed with the applicant and KPI 14 – Percentage of ‘other’ applications determined within eight weeks or alternative period agreed with the applicant – A Member noted that these KPIs were not achieving their targets and sought clarification as to what was being done to address this.

The Head of Development Services advised that the figures could be deceptive, particularly in terms of ‘major’ applications as it may be that only one or two were delivered within a quarterly period; however, that was not to say work was not ongoing.  She explained that the figures for quarter three were based on the determination of four applications but she indicated that a planning performance agreement was in place for one further application – this meant that the applicant was happy with the timescales for determination but it did not count as an extension of time – had that been included in the figures, the quarter three outturn would have been 86.6% as opposed to 66.67% and in excess of the 85% target.  With regard to ‘minor’ applications being below target, Members were advised that this was partly due to the complexity of some of the issues that needed to be resolved, particularly if they were recommended for refusal; if applications were refused too quickly, the Council would be at risk of losing an appeal so it was preferable to work with applicants to come to a favourable outcome where possible.  In terms of ‘other’ applications, performance was above the 90% target for quarter three at 91.34%.  She provided assurance that planning performance was taken very seriously and a close handle was kept on the figures, both across the team and on an individual Office basis.  One quarter could make a considerable difference, particularly as there were a number of applications which had been on the books for a long time which Officers were working hard to resolve so that would skew the figures.

In response to a query as to who set the targets, Members were informed that there were national targets – 60% for ‘major’ applications, 70% for ‘minor’ applications and 75% for ‘other’ applications - which the authority always exceeded so an additional 10% was added to the KPIs.

Priority: Customer Focused Services

P54 - Objective 1 – Action b) Continue to proactively enforce against enviro-crimes including fly-tipping and dog fouling in accordance with the action plan – A Member congratulated Officers on the significant improvements that had been made in relation to enviro-crimes - the results continued to be superb and the action appeared to be business as usual.

The Head of Community Services undertook to pass this on to his team.

P56 – Objective 3 – Action b) Introduce the option for paperless billing for council tax and business rates – A Member noted that the target date for this action was February 2020 and he sought an update as to how this was progressing.

The Head of Corporate Services advised that there had been issues with the external software supplier which had failed to deliver on content.  An in-house solution had been planned for a trial prior to annual billing but, unfortunately that had not happened as yet; the project team was meeting the following week and, although paperless billing would not be in place in time for annual billing, a lot of residents’ bills were sent outside of that process so it was hoped that it would be introduced during the course of the next year.

P56 – Objective 3 – Action d) Investigate digital methods to improve customer engagement – A Member asked what could be expected by the target date of March 2020.

The Head of Corporate Services clarified this was a target date for introducing a new digital strategy setting out the Council’s aims and objectives.  The new Business Transformation Team would have a key role to play in delivering the strategy and driving forward its digital ambitions which would include online licensing and digital support in planning.  The new Council Plan would include actions for implementation of the strategy.

Key performance indicators for priority: Customer focused services

P61 – KPI 26 – Number of overall crime incidents – A Member advised that the Police and Crime Commissioner’s report had set out the intention to prosecute anyone found to be committing retail crime, regardless of the value of the item being stolen, and he raised concern that this could lead to a sharp increase in the total number of crimes being reported and recorded, making comparisons between years unrealistic, and he questioned whether a monthly breakdown could be provided.

The Head of Corporate Services indicated that it would be possible to include a monthly breakdown in the comments section but it was important to remember that this was a contextual indicator to give an idea of what was happening in the borough and was not something within the Council’s control.  On that basis, Members agreed that it would be more appropriate to remove this from the performance tracker and to continue to receive crime figures in the update from the Council’s representative on the Gloucestershire Police and Crime Panel.

P61 – KPI 27 – Average number of sick days per full time equivalent – A Member raised concern that these figures remained high despite the Committee having previously been assured that this could be skewed by long term sickness absence and she asked when the trend would be reversed.

The Head of Corporate Services advised that the public sector average was eight days per full-time equivalent and Tewkesbury Borough Council was currently at 9.87 days for the first three quarters of the year.  There had previously been six or seven members of staff who were absent due to serious health issues but he was pleased to report that was now down to two so the figures were expected to improve in the final quarter, although clearly there could be short term implications as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.