Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillor Mel Allcott.

In relation to agenda item 6 Environment Act New Requirements:

·       Councillor Marshall declared that she was a Member of the Council’s Strategic Waste Management Board and Member Advisory Group on the Environment

·       Councillor Nielsen declared that she was a Member of the Council’s Strategic Waste Management Board, a Member Advisory Group on the Environment and the portfolio holder for Environmental Services at Malvern Hills District Council

·       Councillor Stokes declared that she was a Member of the Council’s Strategic Waste Management Board, a  Member Advisory Group on the Environment and the portfolio holder for Resident and Customer Services at Wychavon District Council.

Members of the public wishing to take part should notify the Assistant Director for Legal and Governance in writing or by e-mail indicating both the nature and content of their proposed participation no later than 9.00am on the working day before the meeting (in this case 6 October 2022). Further details are available on the Council’s website.  Enquiries can also be made through the telephone number/e-mail address listed in this agenda and on the website.

None.

Previously circulated.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 11 July 2022 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

(Indicative timing: 2.05 – 2.40pm)

The Panel received an update on developments relating to Community Transport in Worcestershire.  By way of introduction, the Community Transport Development Officer made the following main points:

·       The Community Transport network in Worcestershire was countywide and provided transport for those who were not able to access any other transport.

·       Although Covid had had a significant impact on the voluntary sector, all Community Transport schemes had now re-opened.

·       The Community Transport website was currently being updated.  It was confirmed that there were now 14 schemes running in the County.

·       Not all of the schemes received money from the Strategic Grant as some were fully funded by the District Councils.  The Strategic Grant had reduced over the years and was £90k for the current year.  This would be reviewed in December for the next financial year.

·       The Strategic Grant was administered by Pershore Volunteer Centre on behalf of 11 operators and the operation of the Grant was reviewed on a quarterly basis.

Members were given an opportunity to ask questions and the following main points were raised:

·       A breakdown of funding for each Community Transport scheme as part of the Strategic Grant would be provided following the meeting.

·       With reference to Community Buses, where there was little or no public transport available officers would have a discussion with local bus providers and, if this did not prove successful, Community Transport would be considered.  Of the Community Buses currently running in the County, all except one were demand responsive and operated under Section 19 of the Transport Act Permit Legislation.

·       In response to a request for a comparison of cost per journey between commercial bus routes and Community Transport, the Panel was told that, for the £90k Strategic Grant, there were 135k journeys per year.  It was important to remember that Community Transport offered a bespoke service from door to door, which was not the case for commercial journeys.  It was agreed that figures giving the cost per journey for each Community Transport scheme would be provided following the meeting.

·       It was agreed that figures giving a breakdown of car use and minibus use by Community Transport, and numbers of volunteers and paid drivers would be provided following the meeting.

·       It was agreed that the location of routes using minibuses would also be provided.

·       It was confirmed that the criteria for travel on Community Transport was that a person was not able to access any other transport.  Community Transport was not just for older or disabled people but could be used by any age group for any reason.  However, it was acknowledged that the majority of users were older people.

·       It was confirmed that Community Transport could be used for social events and did operate outside usual working hours.  In Wyre Forest 80% of trips were to social events using minibuses.  Schemes which used private cars were more often used for travel to medical appointments.

·       A Member suggested that £90k seemed like a small level of funding and felt that Community Transport in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

(Indicative timing: 2.40 – 3.15pm)

Members were updated on the new requirements arising from the Environment Act.  The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for the Environment informed the Panel that, although the Environment Act had come into force in January 2022, further guidance and funding was expected and, therefore, implementation was at an early stage.

The Head of Planning and Transport Planning reminded Members that the Act covered three key matters: biodiversity, waste and pollution.  In the ensuing discussion, the following main points were raised:

Biodiversity

·       The new Act required development sites to deliver 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG).  This could be achieved either onsite or offsite, must be secured for a minimum of 30 years and would be monitored annually.  The responsibility for monitoring net gain would fall to individual planning authorities, including the County Council.  The Council had already undertaken some preparatory work funded by the Natural Environment Investment Readiness Fund.  It was expected that 2 full time equivalent staff would be needed to carry out this work.

