Cabinet - Wednesday 26 March 2025, 5:00pm - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting

Cabinet
Wednesday, 26th March 2025 at 5:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

Initialising

 

Welcome to Folkestone and Hythe District Council's Webcast Player.

 

UPDATE - PLEASE NOTE, MEETINGS OF THE JOINT TRANSPORTATION BOARD AND FOLKESTONE AND HYTHE DISTRICT AND PARISH COUNCILS' JOINT COMMITTEE WILL BE STREAMED LIVE TO YOUTUBE AT: bit.ly/YouTubeMeetings. 


The webcast should start automatically for you, and you can jump to specific points of interest within the meeting by selecting the agenda point or the speaker that you are interested in, simply by clicking the tabs above this message. You can also view any presentations used in the meeting by clicking the presentations tab. We hope you find the webcast interesting and informative.

 

Please note, although officers can be heard when they are speaking at meetings, they will not be filmed.

 

At the conclusion of a meeting, the webcast can take time to 'archive'.  You will not be able to view the webcast until the archiving process is complete.  This is usually within 24 hours of the meeting.

Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jim Martin
  2. Mr Jake Hamilton
  3. Cllr Jim Martin
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Tim Prater
  2. Cllr Jim Martin
  3. Cllr Jim Martin
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Jim Martin
  2. Cllr Tim Prater
  3. Mr Andy Blaszkowicz
  4. Jonathan Smith
  5. Cllr Jim Martin
  6. Cllr Tim Prater
  7. Cllr Jim Martin
  8. Cllr Rich Holgate
  9. Cllr Jim Martin
  10. Cllr Jim Martin
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Tim Prater
  2. Cllr Jim Martin
  3. Cllr Gary Fuller
  4. Cllr Jim Martin
  5. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  6. Cllr Jeremy Speakman
  7. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  8. Cllr Jim Martin
  9. Cllr Rich Holgate
  10. Gavin Edwards
  11. Cllr Jim Martin
  12. Cllr Jim Martin
  13. Cllr Jim Martin
  14. Cllr Tim Prater
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Gary Fuller
  2. Cllr Jim Martin
  3. Cllr Rebecca Shoob
  4. Cllr Jim Martin
  5. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  6. Cllr Jim Martin
  7. Gavin Edwards
  8. Cllr Jim Martin
  9. Cllr Gary Fuller
  10. Cllr Jim Martin
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Tim Prater
  2. Cllr Jim Martin
  3. Cllr Gary Fuller
  4. Cllr Jim Martin
  5. Cllr Jeremy Speakman
  6. Mr Jonathan Hicks
  7. Cllr Jim Martin
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Rebecca Shoob
  2. Cllr Jim Martin
  3. Cllr Gary Fuller
  4. Cllr Jim Martin
  5. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  6. Cllr Jim Martin
  7. Cllr Gary Fuller
  8. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  9. Cllr Jim Martin
  10. Folkestone & Hythe Officer
  11. Cllr Jim Martin
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  2. Cllr Jim Martin
  3. Cllr Gary Fuller
  4. Cllr Jeremy Speakman
  5. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  6. Scott Butler
  7. Cllr Jeremy Speakman
  8. Scott Butler
  9. Andrew Rush
  10. Cllr Jim Martin
  11. Cllr Rich Holgate
  12. Cllr Jim Martin
  13. Cllr Gary Fuller
  14. Cllr Jim Martin
  15. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  16. Cllr Jim Martin
  17. Cllr Tim Prater
  18. Andrew Rush
  19. Cllr Jim Martin
  20. Cllr Rich Holgate
  21. Cllr Jim Martin
  22. Cllr Tim Prater
  23. Andrew Rush
  24. Cllr Jim Martin
  25. Cllr Rich Holgate
  26. Cllr Jim Martin
  27. Andrew Rush
  28. Cllr Jim Martin
  29. Cllr Jeremy Speakman
  30. Cllr Jim Martin
  31. Cllr Gary Fuller
  32. Cllr Jim Martin
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Polly Blakemore
  2. Cllr Jim Martin
  3. Cllr Gary Fuller
  4. Cllr Jim Martin
  5. Gavin Edwards
  6. Cllr Jim Martin
  7. Cllr Mike Blakemore
  8. Cllr Jim Martin
  9. Cllr Rich Holgate
  10. Cllr Jim Martin
  11. Andrew Rush
  12. Cllr Jim Martin
  13. Webcast Finished

Cllr Jim Martin - 0:00:01
Well, good evening everyone and welcome to the meeting of the Cabinet.
This meeting will be webcast live to the internet.
For those who do not wish to be recorded or filmed, you will need to leave the Chamber.
For members, officers and others speaking at the meeting, it is important that the microphones
are used so viewers on the webcast and others in the room may hear you.
Would anyone with a mobile phone please switch it to silent mode as they can be distracting.
I would like to remind members that although we all have strong opinions on matters under
consideration it is important to treat members, officers and public speakers with respect.
Jolly good.

1 Apologies for Absence

So can we have apologies for absence Jake?
Thank you leader.
Mr Jake Hamilton - 0:00:55
we have apologies from Councillor Scoffin and Councillor Butcher also wanted to send
his apologies for the opportunity.
Thank you very much.

2 Declarations of Interest

Cllr Jim Martin - 0:01:06
Item two is declarations of interest.
Do we have any declarations of interest that anyone would like to make?
No?
Jolly good?
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Moving on to item three, minutes.
Has anyone got any concerns or issues with the minutes
or am I okay to sign these?
Cllr Tim Prater - 0:01:33
Fair bit of a pose.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:01:36
So, Councillor Prater to propose,
do I, Councillor Blakemore to second.
All those in favor, please indicate, thank you.
Just bear with me.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:01:58
All right, thank you very much.

