·
To select appropriate items from the Cabinet agenda for pre-decision
scrutiny (cabinet reports enclosed for Scrutiny Members)
Decision:
Biodiversity Duty Plan
(2023-2026)
Following scrutiny, the
recommendation was supported to Cabinet.
2022/23 – Treasury
Management Outturn Report
Following scrutiny, the
report was noted.
2023/24 Risk Register
Monitoring
Following scrutiny, the report
was noted.
Minutes:
Biodiversity Duty Plan (2023-2026)
Members considered the report as circulated within the agenda pack.
Members noted that planning applications are considered on an individual
basis and asked how will the Biodiversity Duty affect the council achieving
more much needed development applications. Officers confirmed that biodiversity
was a material consideration in the planning decision making process. It was
noted that nationally important sites such as Sites of Specific Scientific
Interest (SSSIs) are protected by national planning policy with some
designations subject to Habitat Regulation Assessment. The LDP policy outlines
that any sites of importance should be avoided but this has to be balanced with
the need for economic growth. Economic, environmental, social and cultural
factors are taken into account. If overriding reasons to build are present,
mitigation and/or compensation requirements is factored in. The Ecology Team
look for innovative ways to boost biodiversity.
The Head of Planning and Public Protection confirmed this plan was more
than the planning process, but how the council more broadly responds to the
duty and demonstrates compliance.
Following scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to Cabinet.
2022/23 – Treasury Management Outturn Report
Members considered the report as circulated within the agenda pack.
Members referenced the Local Authority loans table on page 197 and asked
for further information relating to the £10m loan listed at the end of March.
The Chief Finance Officer confirmed that the short-term loan was needed to
cover liquidity and cash flow at the end of the financial year for the period
20 March - 12 April 2023. The interest cost was £28k which is covered by the
Treasury Management Budget and the loan was repaid in full on 12th
April 2023. Members questioned whether this shortfall could have been taken
from reserves in this instance. The Chief Finance Officer confirmed that the
authority had £53m invested in fixed term investments which generated interest
of £1.5m.
Members questioned if this circumstance had arisen in any previous year.
The Chief Finance Officer confirmed that short/long term borrowing to cover
cash flow was standard procedure for all local authorities as part of treasury
arrangements. On this occasion the borrowing had spanned the end of year
period. It was noted that any borrowing
from the government can only be for the period of a year, short term needs are
met by inter local authority borrowing.
Following scrutiny, the report was noted.
2023/24 Risk Register Monitoring
Members referred to SR14, SR18 and SR19 from the Risk Register, and
questioned if the impact on the local economy of steel not being produced
locally had been considered, particularly in relation to the Celtic Freeport
and the potential of losing prime customers. It was noted that a closure would
cause a significant impact on the economy, unemployment and social services.
Members asked what support the council can put in place to support Tata steel
workers, is there an Action Plan and what lobbying can be undertaken.
In terms of the new strategic risk identified against developments at
Tata, the Chief Executive acknowledged advised that no announcement has been
made by the company as to its proposed
transition plan. Informal discussions are taking place between the company and
their recognised trade unions.
Following the first meeting of the Transition Board, two multi-agency
planning sessions have been held, to look at potential immediate responses.
Chief officers are working alongside other agencies to ensure that the council
is ready to respond once plans and timescales are known. A specification of
work has been developed to support the Transition Board’s decision to
commission a local economic action plan. This will analyse the local economic impact of any
transition proposed whilst also identifying options for creating alternative
jobs in the short, medium and long term. Members were referred to the existing
regeneration programme developed by the Council where there are a range of
projects that could assist in creating new employment. For example, the
proposal to develop Port Talbot Docks and the associated Freeport programme.
The work would also enable other ideas to be brought forward.
It was noted that the Tata steel site is a key strategic site situated
next to Associated British Ports’ land holdings. The council would expect the
company and the governments to be clear about potential alternative uses for
any parts of the site that might become available.
Members agreed Tata Steel needs to be tracked on the risk register and
expressed disappointment and concern that the original understanding that the
heavy end would not close appears to have
been changed. Members need to support and lobby to try to help this
situation move forward.
The Chief Executive reiterated that the council are not accountable or
responsible for the decisions taken by Tata Steel, but do have a role to play
in helping and supporting local communities.
The Leader of Council thanked the Chief Executive for the comprehensive
and detailed response. The Cabinet gave assurances that the whole council with
officers would work together to ensure that support is provided.
Members referenced SR05 - Safeguarding, and questioned why the training
and transitional safeguarding pathway wasn’t currently in place?
The Director for Social Services confirmed the training was in place but
further development is required. The transitional safeguarding pathway is a
separate training issue that is being rolled out, to adult services, in
particular. Basic safeguarding training is provided every 3 years but
monitoring improvements need to be made. A report around safeguarding training
will be brought back to Social Services Housing and Community Safety Scrutiny
Committee.
In reference to SR07, members questioned why extra Occupational Health
staff were being employed.
The Head of People and Organisational Development provided clarification
around the Occupational Health and Safety Team and advised the team are not
additional resources and are council employees. The Occupational Health &
Safety Manager and Team have put in place a Health and Safety framework to
mitigate the health and safety risk across the council.
Members questioned whether the safeguarding rolling programme for taxi
drivers is still in place. The Head of Legal and Democratic Services confirmed
that the training programme is embedded in our practices in respect of
Licensing and the aim is to roll out the programme to different areas.
Members referenced SR01- Bridges and Structures, and asked for
progression details of the rolling programme of inspections for Bridges and
Structures? The Director of Environment confirmed that 20 principal inspections
for the longest spanned structures operate on a 6 year cycle and this target is
achievable. 250 general inspections are planned annually on a two year cycle
and this is on target to achieve.
With reference to the Property Asset Management Plan, members asked if
there were adequate staff resource available to carry out recommencement of
conditions surveys of council buildings. The Director for Environment confirmed
that a report is being brought back towards the end of this month/early
December to identify the condition of all council buildings. It was confirmed
that due to internal resource pressure, there has been a delay in updating the
plan.
Members referred to SR18 and requested background information as to why
the levelling up risk has been de-escalated from the corporate risk register.
The Director of Environment confirmed that levelling up funding was secured for
projects within the Neath valley area, part of the funding was for a project at
waterfall country, Pontneddfechan. Following approval, difficulties arose in
relation to the use of land within private ownership. The project delivery
timescale did not allow for a compulsory land purchase to be processed and
there was a high risk of the project not being delivered. Subsequently, the UK
government, allowed extra time for the compulsory land purchase order to be
followed and the risk was de-escalated. Currently pursing that process in conjunction
with trying to secure a negotiated position.
Following scrutiny, the report was noted.