Agenda item

Cabinet Member: Councillor Gareth Griffith

 

Consider the Scrutiny Investigation Group Report

 

 

The report of the Planning and Welsh Language scrutiny investigation was submitted to the Cabinet Member, Gareth Griffith.   The members were reminded of the background to the decision to hold the investigation by Councillor Gruffydd Williams, Chair of the investigation.  He thanked all the participants for their co-operation with the work.

 

Following discussions with the Council's Legal Service and the Joint Planning Policy Unit regarding the differing opinions on the initial recommendations, it was noted that a compromise had now been reached and an agreement on the five recommendations.  Nevertheless, the Chair of the investigation highlighted, after consulting with the other members of the working group, that he wished to amend the recommendation of bringing the investigation to an end and for the research to continue, as inconsistencies had arisen from the work.  

 

The Senior Planning Manager reiterated his appreciation for the research and noted that the Service, where practically possible, had collaborated to facilitate the work.  He reiterated that the investigation brief was slightly broader than the element of preparing supplementary planning guidance only.  He noted that the Joint Planning Policy Committee had requested comments from the Communities Scrutiny Committee on the responses to the public consultation on the Supplementary Planning Guidance (December 2018 - January 2019).  As a result, some expressed that only part D of the report would be submitted to the Policy Committee on 17 July 2019 - further comments from the investigation would be submitted at a subsequent meeting in September.  He also asked for further clarity regarding the recommendation to continue with the research.

 

In response to a question regarding the comment 'it would be illegal to include this statement in the Guidance' (response of the Joint Planning Policy Committee to initial recommendations 1a and 1b, November 2018), the Senior Solicitor noted that the recommendation related to a change in legislation and not the statutory consultation process.  The joint committee could not consider the two recommendations as the consultation was consulting on the planning guidance.  One would need to approach the government to change the legislation.

 

In response to the perception of one member that Policy PS1 was worthless, and that the guidance had not been tested properly, the Senior Planning Manager noted that the annual monitoring process was yet to be completed and therefore there was no evidence to support that opinion.  The Senior Manager reiterated that Policy PS1 provided substantial flexibility when considering the Welsh language, where relevant, with the guidance going into detail on how to implement this.  Unless specific developments satisfied the type of houses being developed, the Planning Service would encourage a discussion with the developer early on in the process in order to highlight what they would need to do to give consideration to the Welsh language.

 

The Monitoring Officer reiterated that the statutory framework and relevant policy restricted the authority's ability to ask a developer for a language assessment that went beyond the requirement.  Should concerns and perceptions arise that Policy PS1 did not act in accordance with the principle, and that evidence was being submitted to support the findings, appropriate review arrangements would be in place by the procedure.

 

When discussing the wording of initial recommendation 1a 'that the developer needs to hold a public consultation on every development of 10 or more houses in an urban area and 5 or more in a rural/village area', some members felt that this threshold was too high and that this should be brought to the Government's attention.

 

The Chair suggested, given the previous discussion held when discussing the Public Services Board and the possible obstruction that policies may be needed in order to operate or change direction, that the Chair of the investigation highlighted recommendation 1a and 1b to the Welsh Language Sub-group established by the Public Services Board.

 

The Scrutiny Manager highlighted that recommendation 1a was now historical (April 2018) but he suggested that the Scrutiny Committee could ask the Joint Planning Policy Committee for updated responses.  In response to the suggestion, the Monitoring Officer expressed that the Joint Planning Policy Committee had already responded to the observations, had created supplementary planning guidance in line with the requirements, and had held a public consultation.  At the end of the process, the responses were weighed up against the proposal.  The Scrutiny Committee was advised that no update of the original responses was required as this had been implemented and the findings considered.  Therefore, the process did not need to be reopened.

 

The Scrutiny Manager referred to the need for the consultation's responses to be clear and robust.  He suggested that the Joint Planning Policy Unit did not have the resources or expertise to undertake effective consultation work and that observations should be analysed clearly and coherently. A member highlighted that only six responses had been received to the 2019 public consultation and he was of the opinion that this was poor and raised a question as to whether a document over 100 pages long was understandable. 

 

In response to the observation, the Senior Planning Manager noted that he was confident that the method of holding the public consultation was in line with relevant guidelines and that it was obvious that there had been a period of almost two years for Gwynedd and Anglesey to have ongoing input into the process.   Therefore, he disagreed with the Scrutiny Manager.

 

In response to a request to amend recommendation 5 to continue with the investigation, the Cabinet Member, Gareth Griffith (who was also the Chair of the Joint Planning Policy Committee), suggested that the investigation needed to come to an end and for the supplementary planning guidance to be adopted. He reiterated with a monitoring procedure in place, work would be done to review the guidance. 

 

The Monitoring Officer noted that should the Scrutiny Committee wish for the investigation to continue, he would advise them to redefine the terms of reference as the 'final report' of the investigation had been submitted to the Committee.  If there was a desire to re-establish the working group, sufficient resources would need to be secured to lead and support the investigation.  It was agreed that the purpose of the investigation would be to 'establish an overview of how language assessments are discussed'.

 

The Senior Planning Manager noted that the Planning Guidance would be submitted to the Joint Planning Policy Committee on 17 July, where the Committee would be requested to consider adopting the Guidance.

 

It was proposed and seconded to accept the report in line with one amendment that the investigation continued.

 

RESOLVED to accept the report along with the following recommendations:

1.    That the Councils have discretion in terms of requesting a 'Welsh Language Statement' or 'Welsh Language Impact Assessment' when dealing with any planning applications, whether windfall or not, where the Welsh language is a material consideration, in accordance with section 31(2) of the Planning Act (Wales) 2015.

2.    That the Joint Planning Policy Unit should submit the following to a meeting of the Communities Scrutiny Committee as soon as possible:

-       The first Annual Monitoring Report of the new Development Plan

-       An analysis of the contribution of the current Planning Guidance to the impact of developments on the viability of the Welsh language in Gwynedd since 2009.

3.    To note broader thresholds than windfall developments for carrying out  Language Statements and Language Assessments on relevant policies.

4.    To ask language enthusiasts for their support to deliver the work.

5.    That there is a need to submit a further report to the Communities Scrutiny Committee, including a brief and terms of reference for re-establishing a working group to investigate 'establishing an overview of how language assessments are being discussed'.