Loading
There is no summary of this meeting yet. Summaries are written once the council publishes the minutes, which are its official record of what a meeting decided. They usually appear a few weeks after the meeting.
There were no disclosures of Personal and Prejudicial Interests.
None.
One public question was received. The Chair raised that some elements of the question related to a planning application that is currently subject to appeal, and therefore the Council is limited in the level of detail it can provide. Question: When executing LDP2 can the LPA put measures in place to ensure cumulative issues are properly addressed when individual parts of a strategic site come forward, so we don't get situations where piecemeal development avoids providing mandated infrastructure and proper EIA scrutiny, also what can be done to ensure S106 contributions to important transport, education and healthcare provisions do not repeatedly get negotiated out failing the intended LDP mitigations? In response, the officer explained that Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening is undertaken in accordance with relevant legislation and guidance, and that applications are assessed based on the circumstances at the time they are determined. The officer advised that where circumstances change, there may be a need to reconsider or re-screen applications in line with those requirements. In relation to Section 106 contributions, the officer explained that there are clear legislative tests which must be met when securing planning obligations. Contributions can only be required where they are necessary to make a development acceptable, and decisions on whether to secure such obligations are made based on the evidence available at the time of determination. The officer further clarified that while potential infrastructure requirements and contributions are considered through the development plan process, the precise detail of Section 106 obligations can only be determined at the point when a planning application is assessed. In relation to the preparation of LDP2, the officer explained that policies are currently at an early stage of development and cannot yet be confirmed. However, members of the public will have the opportunity to raise concerns and make representations through the consultation process as the plan progresses.
The Leader, several officers and Rich Harris from Tramshed Tech attended to present the report and answer questions. • The report included performance against objectives, lessons learned, financial position and early operational feedback. • The Panel discussed the impact of intervention and heard significant decline was expected within 12–18 months. It was indicated that rebuilding would have been significantly more expensive. • The Panel discussed the increase in cost from an initial estimate of approximately £7m to a final cost of £17.1m. This this was driven by a combination of factors, including the impact of COVID-19, inflation and market volatility, alongside technical complexity. Lessons learned were also discussed. • Completion of defects and snagging period to resolve outstanding issues was given as the reason for the final cost being released 18 months after completion. • Early performance indicates that occupancy levels are increasing and that activity within the building appears to be developing positively. It was recognised that the operation is not yet profitable but is delivering a range of wider benefits. • Financial arrangements between the Council and Tramshed Tech were discussed. The Panel noted that a fixed rental agreement will be in place, including a rent free period reflecting standard practice for new developments and ongoing defect resolution. • The Panel discussed employment levels and noted that current activity is at around three quarters of projected capacity, with further growth expected as occupancy increases. Tramshed Tech operates as a Real Living Wage employer. • The role of the Palace Theatre in the wider regeneration of the High Street was discussed which forms part of a broader pipeline of investment, including grant supported developments and placemaking initiatives. • Members requested further information on the economic impact figures to understand how they have been derived.
Cllr Andrew Williams and officers attended to present the report and answer questions. • The report highlights that overall performance remains strong, particularly in relation to the percentage of planning applications determined within agreed timescales, which stands at 93.9%, above the Welsh average. • The performance against enforcement targets was discussed and noted that only 32% of enforcement cases were investigated within 84 days. Proposed changes to reduce this were discussed. • Members requested the reintroduction of a regular (weekly) list of enforcement complaints to be shared with Councillors. • Performance of applications determined within eight weeks compares favourably with other authorities; however, members noted the overall percentage remains relatively low when considered from a public perspective. Factors affecting this include additional information or amendments following submission. • Staffing pressures were discussed and officers highlighted the wider challenges associated with recruitment and retention within the planning profession. • Increases in planning fees have now been introduced but income levels have reduced in recent years due to declining application numbers, whilst the cost of delivering the service has continued to increase. • The four objectives in the Swansea Public Service Board’s Local Well Being Plan (2023-2028) are embedded within existing planning policy and decision making frameworks, and that the development of LDP2 will provide a further opportunity to strengthen this approach. • The Panel noted that Swansea is expected to continue to see population growth, with a corresponding need for additional housing. It was highlighted that these factors are reflected within the current Local Development Plan and will be a key consideration in the development of LDP2. • Members discussed the role of Section 106 contributions and noted both the level of agreements secured and the level of funding received during the year. It explored how these contributions are triggered and allocated and the importance of ensuring that these funds are effectively managed. • It queried engagement with health partners and noted that Swansea has been selected to work more closely with health partners to inform this approach.
The Annual review was noted and any feedback from members will be collected by email.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.