To provide an opportunity to pose questions to Cabinet Members in line with Standing Orders.
Process:
No more than 10 minutes will be allocated at the Council meeting for questions to each Cabinet Member.
Members must submit their proposed questions in writing in advance in accordance with Standing Orders. If members are unable to ask their question orally within the allocated time, remaining questions will be answered in writing. The question and response will be appended to the minutes.
The question must be addressed through the Mayor or the person presiding at the meeting and not directly to the person being questioned.
Questions will be posed to Cabinet Members in the following order:
i. Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Education and Early Years
ii. Cabinet Member for Community and Wellbeing
iii. Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning, Regulation and Housing
iv. Cabinet Member for Social Services
v. Cabinet Member for Organisational Transformation
vi. Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Bio-Diversity
vii. Cabinet Member for Infrastructure and Assets
Minutes:
There were three written questions to the Cabinet Members:
Question 1: Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning, Regulation and Housing
Councillor Mark Howells:
As part of the planning committee since my election this year, it is evident that there is an increase in planning applications around conversion of properties HMOs.
I’m sure the Cabinet Member will agree that these are the most contentious applications that attract the most public criticism and if not carefully considered, can cause significant issues in local communities. Conflict often arises between the views of the public, Members views and considerations, and the views of the Council Officers in line with legislative constraints. Only this month an application came before the committee that was contentious and friction existed between Officers and Members on the right approach to take.
The current supplementary planning guidance on HMOs is not helping. It is dated 2017 and significantly out of date and has not kept pace with housing and planning law changes since that time. It does not represent the views of members generally and this is further supported by cross party support at planning committee on these issues.
I note the Cabinet report of 11 January around the timetables for delivery of the LDP as well as no real commitment to amend the SPG’s due to time constraints. Given the issues around HMO’s and the strong public feeling about them, It is my submission that the SPG for HMOs’ cannot wait until after 2026 to be updated and should be looked at and consulted on urgently to provide a better framework for determining these applications that reflects the listening council we strive to be.
Will the Cabinet Member therefore commit to instructing Officers to update the SPG for how this council deal with conversion to HMOs urgently?
Councillor James Clarke response:
It is acknowledged that planning applications for HMOs can often be contentious. Indeed, poorly managed and high concentrations of HMOs can potentially lead to issues affecting local residents and often the tenants themselves. However, we must also remember that well managed HMOs can integrate well with the local community and will often provide housing opportunities for a variety of people, including young professionals. Therefore, care must be taken not to tarnish all HMOs with the same brush.
In respect of the statement that there is an increase in planning applications for HMO’s, I would like to confirm that this is not the case. Planning records show 30 applications were determined in 2020/21, 21 applications for 2021/22 and 16 applications in the current financial year. I think what Cllr Howells is seeing as a newly elected Member is a high number of referrals to Planning Committee and misconstruing this as an increase in actual applications.
As a former member of Planning Committee and now Cabinet Member responsible for Planning, I am very familiar with member concerns and their worries about the potential issues that HMOs can cause. However, I believe that new or updated Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) is not the solution, it’s a tool to help make decisions and is for guidance only and is based on evidence of need and impact. It is certainly not a vehicle to reflect members’ own views on a particular type of proposal which they personally don’t like. It provides additional guidance on the main policy or policies within the Local Development Plan (LDP). As Councillor Howells is already aware from the detailed and ongoing training he has received as a Planning Committee member, all planning decisions must be made in accordance with the Development Plan. Policy H8 of the Development Plan is very clear on the criteria that proposals for HMOs need to satisfy, namely the need to ensure that there is no harm to the character of the building and locality, there is no over concentration of HMOs in one area, adequate noise insulation is provided, and adequate amenity is provided for future occupiers. We cannot refuse applications on the basis of “we just don’t like them. There needs to be a measured and evidence based decision and personally I was pleased to see an open and lively debate between the Planning Committee and Officers at this month’s Planning committee which was mostly evidence based.
In his question, Councillor Howells confirms that he is aware of the review of the LDP which is currently underway. I am pleased to confirm that we are at the growth options stage and Cabinet recently approved a report which you can find online that allows us to consult with our residents and stakeholders on how they would like to see Newport grow and thrive in the coming years. As part of the LDP review it is much more appropriate and effective for us to review policy H8 rather than produce more guidance.
You will be comforted to know that we are already working on this and the Council has commissioned a research piece which should be completed by this Summer. This work will start to build the evidence base we need to inform the policies in the new LDP. As we are all aware, any new LDP policy will be examined by an Inspector appointed by the Welsh Government and the evidence supporting any new policy, including a new HMO policy, will therefore need to be robust. We will also engage with partners such as Gwent Police and review complaints made to other Council services to gather all available evidence. Consultation with residents, Members and stakeholders is at the heart of the LDP review process and I would welcome Council Howell’s engagement in the review of the HMO policy and any other policy which he feels does not give him the outcome he wants. We are happy to consider all suggestions and feedback.
In fact, I know there that there are a few councillors here today who have lived in HMOs. Therefore, care must be taken not to tarnish all HMOs with the same brush.
