Agenda item

Report of the Director – Finance and Corporate Services

The Chairman explained that the Group had agreed to invite Councillors who had put forward a scrutiny matrix to attend the meeting to explain their reasons for putting the item forward for scrutiny.

Councillor Thomas joined the meeting to present her matrix for Council Tax options for empty homes. She explained that the budget briefing session had included a session on reducing the period for applying the empty homes premium from twenty four to twelve months and that discussions had included reference to a variety of factors such as including furnished and unfurnished properties, derelict homes and probate. She said that the proposals had referred to the financial impact but thought that the social impact also needed to be included. She said that there was no data about what the social impact from reducing the time period would be.

Councillor Thomas noted that Officers had suggested reviewing the Empty Homes Strategy but had concern that this would only review what the Council was already doing and not what it was not doing. She said that the Strategy did not include derelict homes or furnished homes that were empty for long periods of time. She wanted to understand the fuller picture, including what was discretionary in terms of premiums and discounts. She referred to section 76 of the Levelling Up Bill about dwellings occupied periodically which included furnished properties which were often empty, such as second homes.

Councillor Thomas supported the scrutiny item as revised by officers but asked that her original lines of enquiry be included in the scope, including the possibilities from section 76 of the Levelling Up Bill, to provide a wider understanding of who paid Council Tax, who could receive a waiver, what discounts and premiums were available and what powers the council had available to it, to examine the data and look at the impact from a social context. She thought that the Council did a good job but relied on empty homes being reported to it.

The Service Manager Corporate Services said that Officers had suggested reviewing the Empty Homes Strategy to provide more information about the range of tools the Council had available to it in terms of empty homes, as Council Tax charging formed only a small part of the process. She added that it was hoped that providing fuller information would put Council Tax charging into context, to help provide a clearer view of how many empty homes there were, their impact on the community and how the Council dealt with specific cases. She said that Environmental Health Officers would be able to attend to explain what they did and what finance could do, to give a more overarching picture.

The Group thought that including the original submission along with the additional information requested by Councillor Thomas and the Empty Homes Strategy in the review would form a reasonable recommendation. The Chairman suggested that the item be titled a Review of Empty Homes Strategy including Council Tax and the Group agreed that this item be taken forward in the scrutiny work programme.

Councillor Thomas presented her matrix for Biodiversity Net gains – New Legislation. She said that she had put this item forward approximately a year ago and whilst it had been a newer concept at that time, things had since moved forwardand it was nearer to being implemented.

Councillor Thomas said that she was happy with the Officers suggested scope for the scrutiny item but wanted to make sure that two things were covered. She referred to the wording ‘method for establishing a baseline required for monitoring’ and said that there was concern about land owners destroying sites before they were assessed so that sites were given a low baseline. She thought it was important that sites were assessed early and before they were submitted for planning permission, to ensure that the original value of the land was captured.

Councillor Thomas also requested that the hierarchy of mitigation for biodiversity net gains be included. She said that there was scope to tighten policy to ensure that better biodiversity net gain was implemented. She took the Group through Rushcliffe’s proposed Local Development Order biodiversity net gain hierarchy. The preferred option was to deliver biodiversity net gains onsite, the next option was for units to be provided offsite but within Rushcliffe. Councillor Thomas asked how the Council was preparing for this, did it need to have a call for sites and could small sites such as corners of fields be included. The next stage was to provide other environmental mitigation proposals as agreed with the Council which could include things such as the fish pass at Thrumpton. The stage after that was units being provided offsite, not within Rushcliffe, but within neighbouring authorities. Councillor Thomas asked how these would be identified and decided. The penultimate stage was to provide a financial contribution to the Council in lieu of delivery which she said would lead to money being held by the Council and questioned how any decision about expenditure would be made. The final stage was for the developer to purchase credits under the Government scheme which gave concern about potential unethical and exploitative options.

The Group noted that biodiversity net gain was proposed as a scrutiny item for July and also that as discussed at the last Growth and Development Scrutiny Group meeting the methodology for reporting biodiversity net gain was yet to be outlined in detail by Government with a further report to be presented to scrutiny when that information became available. The Group questioned whether July would be too early for review as there may be further questions for Officers as legislation became clearer.

