Agenda and minutes

To sign as a correct record the minutes of the meetings held on 10 November 2020 and 17 November 2020 (copies enclosed)

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting of the Performance Monitoring Panel held on 10 November 2020, and the minutes of the Joint Performance Monitoring Panel and Policy Development Panel held on 17 November 2020.

AGREED:

a)    That the minutes of the meeting of the Performance Monitoring Panel held on 10 November 2020 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record; and

b)    That the minutes of the meeting of the Joint Performance Monitoring Panel and Policy Development Panel held on 17 November 2020 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Where a Councillor has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest the Councillor must declare the interest to the meeting and leave the meeting without participating in any discussion or making a statement on the item, except where a councillor is permitted to remain as a result of a grant of dispensation.

There were none

There were none

There were none

There were none

Consideration was given to the Key Decision Plan issued on 19 January 2021.

Members noted a spelling error on one of the items that would be rectified by Democratic Services after the meeting.

AGREED:

That the Key Decision Plan issued on 19 January 2021 be noted.

To provide an update on how the Council is performing for the period 1^st October 2020 to 31^st December 2020 (report of the Executive Director – Commercialisation (S151) enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Executive Manager for Growth, which provided an update on how the Council was performing for the period 1 October 2020 to 31 December 2020.

The Quarter 3 2020-21 Performance Report detailed in Appendix A aimed to provide members, businesses, and residents with an overview of how the Council was performing against a number of key strategic indicators in an ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The reported indicators focussed on performance and business intelligence as compared to the previous year to highlight how key services had performed whilst the organisation had continued to respond to the challenges and pressures that the pandemic had presented to both the organisation and the district as a whole.

As highlighted previously the report did not contain a suite of performance indicators to the same scale and breadth as presented to the Panel in previous years. This was because, in many cases, the focus of many council services and their attendant resources had shifted away from pre-March 2020 ‘business as usual activity’, and were instead now focused on a different range of areas directly aligned to supporting the council with its pandemic response.

Consequently, the report sought to provide a summary of performance in key areas which reflected the current performance of the council, whilst the organisation remained focused on supporting its communities, residents and local business in extra-ordinary times. The narrative within the report provided supplementary commentary to support the data. Several service managers were in attendance at the meeting and would be able to assist with any supplementary questions.

The Panel considered the report, and the following issues were raised:

Fly-tipping:

• Members commented that it may be useful to be provided with an update on success with enforcement in relation to fly-tipping recently and how the issue of fly-tipping was being dealt with County-wide.

• Members asked for clarification on how much money has been spent on fly-tipping in the last month.
  • Officers responded that for December 2019 the cost for fly-tipping was £3,000. For the same period in December 2020, the figure was double that at £6,000.
  • Officers would share with members a breakdown of the figures for fly-tipping costs over the last few months.

• Members raised concerns about the collection of evidence for fly-tipping incidents and asked whether covert cameras were being used to catch fly-tippers ‘in the act’.
  • Officers advised that the use of covert cameras would be covered in a later item on the agenda.

Social media engagement:

• Members queried the basis of collection for the number of social media engagements stated within the report.
  • Officers responded that the social media engagement numbers were collected via Google Analytics and that the basis for this information would be clarified

Void properties:

• Members noted that there had been a dramatic fall in the re-let time for void properties and questioned whether this was related to the Covid pandemic?
  • Officers agreed that there been a significant variance in voids performance between the Q3 performance this year  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

To provide an update to Performance Monitoring Panel on current work being undertaken to support the South Holland economy (report of the Deputy Leader of the Council and the Portfolio Holder for Growth and Commercialisation enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Deputy Leader of the Council and the Portfolio Holder for Growth and Commercialisation which provided an update to the Panel on current work being undertaken to support the South Holland economy.

The Inward Investment Manager gave an update on this item, and the following points were covered:

• The team had been focused on the distribution of government grants for businesses, including the small business grant and the retail, hospitality and leisure grant, which closed for applications at the end of August 2020, and were processed until the end of September 2020.
• In total 1,654 businesses had received a share of £18.5m in government grant money.
• The next round of funding was the local restrictions support grant (closed), designed to support businesses who were mandated to close as a result of government guidelines, and was based on the rateable value of the business. £3.8m has now been distributed via this grant.
• The local restrictions support grant (open) had been announced for businesses that were not mandated to close, for which 197 applications had been received. These applications were currently being worked through and they would be paid within a few days.
• There would be a further scheme of grants for businesses mandated to close under the lockdown effective from 5 January 2021
• Grants4growth had continued to deliver its outputs on budget and on time.
• Contact has been established with the office of the Department for International Trade in the Netherlands, and the team were working closely with them to promote Lincolnshire through a Food Manufacturing Automation and Robotics High Potential Opportunity.
• Work was also being carried out with a number of local business expansions, mainly based in the agri-food sector.