4 Oportunitas Q3 report

So item four, our first substantive item, Oportunatas, Quanta 3 report, pages 17 to
24 and you will have all heard Councillor Butcher's apologies being unable to attend.
But fortunately I have something that's been prepared so I can do the introduction.
So the Opportunitas Quarter 3 Progress Report.
This report provides an update from the Board of Opportunitas on activities undertaken during
the first three months for 24 -25, sorry, first three quarters for 24 -25 financial year.
The report includes a projected out turn for the profit and loss account for the period
to the 31st of March 2025 compared to the original forecast based on activity to the
31st of December 2024.
This report is in line with the requirement contained in the shareholders agreement between
the company and the council.
In summary, the company's profit and loss account is projected to make an operating
profit of approximately 1 ,406 .3K.
That can't be right, because that's a million pound.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, rock and roll.
for the year an increase of 89K compared to the original forecast of an operating profit
of 1 .37 million pounds.
It should be noted that these figures include the loan discount amount following the loan
restructuring but do not include the unrealised property valuation gain which currently stands
at 2 .775 million as of the 31st of March, 2024.
The position at quarter three shows solid performance
against budget in various key metrics.
Out -term projection based on the quarter three data
shows that rental income is fractionally up on budget,
rental arrears are fractionally down,
and rental expenses are significantly down against the budget.
This results in a projected gross profit margin of 73 %
ahead of the budgeted 63%.
However, it should be noted that the main driver
of this performance is the reprofiling
of the special item expenditure due to occur,
bracket, stock condition survey and major external repairs stroke decorations, close
bracket.
Removing these items from the assessment suggests the performance is approximately in line with
expectations from the original budget line estimates at the beginning of the financial
year.
Is there any more to add to that?
Andy?
Okay, surely good.
You've got the brackets.
You've got the brackets, yeah.
Good, okay.
Well, that's your introduction.
Very happy to move the report and open it up for discussion.
Councillor Prater.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:06:01
Thank you.
Cllr Tim Prater - 0:06:05
It's obviously looking like a decent outcome before people get too excited
about the level of profit, remember that two quarters ago we effectively redeclared the
financing there, so one and a half million pounds of that is technical in terms of adjustment,
but it's obviously good to see that we're running £89 ,000 per projection, I think that
takes into account that refinancing, so that's useful. I've got a question on where we get
at the end of the year based on that £89 ,000.
So I can see all that £89 ,52 ,000 of it is effectively a slip of stuff that we would
have done in this year into next year.
It's therefore absolutely right that one takes that, accrues that for next year in order
to do the stock conditions survey and the major external repairs that were budgeted
for, they're just not going to get done this year.
You accrue that forward to next year.
However, 89 minus 52 still equals 40 something thousand pounds, 47 for the camera, thousand
pounds additional profit above where we expected in the year.
What's the expectation of that?
Should that arise, and I accept that we're forecasting at this stage and not saying that
is in stone, should we get additional money of that extent?
Is the expectation that the Council sees a dividend of that sort of value in the year,
at the end of the year, which is standard on profit for a company that we own ourselves,
or is it that it is expected to be used in another way?
Please outline.
Second supplementary question, more of an operational nature, that we have eight properties
in the portfolio which are in Dover, three of them are currently being re -let, that seems
like a much higher figure than the rest of the portfolio in terms of turnover, in terms
of vacancy.
Is there a reason why those three, why Dover has got three on the market at the moment?
If somebody turns around and says it's fairly unusual, it just happened,
and they'll be filmed soon, and they'll be back to full telency, that's great.
Or is there anything systemic there that we should be...
the opportunity should be considered.
Thank you. Would you like to take that, Andy?
Mr Andy Blaszkowicz - 0:08:36
Yeah, I'll talk about the Dover properties and Jonathan coming,
about dividend. I mean, I could touch upon the dividend.
The Dover properties, we've had a few issues there.
We had a tenant. We had one flat which had had some quite bad
water ingress damage which is taking a while to sort out. We
have another flat there which has had a problem tenant in it
which has taken a long time to resolve through the courts.
I am told by the agent, Gav can correct me if I'm wrong, but
we're looking like we're referencing for tenants for all
vacant flats at the moment.
Rent with with an increased rent and we should be fully let
within the coming month or so.
So I can keep you posted on that and perhaps we can put an
update in it in in the next paper for the board and then
update to cabinet with regards to dividends. We did look at the
profiling when we might be able to start paying dividends
through the business for detail business plan last year and
financial review.
which I believe was about year three.
So obviously there's some quite sensitive analysis that goes on behind all of that.
We would have to look at that to see.
Obviously we are in a good position financially.
As you pointed out, some of that is paper money from the transfer of the loan restructuring.
And I think it would be proven to retain any profits within the company at the moment
until the business plan later suggests that we can pay that dividend.
Jonathan Smith - 0:10:14
Thank you. Thanks, Peter.
So, yes, I mean, in terms of the dividend,
it is a question of strategic consideration for the company.
I believe Andy is right. I think for three or four of the dividends,
this is being paid out.
And of course it will be dependent on the levels of profit that are achieved.
And of course this is a year specifically of transition and we'll have a much more,
probably a full year of normal operations and normal profits and the like.
Certainly for 25, 26 I would say.
But it is something that's obviously designed based on how repairs, for example, we talked
in the report the repair to maintenance is a very demand -led item and that's just a very
very stark impact on profit and loss of the company in each particular year so I mean
that's obviously a factor that needs to be considered obviously you've been in line with
the financial and we've had people who have been in line with the financial review and what's
been happening last year.
Councillor Proater.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:11:22
Cllr Tim Prater - 0:11:26
Thank you. I certainly broadly accept the item, except that obviously the budget was
profiled on the basis of certain return, you know, certain income, certain expenditure.
This is, I mean, 40 something thousand pounds better than that, and therefore I think it's
reasonable to ask that question. But I do accept that obviously things are better than
expected sometimes, and then worse than expected, slightly worse than expected the other time.
It takes one large repair or one large water ingress and you can suddenly eat 40 ,000 pounds.
So I take the point on levelling at that stage, but obviously if there is a reasonable expectation
that that unexpectedly good year was just an unexpectedly good year, then obviously
the taxpayer would like to see the money back as much as the business would.
So I'm sure that will be kept in mind.
I'm sure that when we get to the end of it we can have that discussion at the end of
I'm sure Oportunitas will take that into account as they make a decision of how to
disperse profits, if at all, for next year.
But it's good to see that we are working through a business plan that might actually see us
dispersing profits at some stage in the future, which will be good.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:12:37
I join you in your sentiment, Councillor Prater.
It is great to see Oportunitas making a marginal profit as opposed to a marginal loss.
things become a lot easier.
So, any other contribute?
Councillor Holgate.
I suspect the answer is I don't know yet,
but LGR and opportunity.
Cllr Rich Holgate - 0:13:01
Do we know what happens?
It's not there.
Okay, because I think Councillor Prater's nodding next to me
that we don't know yet.
Obviously, we've set it up with best intentions,
good land laws,
there's a lot of very valid principles around the set up for it.
Do we know what happens?
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:13:19
The simple answer is no.
Because that hasn't come up as an item to discuss yet.
We've been in such a furore in terms of trying to find our way through this maze of local
government reorganisation.
But it's not only opportunitas.
There are a number of other asset holders that we are going to have to consider.
But at the moment, officers are busily engaged in other aspects of local government reorganisation.
But when we get to it, the councillors will be fully involved.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:14:03
So I propose, I think...
Did you second, Councillor Pérez?
Oh right, Councillor Player.
So if there are no further contributions,
all those in favour, please indicate.
Thank you very much.
Item five,

