Agenda and minutes

Members and officers must declare any disclosable pecuniary interests in relation to

any business on the agenda. Declarations should also be made at any stage such

an interest becomes apparent during the meeting.

If in doubt contact the Legal or Democratic Services representative for this meeting.

There were no declarations of interest made

Councillor Andy McGregor substituted for Councillor Mandy Buxton

To approve the minutes of the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting

held on 16 March 2023, copies of which have been previously circulated.

The minutes of the meeting of the 16 March 2023 were approved as a correct record and were signed by the Chairman 

So as to provide the best opportunity for the Committee to provide the public with the fullest answer, questions from the public should be submitted by 12.00 noon Monday 5 June 2023.

Where relevant notice of a question has not been given, the person presiding may either choose to give a response at the meeting or respond by undertaking to provide a written response within three working days.

Questions should be submitted to Democratic Services democratic.services@adur-worthing.gov.uk

(Note: Public Question Time will operate for a maximum of 30 minutes.)

There were no public questions

Councillors who are not members of this committee can ask questions under CPR 12  Questions should be relevant to the committee where the question is being asked and also relevant to an item on the agenda. Please contact Democratic Services for more information

Members question time is 30 minutes and questions should be submitted no later than 12.00pm noon on Monday 5th June 2023.

Questions should be submitted to Democratic Services democratic.services@adur-worthing.gov.uk

(Note: Members’ Question Time will operate for a maximum of 30 minutes.)

There were no questions from Members

To consider any items the Chairman of the meeting considers to be urgent

There were no urgent items

A Call in Report from the Monitoring Officer is attached as item 7

The Committee had a report before it from the Monitoring Officer detailing the reasons a Call-In was rejected from being considered by the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Resolved: The committee noted the report

To consider a report by the Director for Place, copy attached as item 8

The Committee had a report before it attached as item 8, which had been circulated to all Members and is attached to a signed copy of these minutes. This report responded to a JOSC request for a review of planning enforcement issues, planning enforcement policy and the Council's approach to planning enforcement. The report set out the legislative background and national planning policies relating to the enforcement of Planning Control. The report highlighted the Council’s Enforcement Policy and the relevant planning considerations in deciding whether to take enforcement action. The report also highlighted resourcing issues and compared the resources currently available to other Councils.

A Member asked, “Paragraph 6.8 - What is the relationship between Approved Inspectors and the council and what powers, if any, do the council have to question Approved Inspectors?”

Members were told that there was no relationship between the two and that the council had no powers over approved inspectors. That building control officers could not enter a site where there is an approved inspector but they could go on as agents of planning.

A Member asked, “Paragraphs 5.0 and 6.5 - Would there be a benefit in better monitoring those cases that are quickly dealt with by Officers and not registered as complaints in order to get a better idea of the council’s performance on serving the public?”

Members were told yes, that it would be a matter of expediency if something was dealt with it would save/avoid administrative time. A record of those cases would also highlight the workload the planning team dealt with.

A Member asked, “My question is around failing to comply with a condition set out in the Construction and Environmental Management Plan. Please can you take us through a timeline of the process of enforcement from the point a complaint is registered about site conditions, your contact with the developer, visits to the site, the issuing of a planning enforcement order, more follow-ups, and then the issuing of a stop notice for non-compliance.”

Members were told that one trend they had noticed was with some larger contractors, the construction management plans could be vague in terms of necessary measures, which made it difficult to enforce. They were working with environmental health to be more specific in construction management plans. As far as timeline, the team acted on a triage basis and responses depended on the breach. Hours of working could also be an issue. Giving a timeline was difficult as it depended upon the seriousness and nature of the complaint. Members were also told that Breach Condition notices took 28 days to take effect and so were quite a slow way to react. Stop notices were rarely used and were usually served with an enforcement notice at the same time. They were issued when a serious danger to people arose. They felt that they had a better condition with contractors than previously and found the best way to resolve most issues was to speak with them directly.

A Member asked  ...  view the full minutes text for item JOSC/8/23-24

To consider a report by the Director for Sustainability and Resources copy attached as item 10

The Committee had a report before it, attached as item 10, which had been circulated to all Members and is attached to a signed copy of these minutes. This report set out the draft Annual report for the Committee covering the 2022/23 Municipal year in accordance with the terms of the Councils’ constitutions.

Resolved: The committee noted the report

To consider a report by the Director for Sustainability & Resources attached as item 11

The Committee had a report before it attached as item 11, which had been circulated to all Members and is attached to a signed copy of these minutes. The purpose of this report was to update Members of the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee (JOSC) on the findings of the JOSC Workshop that took place on 13th April 2023 and for the Committee to consider the comments and proposals made at that Workshop which were presented in Appendix 1.

Members debated approaches to public engagement and awareness, the consideration that needed to be given to where the drive for change was coming from; that while outcomes from the workshop were good the workshop itself was not politically balanced. Members discussed the merits of auditing the different skills and knowledge bases that Members had as well as the number of questions Members were allowed to submit prior to meetings.

