Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J P Curtice, V M Evans and J E C Harris.

 

Apologies were also received from Mrs S Joiner and Mr D Anderson-Thomas.

In accordance with the Code of Conduct adopted by the City and County of Swansea, the following interests was declared:

 

Councillor R A Clay – personal – Minute No. 61   – Llansamlet Ward Councillor and Secretary of the former campaign in the Ward against a second site.

 

Councillor A M Cook - personal - Minute No. 61 - Ward Member from Cockett - one of the wards that was shortlisted.

 

Councillor D W Cole - personal - Minute No. 61  - Ward Member from Penyrheol which abuts two of the five previously nominated sites.

 

Councillor  A J Jones – personal - Minute No. 61  – I am a Ward Councillor from one of the sites shortlisted for a location of a Gypsy Traveller Site. 

 

Councillor T J Hennegan – personal - Minute No. 61 – One of the sites shortlisted was in Penderry Ward where I was elected in May 2012.

In accordance with the Local Government (Wales) Measure 2011, no declarations of Whipped Votes or Party Whips were declared.

To approve and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Special Scrutiny Programme Committee held on 8 July 2014.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Special Scrutiny Programme Committee held on 8 July, 2014 be accepted as a correct record, subject to Councillor D W Cole’s interest being amended to read “ward member for Penyrheol”.

The Chair referred to the summary of evidence gathered to date, progress and whether further work was required.

 

He advised that the Chief Executive has expressed a wish to attend a future meeting to address some of the matters raised.

 

Members discussed:

 

1.     The possibility of witnesses coming back, in particular Reena Owen, provided notice of likely questions were provided in advance of the meeting and the purpose of her attendance would be to defend any previous actions as opposed to providing new evidence.

2.     The nature of the discussions between former Councillor John Hague and others in 2007;

3.     the implications of the legal judgement;

4.     the rejection of the planning application in respect of Llansamlet and the Park and Ride Site.

5.     The adoption of the Gypsy Traveller Policy in 2009 and the criteria set and sense of urgency for selecting Gypsy Traveller Sites;

6.     The establishment of Task and Finish Group which was working to Welsh Government criteria which was somewhat different to the Council’s Gypsy Traveller Policy.  The need to examine the extent of which both should have linked up.

7.     The impact on the Task and Finish Group in so far as two options were presented, Cabinet opted for the least prescriptive having decided on first one in May 2010.  However, Cabinet decided on a different option in August 2010. 

8.     Task and Finish Group started with large number of sites which were subsequently reduced from 19 to 5.  Lack of clarity regarding the criteria used and how that filtering worked.  It was minuted that this was a robust criteria but yet to see detail behind that.

9.     The need to examine the relationship between members of Task and Finish Group and Officers in so far as what authority was delegated to officers and what retained by Members.  The level that members were involved was not clear.

10. The general lack of clarity regarding the court judgement which appeared to be mis-interpreted by Officers of the Authority.

11. The criteria applied at beginning of process stated that the views of Gypsy Traveller families would be reflected throughout process, this did not seem to be the case

12. The requirements of the LDP in delivering a suitable site was undertaken.

13. Lack of a clear methodology and weighting to be given to Gypsy Traveller views

14. The robustness of the Needs Assessment given that it is snap shot at any given time.  It appears to be extremely filmsy basis for determining sites..

15. Lack of evidence regarding any discussions former Councillor John Hague had with the Gypsy Traveller families. 

16. Uncertainty regarding the task and finish group criteria for selecting 5 sites and reason for rejecting 2 sites.  No evidence as to why Officers would not allow the Task and Finish Group to discount 2 of the sites.

17.  Evidence from Lawrence Bailey and Councillor Chris Holley about level of information passed to Cabinet and continuity from one Cabinet Member to another.

18. Lack of political guidance. 

19. Outstanding issues regarding the failure Court Judgement to evict and why the Authority failed to remedy the matter by seeking a further eviction order.

20. The objectives seemed to have shifted in the 11 March 2010 Cabinet Report.  The Court judgement stated that it would be helpful to have another site and offer adequate provision for the family which could have resulted in paying for that family to be accommodated at a private site.

21. The sequence of events regarding the Task and Finish Group Site Visit to 5 sites, despite members stating they wished to drop 2 sites and the implications of these visits given that the Election was pending

22. Unsatisfactory arrangements in respect of the legality of the Task and Finish Group and the manner in which Members were prevented from discussing the outcomes matters discussed at the Group meetings.

23. The timescales for consultation were unsatisfactory.

24. Confusion in relation to the level of information Officers were required to provide to enable Members to fulfil their duties.

25. No evidence of a report written by the Task and Finish Group to the Cabinet. 

26. The implications of the meeting referred to by Councillor J A Raynor where Officers had a discussion about problems with remit, terms of reference and legal status of the Task and Finish Group.  Concern regarding the secrecy surrounding this meeting in particular the minutes of this meeting were not included as part of the consultation documentation.

27. Councillor Chris Holley’s statement to the Evening Post in which he stated there was no shortlist.  However, this statement was corrected when he was informed there was a shortlist. 

28. Issues of mis conduct

29. Comments made by Martin Saville regarding the provision of an alternative site and the ability to evict families if they chose not to live on the alternative site. 

30. Issues regarding the consultation with Gypsy Travellers and the need to evidence as to when this was  undertaken. 

31. The response from Tracey Meredith which stated that there was no legal requirement that all members of extended Gypsy Traveller family would have to be accommodated at the same place at the same time.

32. Concerns regarding the accuracy of information provided to Members, e.g. maps defining the area in Penderry were incorrect.

33. One evidence session will we have sufficient evidence?

34. Explanations from Economic Regeneration regarding the identification of 2 sites which appeared to be in breach of LDP and conflict with economic regeneration in that area.  Additionally, the suggestion of a site on consecrated land.

 

The Overview and Scrutiny Co-ordinator summarised that further evidence is required from:

 

·             The Head of Housing regarding the Housing Needs Assessment;

·             Councillor Nick Bradley, Martin Saville, and other officers who were involved in the meeting dated ??????

·             The Chief Executive and Head of Legal, Democratic Services and Procurement.