5 Quarter 3 performance monitoring report 2023/24

Qantas 3, performance monitoring report,
23 to 24, pages 25 to 48.
And who's gonna lead us through this?
Oh right, okay.
Sorry, Tim, I was looking at an officer
I should have naturally turned to you.
Councillor Prater.
Cllr Tim Prater - 0:14:46
I've had the, this is another in our regular series obviously,
a quarterly performance reports.
This report, when Gavin presented it to finance and performance scrutiny subcommittee,
I think that was their initials, a couple of weeks ago,
They went through the report and as ever they thanked Kevin for the work and the fact that
the report is becoming clearer each time.
We struggle to see how it's going to be clearer next time but we look forward to being amazed
by that.
The intention is obviously to monitor how we are doing against our corporate plan, and
then we'll be adjusting the corporate plan.
That will obviously flex as soon as there is a new corporate plan.
we will be looking through and revising those KPIs
and how we monitor those and we'll take the opportunity, I think,
to go through all of those and see what's...
And there may be some that aren't just changing the global plan,
but we have an ongoing discussion about, A, relevancy and, B,
how easy it is to... how one monitors the things
and sometimes a KPI trying to get a better number than
and sometimes trying to get a lower number than
and it's sometimes difficult to assess that.
But that will be a piece of work that comes through
as the corporate plan is completed,
and is very much in everyone's thoughts at the moment,
is to hand them to translate those new objectives into APIs.
They are in front of you, as I said,
the Finance Screening Subcommittee
asked a number of questions
on some of the items of detail there,
I think mainly around housing.
Some of them are also around making sure
that this report is actually available to the public,
in a way that doesn't involve them going to item 4 of the cabinet papers in order to find
them. That's the discussion which is ongoing. A reply went back on each of those questions
to members of our subcommittee this afternoon. It could be made available to cabinet will
request. I would be more than happy to email it over to you. But otherwise the detail is
in front of you and however if you've got any difficult questions I'd be delighted for
either you or Gavin to take them.
Thank you very much Tim.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:17:07
Go ahead Councillor Fuller.
Thank you chair.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:17:13
This is the bit where we all interject and say how well our KPIs are doing now even if
they weren't before.
Speaking of which I thought I'd take the opportunity to mention that we have actually now achieved
the 80 % target for my account take -up is now 80 .45%.
And also that in information governance we are, the most recent months we've been reaching
all of our KPI targets, which is very positive.
Yes, I'm sure you can.
I think also looking at all of the housing ones, when I was looking at those I got the
feeling that a lot of those are in hand and I think it is worth noting that even where
we're not meeting KPIs, we are making them.
Often they're interlinked, but often they are,
that we are doing things about them.
And I think, although you can have KPIs
that just measure the day to day,
it's really useful actually having KPIs
that focus on the things that you want to achieve
that maybe you know you're not the best at yet,
although it is nice to reflect on the things
that you get out all the time when you get the opportunity.
I also look forward to having,
to Gavin building down detector for folks in the hive.
So you can go on a little website and look and see which KPI is down and up.
I'm looking forward to that with great excitement, as only I would.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:18:38
Thank you very much. Cass for Blakeney.
Just a few observations really,
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:18:44
and for once I'm not going to talk about parking or enforcement,
because they're perfect.
But just to say that it's really good to see how about the housing benefit claims,
what the figures are on there, the continuous improvement.
And also on the community safety events front, I think the target was 10 and they seem to
be sitting at 24, which is amazing.
Well done.
That's all right.
Household waste seems to be below 50%,
but I know we haven't had the KCC figures yet.
I'm sure Jeremy has something to say about that.
I'm fine.
And they have gone up. I had noticed that.
I'm fine.
Cllr Jeremy Speakman - 0:19:34
On the point of recycling,
I'm actually stealing, I think,
Councillor Scotham's Sunday here,
but the Razor Rate campaign,
which the Waste Management team
have been working very hard on,
increasing their district's recycling rate.
Most recent project, as you probably know,
was the Food Waste Sticker campaign,
and that actually resulted in recycling volumes
of food waste going up by 12%.
So, by what, 10 %?
A little bit of positive there on that one.
Thanks.
One other thing I was just gonna mention,
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:20:09
but I think Councillor Fuller has updated us on this,
the data -beach figures for this particular quarter.
We still weren't managing 100 % assessment within 72 hours,
but it sounds... I can have a look at your portfolio report for next week as well,
and it sounds like that's all going in the right direction now.
Councillor Holgate.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:20:31
Cllr Rich Holgate - 0:20:33
I know Gavin's already come back, but I just wanted to echo the sentiment.
the
of sharing this more publicly, I think there is some really great work being done, you know
the local government can get a bad rep but
there's a lot of evidence in here that suggests that we are making a real significant
impact in the district and so I just support that.
I did have one question just on housing, it talks around the number of
new homes being built within the district, it's only collected annually and I was
surprised at that, I don't know whether we could
count more
regularly and I was
I'm just curious why the logic is only once a year given, especially in the landscape,
we're in our building houses.
Just curious.
Thank you for your question on that, Councillor Holgate.
Gavin Edwards - 0:21:13
With regards to that KPI, in particular on the annual homes, I think that's obviously
previously based around some of the work around the housing information audit as well.
So obviously that's done annually.
So we did have initial discussion way, way back when this KPI was introduced about whether
we could bring something that would bring
a quarterly position that would show
a bit of a cumulative trend towards the end of the year.
But based on it's done on,
let's look at the housing information,
all that's done each year,
that's the reason why the figures always come
right at the end and why you will likely
probably see it come in the next one
at the annual report, which will come back to Cabinet,
I believe in July of this year.
So that's when we should hopefully have at least
a figure or something to show you around there.
And Target is obviously associated around
at the time, figure in targeting the local plan.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:22:04
And just to reassure you, Councillor Holgate,
that is a number that we are gonna absolutely smash.
So that's the work in progress.
Councillor Pro Tem?
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:22:16
I'm going to be a standout by now.
I'm just kidding.
I'm still certain.
If there are no other contributions, I'd just like to say,
there's good news all over this document,
just spectacularly good news in lots of places.
The huge challenge of housing,
the fact that we are almost, and you never can get,
but we're almost decent homes compliant.
I mean, that's flipping fantastic, believe me.
We're managing our temporary accommodation target
pretty well, bear in mind there are other district councils,
some of our neighbors who are really,
really struggling with this.
So obviously there are paragraphs
where we can focus on and we can do a bit better.
But generally, I think it's spectacularly successful.
And I commend everyone.
All of the portfolio holders, all of the officers,
I think it reflects a terrific overall team performance.
There really isn't a weak link here.
There are areas where naturally we can push
a little bit harder, but generally,
I think this is spectacularly good.
If there are no, did you move the report?
I absolutely did.
Well, I'm very happy to second.
Cllr Tim Prater - 0:24:03
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:24:03
All those in favor, please indicate.
Thank you very much, that's unanimous.