Resolved: The committee agreed 

I.                  To implement the following points from paragraph 4.2 of the report

? Pre-submitted questions are limited to 2 per Member to encourage effective on the spot scrutiny, at the Chairs’ discretion

?  That Cabinet Members be requested to provide a briefing note for their interviews in advance of the meeting;

?  That the Cabinet Members should provide their own written responses to Member questions with factual information provided by Officers. Such responses to be checked by the Democratic Services team to ensure any exempt information is properly shared in accordance with our Access to Information procedure rules.

?  That published reports remind JOSC Members that there is a question time section after each Cabinet Member interview and that Members may make recommendations.

?  If JOSC is keen for a Working Group to consider and develop a pre-decision making focus, then a shorter term strategy would be to include consideration of the Forward Plan of Key Decisions as an item on each JOSC agenda as part of the ongoing Work Programme.

?  Through communication with their Leaders JOSC works to create a culture of encouragement and support for its work, particularly in supporting the attendance of Cabinet Members at JOSC meetings when requested and in communication generally.

?  That JOSC monitors and reviews the Work Programme to ensure that the items on the work programme will deliver effective scrutiny and are still required.

?  That JOSC consider introducing informal business planning meetings or pre meetings before each JOSC meeting

?  As part of a training review, a mentoring scheme was proposed for new members to JOSC and also a social gathering event for all Members (‘speed dating’ or other informal gathering event was proposed) this would allow Member to get to know each other’s strengths provide support to new Members and build on confidence.

?  For JOSC to consider more active engagement with the public as witnesses and/or co-optees on matters before the Committee.

?  For Members to agree to a skills and experience audit, to enable the Committee to effectively include Members comments when discussing certain agenda items and/or for appointments to Working Groups.

?  That the JOSC  ...  view the full minutes text for item JOSC/10/23-24

To consider a report by the Director for Sustainability and Resources, copy attached as item 12

The Committee had a report before it attached as item 12, which had been circulated to all Members and is attached to a signed copy of these minutes. This report outlined progress and plans for implementing the work contained in the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee (JOSC) Work Programme for 2023/24.

Members discussed the vacancy on the working group for temporary accommodation outside of Council areas, the timing of the working group to review the Adur homes repairs, and the scrutiny request on the issue of developing a green. Members also discussed the timing of hearing from the Cabinet Members responsible for the foreshore team and the schedule of Cabinet Member interviews.

Resolved: The committee agreed

I.                To note the progress to deliver the JOSC Work Programme for 2023/24

II.                To appoint Councillor Cowen to the Working Group for temporary accommodation outside of Council areas

III.                To reject the scrutiny request regarding Developing a Green - Blue Regenerative Tourism digital map for Adur

To consider a report by the Director for Sustainability and Resources copy attached as item 9

The Committee had a report before it attached as item 9, which had been circulated to all Members and is attached to a signed copy of these minutes. This report set out background information on the Portfolio of the Adur Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, to enable the Committee to consider and question the Cabinet Member on issues within their portfolio and any other issues which the Cabinet Member was involved in which connected with the work of the Council and the Adur communities.

A Member asked “Since the council has yet to be successful in any of the government's competitive capital funding bids such as the towns fund, future of high streets fund and levelling-up bids. What has the council learned from the previous unsuccessful bids and what has it put in place to ensure our next bid will be a successful one?”

Members were told the council had submitted a number of funding bids, some with success included securing £1.7m from the Local Growth Fund to support Focus House (Shoreham), but as external funding was usually a competitive process they hadn’t been successful with others. The Council did bid for the High Streets Fund a few years previously and whilst they had received positive feedback the funder did indicate that Council needed to demonstrate greater ‘need’ for the project through a more robust evidence gathering exercise. 

With this feedback in mind, they had adapted their approach for the pending Levelling Up bid to ensure it, and any future bids, were co-produced and agreed with a number of local stakeholders and the community. The focus for the Levelling Up bid would be on Lancing and the work of Officers in the previous 6 - 9 months, which had enabled a clear evidence base, good community conversations and they were now working on a number of asks, including the possibility of upgrading the public realm in the village center. Whilst no bid was ever guaranteed they felt they would continue to build a solid case for investment but did require a coordinated effort for the best chance of being successful.

They felt it was worth noting that the Council couldn’t bid for the Towns Fund as this was direct allocations from government to certain towns and cities, rather than a bidding process, although Officers did lobby for Adur to be included.

In addition, there had been multiple successful funding bids received to restore and enhance the nature and landscape around the district, including: 

• Defra Test & Trial to fund intertidal habitat restoration (£76k); 
• Defra Landscape Recovery Fund - ADC was a landowner and one of delivery partners in the partnership bid led by Knepp Wildland Foundation to improve the quality, resilience and biodiversity of the river - £500k; 
• £1.5m for Adur Community Wetlands (New Salts Farm)
• Secured DEFRA Natural Environment Readiness Fund (£79k, Sept 2021)
• £1.6m had so far been secured from the Public Sector Decarbonisation Fund for carbon reduction projects.

A Member asked “How has the AH referral  ...  view the full minutes text for item JOSC/12/23-24