Agenda item

 

The Scrutiny Committee scrutinised the following matters:

 

Cabinet Board Proposals

 

7.1    Enforced Sale Policy

 

Members considered a report in relation to an Enforced Sale Policy that had been developed to deal with long term problematic empty properties and bring them back in to use.

 

Officers advised that this policy was not being developed in isolation but there was an additional policy in development that linked and that was the Empty Property Strategy.

 

Members were advised that the officers had identified a specific number of properties that would be dealt with in the first instance and this would be circulated outside of the main meeting. Officers continued that once there had been successes in dealing with the empty properties it will hopefully act as a deterrent and spur property owners to sort out their empty properties.

 

Members raised concern in relation to the demand for this and whether it would be a budget pressure. Officers confirmed that any successes would see any monies reinvested in the service. Officers asked Members to note that generally the empty properties were not owned or ownership could not be identified and this makes the process longer.

 

Members asked whether there was a problem in relation to squatters in the County Borough. Officers confirmed that there was not a problem and there were only isolated cases.

 

Following scrutiny the committee were supportive of the proposals to be considered by the Cabinet Board.

 

7.2    Environmental Health and Trading Standards Food and Feed Service Delivery Plan 2016/2017 the Food and Feed Law Enforcement Review 2015-2016.

 

Members considered the report from the manager of Environmental Health and Trading Standards.

 

Officers advised that the review was required to be undertaken by the Food Standards Agency and had been sent on to them in the summer of 2016.

 

Members asked what the link was with the Port Health Authority and Officers stated that the Council works with many agencies within the County Borough and in relation to the Port Health Authority there did not appear to be any day to day contact but there was communication when required.

 

Members asked for clarity on what constitutes a “food registered premise” and officers confirmed that it could be places such as school kitchens, burger vans and community halls for example. If Members wished to have a list of the registered food premises for their ward then the officers will circulate information outside of the meeting.

 

Following scrutiny the committee was supportive of the proposal to be considered by the Cabinet Board.

 

7.3    Bus Services Support Grant Agreement

 

Members considered the report in relation to a joint agreement with the three South West Wales Authorities for the administration of the Bus Services Grant.

 

Officers stated that this was previously undertaken by the South West Wales Integrated Transport Consortium (SWWITCH) and was purely an administrative function. Officers stated that the scheme would be administered by the City and County of Swansea.

 

Members asked whether there would be an impact on contracted services and officers confirmed there would be none. However, Officers stated that Councils must maintain costs within the grant.

 

Concern was raised in relation to fraudulent claims that could become a possibility and officers stated that transport officers do check the routes and that any fraud generally is not in relation to length of routes but on the use of concessionary bus passes although it should be noted that this has not been a particular problem for Neath Port Talbot.

 

Officers did state that there had been an occasion to withhold a payment to an operator due to discrepancies.

 

Following scrutiny the committee was supportive of the proposals to be considered by the Cabinet Board.

 

7.4    List of Approved Contractors

 

Members considered a report in relation to the amendment of the Approved List of Contractors.

 

Officers advised that the previously the list would need to be re-advertised every 4 years but this has subsequently changed and contractors can be added on an ad hoc basis.

 

Members asked was there ever a reason why someone should be precluded from the list and it was stated that on occasions contractors could not be considered due to issues such as insurance e.g. a small contractor may not be able to undertake works on major developments because they do not have sufficient insurance cover.

 

Officers stated that it would be beneficial to consolidate the list down. Currently there are 111 categories and some suppliers who have not undertaken any works. Officers continued that they required advice from Legal and Procurement before the list can be amended and once this work has been completed a further report will be brought back to the Committee.

 

Following scrutiny the Committee was supportive of the proposals to be considered by the Cabinet Board.