6 Customer Feedback and complaints policy

Our next item, number six, customer feedback and complaints policy.
Is this Councillor Fuller?
It is indeed.
Thank you, Chair.
Yeah, so moving on from the times when we hopefully get everything right, sometimes,
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:24:30
yeah, sometimes people, well, sometimes people want to say nice things about us, but also
So sometimes things don't go quite so well,
and for that we have the complaints policy.
So this particular policy was last updated
in May 2021 to make various changes.
Since then, the Housing Ombudsman
and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
launched a joint code in 2022 -23,
and then the Housing Ombudsman released its first statutory
complaint handling code, which was effective
from April 2024.
After that, the local government and social care ombudsman
released a code to align with the Housing Ombudsman's code.
And they will effectively be monitoring their new code
from April next year.
The main effect that has on us is that currently, we obviously
have we have five working days from when
a complaint received to acknowledging it.
And then at stage one, if you're making a complaint to the housing
team, you get a response within 10 working days.
But if you're making a complaint elsewhere in the council,
it's 20 working days.
And then you have stage two, which
has a 20 working day set up.
And then worst case scenario, you go to the ombudsman,
which we hope you don't or don't need to.
So the main change here is that we from now on both.
Both types of complaints at stage one will be dealt with
within or get response within 10 working days.
And we're doing this a year early to effectively allow it
to bedding because obviously that's quite simple for the
change in the number of days.
Alongside that, there's there's some various issues that are
identified last November in terms of complying with the housing ombudsman code that has just
been tidied up and also the wording of some of the letters as well to make them clearer
and so on and there's examples of those included in the appendix.
So that is actually a very simple change overall.
It's required in order to make sure that we're ready for changes that are upcoming and actually
It should be better for the residents because both types of complaints will be dealt with
in the same way so that you will have reasonable explanations of how they'll be dealt with.
I obviously would like to move the change as it were and I'll open it to questions,
which I will then bat over to Gavin.
Thank you very much Councillor Fuller.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:27:19
Do we have questions or queries or input?
Councillor Shrew.
Thank you.
Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 0:27:28
I just wanted to commend the input of the scrutiny panel of the strategic tenants advisory
panel.
I know they've done some great work on that and that was much appreciated.
Councillor Blakeney.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:27:43
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:27:48
Just to say on the annual performance review on this policy, it's really good to see the
steps that the council has taken to put things right and keep them going in that direction
in the future.
I just wondered if there was any, again it's the sort of transparency thing, can we make
more of that or are we doing enough with that to show how we're responding to residents
and improving things all the time?
Agreed.
Do chip in yet?
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:28:17
Thank you for your comment on that, Councillor Blakemore.
Gavin Edwards - 0:28:20
So we did do an annual performance report in terms of that to comply obviously with
the swiftness of that Ombudsman self -determination they wanted us to do in November, so we did
do that.
And obviously we've worked with member responsible for complaints which we've identified obviously
as the team that I work with, of course, like Councillor Fuller, on that.
Moving forward, we will, obviously, we're now just at the end of 24, 25, so we are going
to be doing the annual stuff again.
We have got something on potentially for the Scrutiny Forward program to look at the annual
complaints and service improvement report because it is a statutory piece of work that
we will have to do for compliance with the Code.
We will also be looking, going into the new financial year as well, to bring in, obviously,
ways we can bring some more performance information about complaints into performance reporting
as well.
So it is on our thing and it is obviously mentioned as part of the policy and in the
code to make sure we are reporting things around learning and complaints and things
as well.
So we've tried to address it obviously in the policy we're trying to obviously have
adopted, but also we will be bringing forward stuff that we can meet the compliance of that
code with the member responsible for complaints and we're obviously happy to share performance
reporting where we can align it in to members and committees as well going forward into
the new financial year.
Thank you.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:29:34
Any other questions or contributions to make?
Did you propose this, Councillor Fuller?
So Councillor Prater to second.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:29:47
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:29:47
All those in favour, please indicate.
Thank you very much, everyone.

7 Review of Risk Management Policy and Strategy

Moving on to Item 7, review of risk management policy and strategy, pages 81 to 82.
to our 108 in your pack and Councillor Prater is going to lead us through it.
I'll do my statutory that Jonathan has led on this and I think again
Cllr Tim Prater - 0:30:13
it is an excellent
piece of work.
Start to this.
There is an annual review of both the policy and the risk register is kept under review
on a rolling basis. So although this report is an annual update to the risk register,
you should think that it was set in our spec a year ago and nothing's been looked at since
it's kept under general review. I don't think there are any huge changes in either the policy
or indeed the register which is in front of you, which I think then goes on to Council
at our next meeting we'll look at.
My father biggest threat to this council is Gary.
Oh, my father biggest threat to this council is the cyber threat, which sits under Gary's
portfolio, which is both a very significant risk and very likely.
Obviously the team are doing, putting all the mitigations in place and spending the appropriate resources on trying to secure ourselves from that, but you are never absolutely secure unless you unplug everything and then it gets quite dark.
So you have to balance the threat and make sure that we are continuing to provide the
service that we should be to our residents, but yet keep them safe and keep ourselves
safe from the threat.
Aside from that, you'll see on the 3 .4 that we have the one extreme risk which is cyber
risk threats are effectively on a matrix, so the more points, the more likely something
is and the higher the risk of something, the more points it gets and these are the ones
that allocate those points and include climate change, which I'm sure Councillor Scofford
will be delighted to join us in within those. Again, the policy and the matrix is in front
of you, I said it's going to cancel next. I'm absolutely sure that that often would
eat your question. Feel free to do so. I'll move the report.
Thank you very much, Councillor Proater. Councillor Fuller.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:32:37
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:32:42
Can't let that stand. You'll note that we tried the tactic of turning everything off
last week with limited success. As it happens, though, on the positive side of things, apparently
was caused by an overactive firewall.
So we're actually more protected than perhaps we should be.
It's also just on a more positive note,
I've been told today that we've had our annual test
about security, which among other things
involves penetration testing, which
is a weirdly titled way of describing basically
the process of paying someone to try and attack your system
and get in and do naughty things to it.
And they failed.
We passed.
They failed.
They couldn't get in, which is a really, really positive
outcome.
But obviously, it's worth noting that, as Tim mentioned,
the reason it's such a high level of threat
is because there are so many bad actors out there.
There is so much going on.
And because it has such a fundamental effect
on the council if we lose all or most of our IT systems,
meaning we have to go back to the Stone Age of pen and paper as it were,
and we obviously have to have a plan in place for should we have to do that.
So it's welcome, very welcome, that we recognise that risk
and that we have a plan in place to make sure I'm not allowed near any computers.
That's very good.
Thank you very much, Councillor Fuller.
Councillor Spakeman.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:34:12
Cllr Jeremy Speakman - 0:34:14
Yeah, I just wanted to clarify C3, section 3 .4,
sports and leisure provision.
I mean, is this was just a kind of multifaceted risk in terms of
anything from Hyde pool or I have least lift hall or our
commitment towards sport measure.
I wasn't quite sure what that actually encapsulated or is it
or is it you know a specific thing about our I suppose our
aims about you know providing better sports and leisure for
the district.
And Jonathan the chief.
Thank you, Councillor Speakeman.
Mr Jonathan Hicks - 0:34:51
I think this one in general is about our ability to provide adequate facilities in light of
pressures, for example energy costs and wage inflation pressures and cost of maintaining
aging infrastructure of the things we've got in the district.
For example, here we've got, my opinion is there's a high risk, but where we have mitigating
actions in place for example, one of the plans we got this year was to develop a leisure
strategy for the district and which will have specific actions which will have for example
around Hyde Port or new leisure facilities at Otseville Park that will help reduce that
level of risk but it's generally in answer to your question it's the overall ability
providing adequate facilities.
Thank you.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:35:39
Are there any other contributions?
Anyone want to chip in on risk?
Okay, so Councillor Prater moved the report.
I'm very happy to second it.
All those in favour, please indicate.
Thank you very much, everyone.

