Minutes:
4.
PRE-SCRUTINY
The Committee chose to scrutinise the
following items:
Cabinet Board Proposals
4.1 2 x Supplementary Planning Guidance
The Committee received information in relation
to the 2 x Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) as contained within the
circulated report.
Members raised concerns that the Compensation Scheme set out in the
Biodiversity and Geodiversity SPG made the planning
process potentially more bureaucratic and less democratic, limiting the input
from local Members and communities. Officers informed Members that the purpose
of the Local Development Plan (LDP) policy was to protect important habitats,
species and sites of geological interest from the adverse impacts of
developments. Officers explained that where harm was unavoidable, effective
on-site mitigation measures would be required and only as a last resort, where
mitigation was not possible, would off-site compensation be considered.
Officers stated that given it was difficult for some developers to find
additional land for off-site compensation and that many developers would rather
pay the Council for compensation to be addressed, the scheme sought to set out
the steps that the Council can take to provide a workable compensation service.
Members queried whether there was a comprehensive list of ‘Sites of
Interest for Nature Conservation’ (SINCs) in the county borough. Officers
stated that the process of identifying SINCs was ongoing. Officers added that
the areas which were likely to generate interest from developers had already
been looked at, but the more remote areas were still being assessed.
Members queried whether designated sites (e.g. Sites of Special
Scientific Interest) would remain protected under the SPGs. Officers stated
that designated sites of European and national importance are already protected
by legislation and national policy, whereas the LDP policy and SPGs related
more to protecting sites of local interest.
Members queried the extent of the ‘undeveloped coast’ designation set
out in the Landscape and Seascape SPG, as it appeared to include an area of the
former BP site. Officers confirmed that this was a drafting error and that the
LDP designation did not include land that was formerly part of the BP site. The
error would be addressed prior to consultation. Members questioned if it was
possible to extend the undeveloped coast designation. Officers stated that
whilst it was not possible at this stage, all policies would be reconsidered
when the review of the LDP commences in 2020.
Members referred to the ‘green wedge’ designations and queried whether
they would still be subject to the same protection once the current LDP had
expired. Officers stated that the relevance and extent of the green wedge
designations would be considered in all future reviews of the LDP which would
take place every four years.
Following scrutiny the Committee were
supportive of the proposals to be considered at Cabinet Board.
4.2 Environmental
Health and Trading Standards Business Advice
The Committee received information in
relation to the Environmental Health and Trading Standards Business Advice as
contained within the circulated report.
Members queried how much income would the
charge for business advice be likely to generate. Officers stated that it was
difficult to anticipate as it was unclear how demand for the service would be
affected.
Members raised concerns that businesses may
be reluctant to pay for advice which could result in a decline in food safety
standards and an increase in court action against non-compliant businesses.
Officers informed Members that general advice would still be available free of
charge and a starter pack would be e-mailed to all new businesses on request.
Officers assured Members that public safety was paramount and the process
whereby Environmental Health Officers and Trading Standards Officers inspect
businesses would not be affected. Officers explained that businesses would only
be charged for bespoke advice and general advice would still be provided
Officers stated that the effects of charging for business advice was likely to
have a minimal impact on food safety, because any decline in the demand for
bespoke advice would enable resources to be used to inspect other food
businesses.
Members commented that Neath Port Talbot had
a low Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and questioned whether this has been taken
into account as it could deter businesses from paying for advice. Officers
stated that the GDP had not been considered, but the new approach would be
monitored and reviewed. Officers explained that providing bespoke advice
specific to a particular business was a non-statutory function and other
Authorities were already offering this service for a fee.
Members raised concerns that if businesses
did not seek advice from the Authority at an early stage due to the cost, then
there was a risk to public safety in the interim until businesses received
their first inspection. Officers stated that general advice would still be
provided to businesses and it is the responsibility of businesses to comply
with the standards applicable to their business. Officers added that the
Environmental Health and Trading Standards department aimed to inspect new food
businesses at an early stage.
Cabinet Members commented that businesses had
to register with the Authority before they could become operational, which
minimised the risk to public safety. Cabinet Members explained that the advice
provided by the Environmental Health and Trading Standards Department was to
help businesses improve their standards further. Cabinet Members stated that
the advice currently offered had a cost element which was difficult to justify
in the current financial climate. Cabinet Members added that neighbouring
authorities had already introduced the charge.
Following scrutiny the majority of the
Committee were supportive of the proposal to be considered at Cabinet Board.
4.3
Aberavon Seafront Regeneration - Update
The Committee received information in
relation to the Aberavon Seafront Development Update.
Members acknowledged the improvements made to
the Aberavon Seafront to date. Members queried whether it was possible to use
the parcel of land indicated in the update as an additional area for car
parking. Officers explained that the seafront already had sufficient parking
facilities.
Members queried whether it was possible to
explore the option of accommodating motor homes and caravans along the
seafront, as other authorities were successfully generating income in this way.
Officers stated that there were no plans to accommodate motor homes and
caravans at this moment in time. Officers informed Members that motor homes and
caravans would require significant space and this would cause parking issues on
the seafront with the current road layout. Officers explained that staff would
need to be employed to ensure that guests complied with onsite rules and
conditions which would incur additional costs for the Authority.
Following scrutiny the Committee noted the
Aberavon Seafront Development Update.
Item 4.4 – Property Performance Report
The Committee received information in
relation to Property Performance Report.
Members queried whether Briton Ferry Library House and the units at Cwmgors Village Workshops were currently occupied or
available to let. Officers stated that the cost of restoring Briton Ferry
Library House to a functioning building was too high. Officers reported that a
number of Registered Social Landlords had been contacted to discuss the
possibility of taking over the building, but there was a lack of interest.
Officers reported that all units at Glyncorrwg
Workshops were currently occupied, and that occupation levels at Cwmgors Workshops were around 80%. Officers informed
Members that the units in Cwmgors were old and basic,
but were still functional.
Members enquired whether any of the workshop
units in the county borough were at risk of falling into disrepair in the near
future. Officers stated that the Authority should be able to maintain the units
for the foreseeable future; however any mechanical and electrical failures
would present significant issues. Officers informed Members that purchasing new
units in the valleys areas would be the ideal scenario and there was a good
business case for this as the units were at full capacity the majority of the
time.
Members queried whether there were any plans
to utilise the former Dyffryn Lower Comprehensive
School. Officers stated that there were no plans at present.
Members queried if there were any updates
regarding the possibility of a caravan site at Margam
Park. Officers stated that discussions were still ongoing. Officers informed
Members that an enquiry had been received from a developer who was interested
in setting up a hotel near the Twyn Y Hydd site of Margam Park.
Officers reported that the drainage work had already been undertaken to
accommodate either development.
Following scrutiny the Committee noted the
Property Performance Report.