·       With reference to Biodiversity Net Gain, a Member of the Panel suggested that, although the intentions of the legislation were good, she could not see how the requirements could be implemented as they would prove to be too resource intensive and it was not clear what would be achieved.  In response the Chairman pointed out that this was a legal requirement.

·       The Head of Planning and Transport Planning reminded the Panel that this was part of the Government’s response to a loss of biodiversity across the country as outlined in the 25-year Environment Plan.  As the requirement was embedded, it was expected that there would be a move to easier ways of monitoring through, for example, remote sensing, drones or aerial photography.

·       In response to a question about biodiversity banks, Members were told that there was a variety of ways to approach this.  Large developers might choose to set up their own banks and specialist companies may be set up for use by smaller developers.  A national scheme had also been proposed but Defra had indicated that this would be a ‘scheme of last resort’.  Discussions on the approach that the County Council might take were still at an early stage, awaiting further guidance from central Government.

·       It was confirmed that the Act included additional requirements with regard to the County Council’s role as mineral planning authority but it was suggested that the mineral industry were generally on board with this.

·       It was confirmed that the requirements for Biodiversity Net Gain would apply to highways developments.

·       In response to a question from a Councillor who was not a Member of the Panel, it was confirmed that the new biodiversity requirements had the potential to change how development was done.  It was confirmed that some habitats, such as ancient woodland, were excluded from possible development as they were classed as irreplaceable.

Waste

·       The Waste Services Manager informed the Panel that the Environment Act represented the biggest change in local authority waste management for 20 years.

·       The Act  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

(Indicative timing: 3.15 – 3.55pm

Performance Monitoring

The Lead Analyst (Performance) updated the Panel on areas of success and challenge as outlined in the report.  Members were given an opportunity to ask questions and the following main points were raised:

·       Further information was provided in relation to the graphs showing ‘Completed and Late Pothole Defects’ and ‘Pothole Defect Reports: Clarifications’.

·       It was confirmed that there were currently 12 teams working on footway repairs in the County and progress was good.  The Chairman stated that it was important that local members were consulted on which footways were repaired to ensure the decision was made by those closest to the area.  He requested that the annual list of proposed repairs be circulated in January/February to allow time for Members to comment.

·       With reference to street lighting, progress was good in terms of reduced costs and kWh usage.

·       Members discussed the use of the Member Portal for reporting local issues and were informed that the system was due to relaunched later in the month as part of a corporate initiative.  A Member requested that data on response times and quality of response in relation to reports made via the Member Portal (which were relevant to this Panel) be available at the next meeting.  It was noted that, although much of the focus to date had been on the system itself, it would also be important to consider working practices and processes in relation to the Portal.

·       With reference to the percentage of Public Enquiries (PEMs) completed within 28 days, the Chairman welcomed the figure of 89% for June 2022.

·       It was confirmed that highways inspections included consideration of ironwork, such as drain and manhole covers.  The Assistant Director for Highways and Transport Operations confirmed that all defects should be noted as part of highways inspections, not just the ones that had been reported and he agreed to take this up with inspectors.

·       In response to a question about why there were only 2 PEMs relating to Utility Company Apparatus/Works in Q1, the Lead Analyst (Performance) agreed to follow this up after the meeting.

·       The Assistant Director for Highways and Transport Operations agreed to update the Chairman on progress related to the Honeybourne Public Rights of Way (PROW) volunteer group following the meeting.

·       With reference to the backlog of Definitive Map Modification Orders (DMMOs), the Panel was informed that this was now being looked at a strategic level.

·       With reference to the use of new products in footway and highway repairs, it was confirmed that these were considered in consultation with relevant experts with the aim of being cost effective and durable.

In-Year Budget Monitoring

By way of introduction, the Deputy Chief Finance Officer made the following main points:

·       The figures given in the agenda report were for period 4 (rather than Q1) as these gave a more up to date picture.

·       The majority of areas were breaking even with an overall forecast underspend of £289k.  The main reason for this was an increase in income generation within Network  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

(Indicative timing: 3:55 – 4.00pm)

It was agreed that:

·       the Scrutiny Manager would check whether the Streetscape Design Guide could be added to the agenda for the Panel’s November meeting

·       the Panel would receive an update on developments relating to the Environment Act when further guidance had been received from central Government

·       an update on Worcestershire on Demand (the pilot in Bromsgrove) would be added to the Panel’s work programme.