8 Proposed new terms and conditions of tenancy for council tenants, second report following statutory consultation

Item eight is proposed new terms and conditions of tenancy for council tenants.
Second report following statutory consultation, pages 109 to 136, and it's Councillor Shrew
who's going to lead us through this.
Thank you.
Cllr Rebecca Shoob - 0:36:20
So this report outlines the final version of the updated tenancy agreement which incorporates
the feedback from the consultation and you'll see there were three minor
amendments that were made as a result and they're detailed in Appendix 2.
You'll see in further appendix there's full detail of all the feedback received
and the response to each from the housing team. So the final version brings
the agreement up to date and it hopefully makes it as clear as possible.
So in terms of next steps,
if approved, the version,
the new version will be used for any tenants.
New tenants signing a tenancy
agreement from now on.
For existing tenants,
they'll be given a four weeks notice
of the new tenancy agreement and that
will go out with a copy of the final
version and existing tenants they
won't need to sign anything.
So I'd like to just briefly
I'd like to thank officers for all the work that went into getting the agreement up to date.
I know it was a lot of work, particularly thank them for the work that went into the consultation.
If there's any questions, I'm very happy for Tom, who's here this evening, to take your questions.
Otherwise, I'm very happy to propose the recommendations. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Councillor Shrew.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:37:49
I am very happy to second the recommendations.
I think it's a terrific piece of work
and very happy to open for debate.
Councillor Fuller.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:38:05
Firstly, I wanted to mention, I really liked the format of Appendix 1,
of having that summary and then the response outlined.
I felt that was really useful, not only from my point of view,
but it's the kind of thing you'd like the public to have available
as well, so they can actually see how they're easily read and see how their input has affected
the process.
I did have a couple of small, probably silly questions.
I was just curious on the actual policy itself, the agreement, sorry.
It mentions lodgers, I was just curious to see if we actually keep a record of the people
that, I know people are entitled to have lodgers, if we keep a record of those that do have
It also mentions garden fires.
I was interested in how, if at all, we were able to place that as somebody that has a
neighbour a few doors down that likes to set garden fires quite rarely, even if they're
not a council tenant.
And also, just on the mention of external CCTV, I was curious about whether that covered
things like ring doorbells and those kind of things that can act as CCTV but are not
strictly CCTV.
or other similar kind of security measures.
So, for example, you can have cameras that are indoors
that are facing outwards.
Is that counted as CCTV
or is it about mounting a proper physical outside CCTV system?
So, yeah, those are mine.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:39:40
Thank you, Councillor, for a rich mix of questions there.
Lodgers, fires and CCTV.
So are we able to come back on all of those?
Thank you, I'll have a go.
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:39:53
So lodgers, by far the biggest situation of lodgers that we get is people's partners moving in with them.
So they're fully placed members of the household, technically they're lodgers because they're adults living there who don't have a connection with the tenancy.
We do keep a record when people tell us that someone's moving in with them or moving out, we do update our records.
Obviously a lot of it, stuff like that, things happen in people's lives and they wouldn't necessarily let us know.
Fires, we don't actively police fires, but we would respond to any complaints.
So the enforcement would then be based on severity and frequency and so on.
but there's a lot of things in the Tenant's Agreement
that we don't proactively police,
but we can hopefully use the Tenant's Agreement
as a lever to solve problems there.
And the CCTV does include ring doorbells.
It does include where a camera might be
inside the property looking out.
We basically follow the ICO,
Information Commissioner's Office,
sort of guidance and recommendations,
which is all about what the CCTV, including Ring doorbell, is capturing, what it's looking at,
is it restricted to your own properties, is it looking out to the public and so on.
It's a hard one, because especially since Ring doorbell and staff, it's become much more prevalent
and it does lead to conflict. So we try and take a pragmatic approach.
We accept that it's there, it's a part of life now.
And where we can, we only intervene if it's causing real alarm or distress.
But by the way, it's being used.
Okay, very good. Councillor Pritchard.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:41:46
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:41:48
Just to come back very quickly, you say, other doorbells do exist other than ring doorbells.
So I don't get accused of being a shill for the ring.
Thank you. Councillor Blakemore.
I was going to say the same as Councillor Follile. I think appendix 1
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:42:02
is really good and it's great to see that.
I suppose it's quite the answer to what people have said but I wondered, a more direct question is, is that shared with anyone other than us?
So do the tenants who took part in the consultation, it may not be possible to do it individually, but is a summary of the consultation shared with them?
Do you know?
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:42:21
Folkestone & Hythe Officer - 0:42:23
The intention, as part of the consultation,
we set up a page on the council website,
and the intention is, but it was subject to approval
tonight, was that that response document
will be posted on there so people can see.
Great, thank you very much.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:42:38
Super, so, Councillor Shrew proposed.
I seconded, all those in favor, please indicate.
Thank you very much, everyone.