Councillor Thomas said that there was much that needed to be clarified prior to the policy coming into operation in November 2023 and therefore thought it appropriate for it to be reviewed.

The Chairman said that Officers were in agreement with including the information requested by Councillor Thomas. The Group agreed for this item to be taken forward in the scrutiny work programme.

Councillor Clarke presented his matrix forHow the Borough works with partners to plan for the infrastructure required to support growth. He said that with all the growth taking place within the Borough it was important to ensure that the relevant infrastructures were in place. He said that whist supporting facilities were included in planning conditions they were often delivered at late stages or at the end of a development, which meant that people who had moved in before facilities were implemented weren’t benefitting from them.

Councillor Clarke added that sometimes mid-way into delivery a developer would state that it was not viable for them to deliver a facility for various reasons. He therefore wanted to look at how the Council could ensure that supporting facilities be delivered at an earlier stage, including making conditions on applications and developments more robust. Councillor Clarke said that he wanted to create communities rather than housing estates.

The Group discussed the importance of how the Council communicated to the public as to why things were being done in certain ways, perhaps due to constraints. The Group thought that the slowing of the housing market could delay delivery of facilities if housing sales milestones took longer to achieve and supported looking at potential to accelerate bringing S106 monies forward. The Group agreed for this item to be taken forward in the scrutiny work programme.

Councillor Clarke presented the scrutiny matrix for Sewerage Infrastructure and Discharge within Rushcliffe. He said that regrettably all Councillors had had experience of sewerage problems in developments. He referred to the general phrase that all developments had to be able to connect into the sewerage system which Severn Trent were charged with delivering, and said that the process needed to be more comprehensive and robust, with more assurance that provision was being made by Severn Trent, and that comprehensive discussion between Officers and Severn Trent took place about delivery of the additional sewerage.

Councillor Clarke said that the sewerage system would be under immense pressure from the upcoming large development at Fairham and potentially Gamston. He said that Severn Trent were aware of their responsibilities but more assurance was required by residents that adequate systems were in place.

The Group discussed whether this was an issue for the Borough Council or whether it was more about how the Planning Department accepted advice from other organisations, such as water and transport advice. The Group questioned whether this was beyond the power of the council to control and whether it was more about reviewing how it scrutinised the advice it received from other authorities.

Councillor Clarke thought that the Council had a responsibility to its residents as sewerage was often raised at Planning Committee and said that he wanted more assurance and evidence that the infrastructure could be delivered before an application was approved. He said that bringing it to scrutiny would allow review of what powers the Council had in a comprehensive way involving partners.

The Group agreed for this item to be taken forward in the scrutiny work programme.

The Group agreed that the June Corporate Overview Group meeting review the scrutiny work programme, including items already approved by the Group, to ensure that the new administration was happy with the programme as set out.

The Group acknowledged that Governance Scrutiny Committee often had a very full agenda and whilst this was due to statutory and legislative standing items needing to come before the Committee at set times, the Service Manager Corporate Services said that she would take this back to Officers for review.

The Service Manager Corporate Services confirmed that she would take back the Groups concerns about the timing of the biodiversity net gain item to make sure that there was sufficient information available to bring it forward to Growth and Development Scrutiny Committee in July. The Group asked whether if it needed to be delayed, the Sewerage item could be brought forward to July instead.

It was RESOLVED that the Corporate Overview Group:

a)    considered any additional items for scrutiny from the current Cabinet Forward Plan, Corporate Strategy, Medium Term Financial Strategy, Capital and Investment Strategy and Transformation Plan (Appendix One).

b)    considered the scrutiny matrices submitted by Councillors and officers (Appendix Two).

c)    determined any additional topics to be included in a scrutiny group work programme for 2023/24 for each of the scrutiny groups.

d)    reviewed the current work programme for each of the scrutiny groups (Appendix Three).

Work Programme 2022-23 – Corporate Overview Group

Work Programme 2022-23 – Governance Scrutiny Group

Work Programme 2022-23 – Growth and Development Scrutiny Group

Work Programme 2022-23 – Communities Scrutiny Group

ACTION SHEET