The Panel considered the report, and the following issues were raised:

• Members commented on how easy it had been to direct residents to the appropriate individuals for help with applying for grants and ensuring all grants were paid out as quickly and efficiently as possible, and thanked the team for their efforts.

• Members questioned whether officers were confident that resources were adequate to maximise all of the opportunities that were being offered as part of the High Potential Opportunity scheme.
  • Officers responded that the High Potential Opportunity was a Lincolnshire-wide project, but that it was based primarily in the south of Lincolnshire, in Spalding and South Holland.
  • Officers were contributing to a presentation that would promote Lincolnshire business opportunities across the world.
  • In order to put the presentation together, resources were being utilised from the University of Lincoln, Lincolnshire County Council, the Department of International Trade, and experts in the field.

• Members asked if there was anything that the authority could do further to improve the service of the department, both in helping businesses to recover and to attract new businesses to the district.
  • Officers replied that as the response phase of helping businesses in need to access grants came to an end, swift action was required to put in place assistance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

To provide Members with an update on Community Safety Partnership work at a county and local level (report of the Executive Director – Commercialisation (S151) enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Executive Director – Commercialisation (S151) which provided members with an update on Community Safety Partnership work at a county and local level.

The Communities Manager provided an update, which included the following points:

• The four key priorities for the Safer Lincolnshire Partnership were: Anti-Social Behaviour, Domestic Abuse, Reducing Offending and Serious and Organised Crime
• Fly tipping was a key area of focus through the Anti-Social Behaviour Core Priority Group – crossover work was being done with the Waste Partnership with regard to identification and clean up and also prevention, enforcement and understanding where issues were coming from.  The Anti-Social Behaviour Core Priority Group had set up an Environmental Crime Partnership for Lincolnshire which would look at the capture of data, hotspots, social media messages and sharing of intelligence.  It had also set up a task group to look at the customer journey when reporting anti-social behaviour incidents.
• The Domestic Abuse Core Priority Group had a focus on domestic abuse within the County.  A new Domestic Violence Bill had been passed in Parliament recently which created a cross-government statutory definition of domestic abuse, and which put in place a statutory framework for the delivery of support to victims of domestic abuse.
• Work was ongoing with the Reducing Offending Core Priority Group, with a current focus on homelessness and access to housing for people leaving custody.
• Lincolnshire had been chosen (as one of two areas nationally) by the Home Office to pilot a multi-agency safeguarding approach to financial abuse.
• Key work would be taking place around the placement of CCTV cameras and exploring the possibilities of further analysis of the data provided by them.
• Member were advised that Superintendent Mark Howsley had offered to attend a future meeting of the Panel to answer questions about crime related issues.

The Panel considered the report, and the following issues were raised:

• Members were happy that statistics were now available for CCTV cameras but questioned the limited use of some of the cameras.

• Members were encouraged by the work being carried out to place cameras in remote areas.

• Members asked whether fly-tipping was included in the customer journey for anti-social behaviour, as concern had been raised by some residents that it was difficult to report a fly-tip and send evidence.

• Members questioned if there was a level of information available for hare coursing.
  • Officers responded that this issue could be addressed by the Superintendent when he attended a future meeting of the Panel.

• Members also requested further information on statistics for Covid related crimes.

• Members were concerned that when calling 999, residents were sometimes transferred to Norfolk Police rather than Lincolnshire Police.

• Members raised concern that reported anti-social behaviour had not always been followed up by authorities.

• Members asked whether residents who reported being victims of a crime were able to retain their anonymity.
  • Officers responded that crimes could be reported anonymously either to the local authority or to the Police.

Officers advised that many of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

To provide Members with an update on enforcement activity (report of the Executive Director – Commercialisation (S151) enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Executive Director – Commercialisation (S151) which provided members with an update on enforcement activity.