9 New Anti-Social Behaviour Public Spaces Protection Order

Item nine is new antisocial behaviour public spaces
protection order, pages 137 to 164.
And Councillor Mike Blakemore will lead us through it.
Mike.
So public spaces protection orders,
the SPOs are a useful way of dealing with
antisocial behaviour across the district.
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:43:14
The previous PSPO for the district was established in 2019
been extended in June 2022 for three years so it's now about to expire and we need to renew it before
it does so. The new PSPO will follow the same template as the previous one so it will cover
anti -social drinking, use of intoxicating substances in public places, urinating, spitting,
defecating in public, begging, anti -social street entertainment, unauthorized street fundraising
and marketing and unauthorized camping. So data supports these still being the prime concerns
in the district. Restrictions will be extended in Hyde due to increased
complaints. So Oaklands and the High Street were previously covered and we
proposed extending the area covered to cover Princess Parade, Twist Road, South
Road, West Parade. So that's as a result of there being complaints including
around people sleeping in vehicles on the seafront and the ASB that can
accompany that, including litter, waste and what we might euphemistically describe as
toilet behaviours.
So I'd like to move the recommendations, which is that we receive and note the report,
approve the PSPO going to public consultation and to Ophian scrutiny, and that the consultation
responses will be reviewed before this comes back to us for final approval.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Blakemore.
Councillor Fuller.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:44:42
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:44:44
Yes, this is really useful.
The really useful sort of change, totally understandable,
really useful report.
One thing I hadn't realised before, for example,
was that spitting was covered in this,
but I have been assured that if you're playing football
for folks named Victor or anything,
that there won't be members of staff at the council
making sure you're not spitting on the football pitch or whatever,
that it is generally applied on the basis that it's...
These kind of things.
It's about how those behaviours occur and how unacceptable they are.
It's not just a completely blanket approach to everything,
which I think is worth noting.
But, yeah, it's a really useful report
and a really useful lever for us to have
to ensure that the residents of the district are safe
and feel comfortable in their districts, as it were.
Thank you very much. I've got Councillor Speakman first.
Cllr Jeremy Speakman - 0:45:46
Thank you, yes. I'm interested about the control of unauthorised camping.
I personally had a lot of complaints come in my way for reasons not quite sure,
because it's not actually in my ward or in my area, but of failure,
regarding people, as you say, mentioned sleeping in caravans.
We seem to have a particular problem in Hyde's
that I've been aware of, of campervans being parked
and for basically... They appear to be there almost permanently.
Does that cover this?
Because the problem before was that we didn't appear to have any
particular way of carrying out enforcement
and without prejudging the next item,
I noticed under the enforcement policy
there is something called nuisance parking.
So does that kind of cross over with that?
I'm not prejudging that.
Do we have an answer?
It's not just in the highest area.
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 0:46:44
Well, yes, but I'm only concerned.
I think I'm right in saying,
and I think having the PSP makes it much easier
to deal with those things in short,
but I'll give that from around.
Thank you for the question.
Scott Butler - 0:47:03
The parking itself is dealt with by the parking team.
We're looking at doing parking restrictions in the areas that are
concerned and complained about.
What this does is gives us additional tools to tackle the
antisocial behaviors that are linked to those same concerns.
So it gives us more tools to tackle the concerns that are
being raised and reported to us so we can help resolve those
concerns that have been raised.
Cllr Jeremy Speakman - 0:47:28
Sorry, just to clarify that then, is actually parking your campervan for weeks?
That wouldn't come under antisocial behaviour, would it necessarily?
Not necessarily, sorry.
Scott Butler - 0:47:42
That was going to be my answer, Scott, as well.
Andrew Rush - 0:47:46
The dealing with camping in public places is often linked to ASB,
but also to the nature of we've seen increasing sort of
homeless in caravans as well.
So that means a different approach to someone who is just
wild camping and just turned up with a campervan.
So that's why we're looking in a regulatory sense
at a whole range of responses from how we respond
to people camping in car parks, how we kill people camping
on the highway, because obviously the highway is not
always covered by the PSPO, and then looking at the parking
restrictions, where you can be more precise to say that,
for example, you've put an overnight ban in,
calls and motivation for your parking
there doesn't come into play so much.
So there's been a development, I think,
in since we first did the first PSPO, where
we've had to start looking at different methods
to approach this particular issue.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:48:58
Councillor Follwell, sorry, Councillor Holgate was first,
and then I'll come to you, Gary.
Council speaking, more or less actually,
Cllr Rich Holgate - 0:49:05
I said word for word what I was going to ask.
As a resident and a ward councillor for Hyde,
I'm absolutely delighted to see increase in support
around some of those Hyde areas,
South Rope, particularly in the nuisance area.
Andrew, you kindly spoke to my concerns.
I would suggest people who are camping there strategically based on the current restrictions
or lack of as opposed to, you know, and so it's fantastic to see that there is hopefully
more tools in our arsenal to tackle those problems.
So thank you.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:49:39
Can I say a follow -up?
Yeah, I just wanted to come back on this a little bit as well just because I've had fairly
Cllr Gary Fuller - 0:49:47
recent experience of the concerns that some residents do have and the example I've got
without any names or even roads for example, but there are some roads that are covered
on the parking side that then are covered nearby or nearby roads are covered under the
PSPO and that does create concerns for some residents because people will move away from
where they're not allowed to park to the area that's covered by the PSPO,
they won't necessarily be causing a problem under that legislation,
but the residents will be concerned that they're parking there in the first place,
or they won't have been caught under that legislation, so to speak.
And so I think there's two things.
There's the job of making it clearer to residents
the differences between those two things,
and indeed people that are parking.
That's better understood because I've had queries saying,
there's this signage in this road, why can't we have it in this road?
It's because it's covered by different rules.
Also, there is, I suspect, going to be more of a clamour from residents
to put in place parking restrictions over the PSPO restrictions
because the parking ones are easier to reinforce
because you can tell someone's parked there,
You can't necessarily tell that someone is causing a nuisance.
And indeed they may not be doing so intentionally
if they're covered by the PSPO,
but residents will still, for whatever reason, be upset by them carving there.
So there's two considerations there.
I think it's quite mentioning.
Thank you. Councillor Pollard, like more.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:51:31
Yeah, I just wanted... This is quite a live topic at the moment
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 0:51:35
and I've been in touch with Fred just today about it
because we've got a question coming to full council next week
about exactly this issue, the issue that Councillor Fuller's talking about.
And just trying to unpick that relationship between PSPOs
and traffic regulation orders
because I think it is a bit muddled at the moment,
but it is very much something that we are looking at to address.
Councillor Pritchard.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:51:59
Thank you.
Cllr Tim Prater - 0:52:01
I think Gary was dealing with the same physical case work
that I replied to today and may well be the question that Polly is dealing with next week,
I don't know. As I have understood it and I'm now going to look for nodding or shaking
of head from Scott and Andrew. In terms of the PSPO, it's no unauthorised camping. Therefore
if somebody is in a campervan and they are sleeping in it overnight, for instance on
holiday, that is an offence under the PSPO and if the enforcement team, and I have it
from Karen on an email in writing and everything, that if that's holiday camping then that can
be enforced at that stage.
If the team notified that they're there for a number of nights, particularly if they
and it has to be causing a problem, but the problem can include you are parked right outside
to my home. You are camping in a parking space right outside my house and math is in itself
and depends on the PSPO and can be moved on with that. The point Karen made very clearly
within that response to me as well is that clearly there may well have to be a different
response if the person is homeless, if that's the only place that they can sleep tonight
and it's not a holiday choice and it's not an option, it's not somebody who's decided
that they're going to pop down and have a few nights in Sandgate, where the problem
is at least as acute as HIVE, because it's so beautiful, that that would require a different
response.
So I fully understand the difficulties the enforcement team have between people who are
just popping them and staying for a few nights in a local road overlooking somebody's house
and they feel that is appropriate, but the PSPO can be used under those circumstances
to enforce and to move those people on as I understand it.
Scott did a fair amount of nodding but they were dead on me at the last moment, but we'll
come back to that.
But that obviously changes, and it should change, for our own humanity at that stage.
If somebody is sleeping in a campervan because that is the only place they have to sleep
tonight and their other option is under a hedge, sleep in the damn van.
And we should be dealing with that through the housing team and doing that in a different
way.
So, make sure that's right.
So, as long as we are all on the same page, that is the margin of that distinction, that
is what we are doing about it.