In respect of the statement that there is an increase in planning applications for HMO’s, I would like to confirm that this is not the case. Planning records show 30 applications were determined in 2020/21, 21 applications for 2021/22 and 16 applications in the current financial year. I think what Cllr Howells is seeing as a newly elected Member is a high number of referrals to Planning Committee and misconstruing this as an increase in actual applications.
As a former member of Planning Committee and now Cabinet Member responsible for Planning, I am very familiar with member concerns and their worries about the potential issues that HMOs can cause. However, I believe
Supplementary Question:
Whilst not a supplementary question, Councillor Howells wished to state that he was not against HMOs but felt that there should be appropriate guidance to determine HMOs within Newport and wanted this clarified for the record.
Question 2: Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Bio-diversity
Councillor Mark Howells:
Background:
In 2022 prior to the local council elections, the labour administration announced capital investment of 2.5m in Parks. I wrote to you by email in June 2022 requesting detail of how that money will be spent and you replied:
“We are in the process of arranging an all member seminar in relation to this service area. This will help to familiarise elected members with service level responsibilities and commitments. I believe that this will be particularly helpful to newly elected members.
The administration previously agreed an increase in the maintenance budget in addition to the further capital investment of £2.5m agreed by Cabinet. Again, the seminar should help to provide a better understanding of context and priorities.
Should you have any further queries following on from the seminar I would be happy to arrange a meeting.”
To my knowledge, no such seminar has taken place.
In my question to you in September, and your written reply of 3rd October you informed me that “the investment covers both play areas and cemeteries and that funding will be used to clear existing maintenance backlog over a 2-year period.” This was the first I and other colleagues and members of the public had heard of this.
I wrote to again you following that response asking for a meeting to discuss the parks budgets but unfortunately you refused, in your email reply of 13 October 2022.
Further scrutiny of Cabinet reports and minutes notes.
In the Cabinet meeting of 13 July 2022 the Leader mentioned “the importance of the 2.5m for parks and open spaces – in addition, £300k permanent funding over 2 years has been allocated to maintain play areas and equipment.”
In the Cabinet meeting of 12 October a capital report was prepared and funding appears to now be split for the first time at £700k for parks for 22/23 and £500k for 22/23 to cemeteries. A further £900k earmarked for 23/24 for cemeteries and a £400k for parks.
In the budget papers for Cabinet in December 2022, it is confirmed that Cabinet added only £700k budget for parks improvements and the prediction is that only £46k spending will take place by the end 22/23 financial year. This is despite you informing me in reply to my question that most works are currently in the process of being tendered.
Question:
Is this Labour administration about investing in our green spaces and parks or was the announcement of £2.5m investment, conveniently made just prior to last council elections just a failed election pledge in disguise?
Why has no capital money been spent improving our parks in 2022 when the need is desperate and evident to Newport citizens?
Why are you now consulting on imposing parking charges to these areas which only discourage people from using them?
Will you now agree to meet with me and my ward colleagues to thrash out how we can spend some of the parks investment money on projects that will make a real difference to our constituents’ lives locally?
Councillor Yvonne Forsey response:
As it was stated in my previous response to you, the £2.5M capital investment for parks and cemeteries agreed by Cabinet as a 2-year programme. Work is prioritised based on results of the annual inspection programme.
As it had been stated previously, engagement with residents is a key element of this work, to ensure the local community is suitably involved in any replacement work taking place. We have recently appointed an engagement officer and tendering for contractors is underway.
A meeting between Lliswerry ward members and the senior manager in charge of parks was agreed with you in November. The all-member seminar was held on 4th August 2022.
With the current unprecedented levels of inflation and budget pressures. The council must increase income to fund maintaining services in park open spaces and countryside sites. It helps support posts, activities, and services that the public rely on for formal and informal leisure and recreation.
The current proposal extends the charging scheme already in place in Belle Vue Park, Tredegar Park and Fourteen Locks, with no increase in charges from previous years, and which has proven successful to help maintain the assets.
Proposed fares are extremely low relative to the cost of operating a motor vehicle.
Question 3: Cabinet Member for Infrastructure and Assets
Councillor Ray Mogford:
Once again Bishton and Langstone along with other parts of Newport East has experienced severe flooding over the weekend.
What is the Cabinet Member and this administration doing to ensure that this recurrent flooding, apparently linked to climate change, is once and all resolved from a strategic perspective?
Councillor Laura Lacey response:
From a strategic perspective, Newport City Council is the Lead Local Flood Authority for Newport and works closely with all key flood management authorities to manage local flood risk across the city.
Our Local Flood Risk Management Plan sets out how we manage flooding from local sources so that the communities most at risk benefit the most.
In doing so, the plan takes forward the objectives and actions set out in the authority’s Local Flood Risk Management Strategy
You will be aware that both the communities mentioned in your question are considered within the plan.
The sources of floodwater are not always within the management of Newport City Council as Lead Local Flood Authority. Therefore, we work closely with partners such as Natural Resources Wales, Welsh Water and local landowners who all have water management responsibilities within the east of Newport.
I can confirm that all the flooding recently experienced was impacted in some way by one or more 3rd party asset owner and officers are reminding owners of their duties under flood management legislation and working with them to resolve the issues identified.
It is, however, important to be aware that there will always be a limit to the capacity of any drainage system, especially with the recent heavy rainfall, which was nationally experienced and likely to become more common due to climate change.