The Communities Manager highlighted the following points:

• A business in South Holland had had its licence revoked by the Licensing Panel, following a police investigation that had found that it had breached Covid Regulations.
• The Public Protection Team had been ensuring Covid compliance within businesses, and were leading on the regulatory enforcement of Covid Regulations and providing statutory guidance to business premises.
• The Public Protection Team had also been involved in the work of the Lincolnshire Resilience Forum
• There had been an increased number of Planning Enforcement complaints being reported, although there had been delays with regard to prosecutions as a result of Magistrates Courts being closed for a lengthy period as a result of the Covid pandemic.
• Housing officers had undertaken enforcement against slightly more cases in the current year than the last year, and the team had continued to carry out property inspections.
• An interim injunction had been obtained by the Communities team against an individual who had caused significant distress and harassment to both members of the public and officers of the Council.
• 11 cases of fly-tipping were pending interviews, which would enable further notices to be issued and court files to be built.

The Panel considered the report, and the following issues were raised:

• Members were concerned that reported cases of fly-tipping with clear evidence were not being followed up.
  • Officers reassured Members that if there were cases of fly-tipping with clear evidence attached that had not been followed up, these should be referred again to the Enforcement team and would be looked into.

• Members requested information on how a recent increase in dog fouling in the district was being dealt with.
  • Officers responded that they did not have the information to hand at the meeting but would contact members of the Panel regarding the issue shortly.

• Members commented that a number of high-profile prosecutions for fly-tipping could assist in discouraging others from fly-tipping.

AGREED:

That the report be noted.

To set out the Work Programme of the Performance Monitoring Panel (report of Executive Manager – Governance enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Executive Manager – Governance which set out the Work Programme of the Performance Monitoring Panel. The Work Programme consisted of two separate sections, the first setting out the dates of the future panel meetings along with proposed items for consideration, and the second setting out the Task Groups that had been identified by the Panel.

It was noted that a number of items previously scheduled for the January meeting had been moved to the March meeting and that meeting dates for 2021/22 would be added to Appendix A for the next meeting of the Panel. A date for the Review of Implemented Planning Decisions had been scheduled for the 15 September 2021, subject to Covid Regulations.

The Panel considered the report and the following issues were raised:

• As considered under the Crime and Disorder agenda item, members requested that a special meeting of the Panel be arranged with   Superintendent Mark Howsley to address members’ concerns.

AGREED:

That the report be noted.

To provide an update on untidy sites within the district (report of the Executive Director – Commercialisation (S151) enclosed).

(Please note that the appendix to this report is not for publication by virtue of Paragraph 6 (Information which reveals that the authority proposes: a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person) in Part 1 of Schedule 12 A of the Local Government Act 1972, and is therefore attached to this agenda as item 16.

Consideration was given to the report of the Executive Director – Commercialisation (S151) which provided an update on untidy sites within the district.

The Communities Manager highlighted the following points:

• Where a site was in a poor condition, and its condition adversely affected the amenity of the area, Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 gave the power to local authorities to take steps to require that the land and buildings  be tidied. A notice could be served on the owner, which set out steps that were required to be taken, and the time in which these steps must be carried out.
• Local Authorities also had the powers under this act to undertake clean-up work themselves and recover the costs from the landowner.
• Planning Permission had been granted for a majority of the sites listed in the appendix, but the developers had not implemented the permissions for various reasons.
• A Commercial Derelict Buildings and Disused and Derelict Land Enforcement Policy was being drafted to help ensure:

o   Consistency across departments when responding to complaints relating to derelict buildings, disused and derelict land

• • To ensure all contact was recorded on a centralised database
  • To ensure a co-ordinated response to complainants
  • To allow enforcement action to quickly be identified
  • To notify external agencies
  • To keep Ward Members updated.
• The draft Policy had been circulated to relevant teams within the Council and would be scrutinised by the Policy Development Panel in due course.

The Panel considered the report, and the following issues were raised:

• Members raised concern that schemes for redevelopment of the sites that had gone through the planning process were then declared not viable, and redevelopment had therefore not taken place.

• Members questioned how the Council could break the cycle of untidy sites not being redeveloped and what work was being undertaken to address this.
  • Officers agreed that a working group would be set up involving officers and 2 members of the Panel, and the work of this group would be reported to the Panel at a later date.

• Members enquired as to why the sites listed within the appendix were not being compulsory purchased by the Council.
  • Officers responded that powers were available to the Council to compulsory purchase properties, but this required the Secretary of State’s approval and a well-developed scheme to be in place.

• Members were concerned that some schemes for these sites that would be put in place could render the site worthless.

• Members questioned whether a multi-agency group could be set up to help redevelop some of the sites and a strategy put in place for redeveloping them.

• Members asked whether the Council could engage with local developers to encourage strategies to be developed for these sites.

AGREED:

That the report be noted.

There were none.