And if we are looking for a different restriction, which is that you cannot park a campervan
there overnight whether you're in it or not, that requires a parking restriction is a different
thing.
It is the camping which is the thing that the PSPO stops, sleeping in the thing overnight,
and under the circumstances that it is temporary as opposed to, but the parking, you are leaving
campervans in an unrestricted area for a significant period of time, is a different thing and has
to be dealt with under different parking restrictions and Polly and Fred get to have long and extended
conversations about how those can happen, particularly in the west of Folkestone
with extensions to zones. I'm looking forward to that discussion. In fact,
Ollie had an email off me, including that discussion, nearly a day. So, as long as we're all on the same page
that's absolutely great. I'd welcome Scott or Andrew saying, yes you're
right or no you're wrong, preferably the first one, in a minute on that. Secondly,
just as a point of question rather than anything else, the hive extension I have absolutely
no problem with the extension of the high zone to cover that larger area, but the high
zone remains a very odd shape, isn't it? Broadly, it's south of the canal plus the high street
and excludes much of the rest of it. So if there's a problem in Prospect Road or something
like that, that's not in the BSBO area, it's not covered by those restrictions. Just out
of curiosity, why?
Do we have an answer?
Andrew Rush - 0:56:18
Answer first, second question first.
The area has been based on complaints that we've received, because we need to have out
evidence the scale of PSPO.
So obviously the easiest way to do this would have been to put the entire district map,
but that would be completely disproportionate.
So we've based it on complaints.
so that's why the area in HIVE that we're extending it to
has been boundaried as it has been in the order.
In terms of the question about camping,
I think you've finally illustrated the complexity of the problem.
When we first introduced the camping measure in the PSPO,
we were talking about maybe three or four instances
where we have people camping overnight, they're clearly camping overnight,
rather than getting onto a campsite.
It was in the very good use of it.
Since then we've had, unfortunately, increases in homelessness
and that doesn't require different sponsors, you pointed out.
And to make a full proportionate use of the PSPO,
when someone is camping overnight, or camping for several days,
as you pointed out, it is always best to link it to other factors as well,
like what they're doing with their waste, what they're doing with their litter,
what they're doing with their noise as well.
So we would try to link and broaden it out
rather than simply having someone in a campervan
because if we had to take it to prosecution,
it's better to develop it as a great survey of speed.
Thank you.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:58:04
Councillor Holgate, I think.
Cllr Rich Holgate - 0:58:07
Oh, sorry, Councillor Pater.
Cllr Jim Martin - 0:58:09
Sorry.
Yeah.
Cllr Tim Prater - 0:58:15
I understand the point that if you're trying to enforce a PSBO and there is a specific
line in there which says no camping, you're going to look for other factors to try to
add to the battery or to increase the prosecute.
but that you're then conducting an investigation which actually means that you're less likely
to use the power which you actually have and it means that we currently don't use it very
much.
When you're talking about previously we had four or five people who didn't use campsites
or four or five vans that didn't use campsites on a regular basis, you're getting many, many
more of those now.
It's a thing.
and it's a thing throughout Sandgate, throughout Folkestone,
throughout even Hyde having the issue.
And we haven't got the enforcement officers,
and they haven't got the time to sit there and follow people
and see where they are putting their waste
and see where they are draining their foul water to
and see what level of noise that they're creating at 10 .30 at night.
If they are parked outside somebody's house, they are already causing the disturbance,
if that person has complained about the disturbance which it is causing them.
That in itself, as far as I'm concerned, should be sufficient of a trigger.
And I speak, I'm perfectly happy to speak as a new van owner as well.
This is not an unreasonable restriction only put on this district.
it is common across most of, certainly Kent as far as I know,
that you can't just turn up and camp in the street overnight.
You're not allowed to do so.
There are restrictions and roads across.
I'm desperately looking for a road that hasn't got a restriction
somewhere near Dreamland in Margate,
and if anyone has any pointers, I'm up for that.
Basement jacks, July.
But you're not allowed to do that.
There is that restriction.
you can be moved on because you're not allowed to have those roads and yet our ASB seems
to be, well you'll probably get away with it unless you're there for four or five nights,
unless somebody does an investigation, unless you're throwing bags of rubbish out of your
door. Well that's a different thing. I just want a reassurance on what we're actually
the point of having it is, if it's not to stop people gambling for two or three nights
outside someone's front door, and it's something else, then we should be saying so.
And I just, I have understood, I have been reassured that actually it can be used to
deal with those instances rapidly and to enforce rapidly under the circumstances that a neighbour
turns round and says, this problem is occurring, somebody's coming outside our house, they
are sleeping in it at the moment, and enforcement could happen at that moment.
Not that, we'll do a weak investigation and they might have gone by then.
I'd really like to see that we are actually actively using the power
which is being granted to us by this PSPO,
as opposed to just allowing it as one of the tools in the armoury,
while we hope the problem goes away by itself.
Do we have a response?
Yes, very good points.
Andrew Rush - 1:01:29
I think what I was trying to illustrate again
was that the PSPO for campaign has
to involve some degree of investigation
to find out why a person's there.
Because obviously, we talked about homelessness.
And obviously, an area could be backed
by other antisocial behaviors than if we had to prosecute.
It certainly reinforces the case for why we
applied it in the first place.
So I do say that we have got the order as written.
And as Karen has explained it, I was just
talking about how in practice it will be applied.
OK, thank you very much.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:02:07
I've got Councillor Holgate who's been very patient
and then Councillor Spigman.
Cllr Rich Holgate - 1:02:13
This is a month of time, so I'll be brief.
In line with Councillor Prater saying
that we're renewing the policy and extending it, which is great,
but perhaps renewing the policy, my question is,
just from a headline and objective perspective, is the policy working?
Because my second question, and perhaps the answer is it doesn't work like that,
but does perhaps the money created through fixed penalty notices and so forth
allow us to create higher, more enforcement officers?
I don't know how that works, perhaps it's the wrong question to ask,
but I just perhaps support Councillor Praes' point there
in making sure that it's great that we're renewing this,
it's great that we're extending it.
there is a problem that exists in this district.
So yes, how can we put a foot down and really deal with it?
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:03:06
Andrew Rush - 1:03:07
As I said, the feedback received tonight about camping is well understood
and that's why we've included it in the PSVO going forward.
In terms of application of the PSVO and the work of the enforcement team,
we are not and have never been like these companies you got several years ago
going around sort of doing litter fines, cigarette butts and stuff like that.
We go for quality FPNs.
You can see that these are things that genuinely,
by the debate we've had tonight, these
are things that genuinely matter to the public.
We do earn an income from any FPN, if that's the right word.
But the FPN is something that we, with a team of three,
we do not go out there trying to essentially tax
the public in a different way.
We try to make sure that the restrictions are understood,
that they are publicized.
We will publicise this order.
We want people to comply.
We don't want to have to fine people.
And that's the general approach to all of our enforcement.
And you'll see within the enforcement policy later on.
Thank you.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:04:09
Councillor Spigler.
Cllr Jeremy Speakman - 1:04:12
Yeah, I mean, not wishing to be overly high centric,
but I mean, Councillor Bradley talks about three or four
nights in high we've actually had more than one individual
that have been there for weeks.
And if you want evidence where you go along
and you see smoke coming out of a chimney,
I'll say a lot.
I won't go into more detail,
but it's just not a good look for us.
And when we get constantly asked about this
and it doesn't look great,
and we appear to be not doing anything about it.
Now that's not the case, I know,
but I do feel and I'm glad that it's been taken seriously.
and we do need to tackle this because it's a wind -up for residents, basically.
Councillor Fuller.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:05:00
Sorry, just very finely to carry on flogging this dead horse, as it were.
Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:05:04
I think that from the point of view, or the impression I'm getting
when I'm speaking to people, is that whilst it may be,
or we may have a process in terms of getting a prosecution, as it were,
a formal process for dealing with that,
what the public really want is a much shorter process
for moving people along where it's right to do so.
It may not always be right, but moving people along quickly,
they're not so much worried about the prosecution rate
so much as the continued presence.
And so if our approach to dealing with the PSPO can be to continue to try to deal with
the problem by effectively stopping the problem happening rather than worrying or rather than
focusing on making sure that if the problem does happen that we've got a watertight prosecution,
then I think that that's more of a winner from the public's point of view.
That may not be the way we can do that, but I just think it's worth mentioning.
Thank you very much.
Well, there we go.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:06:18
We've certainly had a good chat about that.
So I'll go really back to Councillor Blakemore, move the report.
I'm very, very happy to second the report.
All those in favour, please indicate.
Thank you very much.

10 Corporate Enforcement Policy

Item 10 is corporate enforcement policy, pages 165 to 192, and it is Councillor Polly Blakemore
who is going to lead us through it.
Thank you.
Cllr Polly Blakemore - 1:06:53
So this report introduces a revised and updated version of the corporate enforcement policy.
Enforcement activity is carried out across the council by a wide range of service areas,
all applying legislation that is individual to them.
The purpose of the corporate enforcement policy is to set out overarching principles and guidelines
for all enforcement activity undertaken by the Council.
The policy takes its lead from the Regulators Code 2014, which remains in force and unchanged,
and for this reason the policy revisions are, in the main, updates to reflect current structures,
processes, and a general tidying up.
You'll see that these are listed in part two of the report.
In terms of the policy itself, I would highlight the objectives in section four as a good summary
of what the policy and our enforcement approach sets out to achieve.
And it's worth emphasizing that one of the key objectives listed is to carry out enforcement
that is risk -based, proportionate and effective.
The recommendation is for cabinet to approve the updated policy included as appendix two.
So I'd like to thank Gavin for his work on the policy.
Welcome.
Any questions?
And I'm very happy to move the report.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:08:11
Councillor Blan
Cllr Gary Fuller - 1:08:15
question really. I've never read the council so many times in a Trapped Changes
document. I was just wondering why we needed to change everything from we to
the council. I also had a very second small point that's probably not
actually specifically relevant to this item but this item made me think of it
because when we dealt with the complaints policy there's an infographic
at the end that basically gives you a simplified idea of how that policy works
and it made me think of the fact that I haven't noticed for many of our
public facing policies, easy reading versions,
and I wonder if that's something that we've considered doing,
and say sorry to pick on politics when I first mentioned this,
because it's not about this particular policy at all,
but it's just something that came to mind,
and I think it's something that would be worth considering in the future
for all of our policies.
And I've probably made work for the IT team,
because they'll probably have to generate that magically, but still.
Gavin, would you like to respond?
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:09:17
Gavin Edwards - 1:09:19
Thank you for that, Lida, and thank you for your comments, Councillor Fuller.
With regards to the wording of it specifically, I think it's just to tidy up the formality
of the document.
I think when we reviewed it at the time, we thought it was a bit more appropriate to rather
say we, just so we're clearly specific, because obviously if that policy is referred to, it
is referring to us as the council rather than we, because if it does get scrutinised further
or beyond the new south side, it's for that reason.
With accessibility, I think it's a theme that's come up quite a lot
in terms of some of the documents and stuff,
but happy to obviously take those away and have a look at that
with the relevant department with regards to accessibility and documents,
because it has come up in terms of how we make sure
they are all accessible, obviously.
So, yeah, I'm happy to have that conversation with regards to that.
Councillor Blain.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:10:02
I was just going to make the slightly pedantic point
Cllr Mike Blakemore - 1:10:06
that if you're changing it to for Council at the time,
then there are some instances where it then refers to
after that, so I think it just needs to find that one truth
for not mixing our first and third questions.
Very good.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:10:18
Are there any other questions?
Or, Kaspar Hölger?
I don't know if I've got a question, but an observation.
Cllr Rich Holgate - 1:10:30
So, there's 41 bullet points that we are looking to enforce against.
Again, I suppose it kind of just comes back and I appreciate it.
I don't want to mean to frame my question perhaps in a sense,
I know we don't go looking to find people,
and apologies, that was the impression I gave,
but I just suppose from a support and capacity perspective,
do we have what we need to uphold,
to cover 41 areas, it just seems a staggering amount,
but, yeah, do we have enough resources in that area?
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:11:03
Anyone like to come back on that?
Resources to enforce all of our 41 points of enforcement?
I'll make a comment.
Andrew Rush - 1:11:17
I mean, those 41 points covers the entire council enforcement.
I think it's really, I mean, when the policy was put together, the broad range of enforcement
that regulatory activity which takes place across Council is quite staggering.
And the complexity of law.
We would always love more resources.
We have seen more resources being put in, for example,
in my area is environmental health we take on,
free -nuring staff, which has been really, really welcome.
We're getting new legislation out all the time,
which you have to incorporate.
It is a difficult thing.
and then on top of that, the demand for regulatory activity
I think is also on the increase as well.
We're getting, for example, unfortunately,
more flight a bit, which is quite as we
want to investigate that.
We want to get out there and do that.
So it is a challenge, but we counseled those resource
as best it could.
And I think as members, you do prioritize as best you can
the regular creativity that I think is important to the public.
Thank you.
Cllr Jim Martin - 1:12:28
I don't see anyone else indicating, so I think Councillor Blakemore, you moved the report.
I'm very happy to second it.
All those in favour, please indicate.
Thank you very much.
That's unanimous and that is the end of our business.
Thank you very much for attending.
Thank you.
Bye.