Agenda and minutes

There were none declared.

The notes of the meeting held on 22^nd November 2005 are attached for information.

(Enclosure)

Noted.

The Panel will receive a presentation from the Chief Executive of Social Enterprise East Midlands.

The Chairman welcomed Mr. Evan Rees, Chief Executive of Social Enterprise East Midlands (SEEM) to the meeting. SEEM has been developed by a partnership of organisations from the community, voluntary, enterprise, government and regional development sectors of the East Midlands. SEEM's role is to work across all sectors to enable social enterprise to develop and grow.

SEEM's aims are:

·         Realising the potential of social enterprises to contribute to addressing public policy goals

·         Realising the potential of social enterprises to contribute to local economic renewal and regeneration

·         Realising the potential of social enterprises to contribute to a more equitable and inclusive regional economy

If a social enterprise were to make a profit, the profit would be locked and used for the good of the local community.

Mr. Rhys explained that a social enterprise is an organisation, which is involved in enterprising activities for social aims with social ownership and democratic principles at its core. Social enterprises can conform to a number of different structures, including community businesses, co-operatives, credit unions, housing associations, voluntary sector organisations and development trusts. Social enterprises can also have a number of different legal statuses, including: company limited by guarantee, company limited by shares, industrial and provident societies, community interest companies, limited liability partnerships or registered charities.

Mr. Rees stated that there were 15,000 social enterprises in the UK, which have contributed £18billion to the UK economy.  Social enterprises employ one in fifty of the private sector workforce and span the size of the agricultural sector three times. Interest in social enterprises has increased because they offer economic inclusion, financial viability for the voluntary and community sectors, locally focussed regeneration, quality services and microeconomic management, ethical consumerism, sustainable development and promote entrepreneurship.

Outcomes of social enterprises have included: a third sector with greater financial stability, communities empowered to manage local services, community direction of regeneration programmes, a kick start for local economies and the encouragement of entrepreneurship, the development of business models which are socially and economically inclusive, the development of community cohesion, a means of meeting the needs of the “ethical consumer” and a sustainable business structure.

Social enterprises can work in any sector. Notable examples include leisure, amenity and sports services; environmental services; community transport and financial services.

Panel members questioned Mr. Rees:

• There were concerns that funding from Europe, like agriculture, would mean subsidies on products and services. The Panel were advised that any European subsidy was used to support the enterprise and fill gaps in the market; social enterprises were reliant on their balance sheet.
• Following questions on regionalisation, Mr. Rees noted comments from the Panel over the importance of recognising rural areas. Panel members were concerned that urban centres including Nottingham, Derby and Leicester would overshadow the needs of rural areas. The rural nature of the East Midlands has meant that it has the lowest number of social enterprises in the country.
• One member asked whether it would be possible to transfer the successful Ealing Transportation Scheme to the East Midlands. This  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

Report DRS25 from the Corporate Director of Regulatory Services.

                        (Enclosure)

• Gypsies and Travellers Needs Survey            (Enclosure)

Review of Housing Strategy

The Corporate Director of Regulatory Services had submitted report DOS25 for the DSP’s consideration on the review of the Housing Strategy. The review covered previous GOEM feedback, the outcome of the strategic housing inspection and consultation undertaken in the summer and autumn of 2005. Fordham Research Ltd. were commissioned by the Council to undertake a combined Housing Needs Survey and Private Sector Stock Condition Survey, on which the strategy had been based. The strategy has also had regard for existing and emerging government policies.

The study was designed to assess future requirements for affordable and market housing. The Basic Needs Assessment Model estimated a requirement of an additional 646 affordable homes per annum. The Balancing Housing Market methodology also suggested a significant requirement for additional affordable housing. The Study suggested that in light of the affordable housing requirement, the Council would need to maximise the availability of affordable housing from all sources, including new build, acquisitions and conversions. There was a shortfall for all dwelling sizes, particularly one and two bedroomed dwellings. Within the District, 1.6% of all houses were overcrowded and 44.2% were under-occupied.

Planning guidelines made no provision for the development of large amounts of affordable housing. It was recommended that the LDF should be developed to include provision for:

• A threshold of 15 or more units (or equivalent floor space) within the urban areas and of 2 plus units within the rural areas
• A target seeking the provision of up to 50% affordable housing on all eligible sites
• A target for affordable housing provision on sites allocated for housing development
• Guidance on the size, type, tenure and cost of affordable housing to be provided
• A rural exceptions policy
• Consideration of the identification and allocation of sites or areas solely for affordable housing within rural areas

There was concern that the current allocation for new housing in South Kesteven based on quota distribution, would not be sufficient to permit the development of 646 affordable homes a year. The Corporate Director of Regulatory Services explained that the report by Fordhams would be a robust form of evidence to demonstrate to GOEM, a need to increase South Kesteven’s quota for development.

The Panel discussed the number of houses containing people with special needs, the housing needs of black and minority ethnic groups, key workers and older person households.

Members briefly discussed an appropriate percentage for affordable housing. 50% had been recommended, although some places were stating that 75% of a development needed to be affordable housing.

Discussion ensued on overcrowding and under population. The panel considered that it would be difficult to enforce under population but were pleased that there were taxation incentives for single people who rented accommodation in large properties.

The Panel were interested in the idea of a rural exceptions policy. This would be aimed at securing the provision of affordable housing on sites within or on the edge of settlements where market housing would not normally be acceptable. The only form of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

The Panel will receive an update on the Local Development Framework.

(Enclosure)

Report number PLA554 was circulated with the agenda and noted.

Report number ENV340 to the Economic DSP by the Head of Environmental Health and Licensing.

(Enclosure)

A draft Enforcement Policy had been circulated. The Head of Environmental Health and Licensing stated that a generic enforcement policy was necessary in order to co-ordinate legal enforcement activities in a fair and consistent way.

The new generic enforcement policy would combine the following:

• Environmental Health and Licensing Enforcement Policy
• Private Sector Housing Enforcement Policy
• Planning Enforcement Policy
• Building Control Enforcement Policy
• Waste and Contract Services Enforcement Policy
• Fair Rent and Debt Recovery Policy
• Anti-Social Behaviour Enforcement Policy

All relevant section heads had been included in the preparation of the draft document. The Customer Contact Centre would offer a central point where members of the public could complain. Contact details for this would be widely known.

The Panel briefly discussed the enforcement of fixed penalty notices and the approach of South Kesteven in comparison with other authorities across the country.

One member was concerned at the impact of appeals. If someone was acting illegally and subject to enforcement, they could use any time in the build-up to appeal to continue to act illegally. The exception to this would be with regard to planning enforcement. Any illegal work would be issued with a stop notice. Work would not be permitted to continue until a full appeal had been heard.

The Panel also discussed whether people wanting to move house had been deterred from reporting enforceable activity, so as not to inhibit the chances of selling their property.

CONCLUSION

The Economic DSP endorse the Draft Enforcement Policy as presented.

Small Business Units Working Group

A meeting of the Small Business Units Working Group had been held on Monday 30^th January 2006. The final report of this working group was circulated for the information of Panel Members.

The group summarised their recommendations and asked that the DSP would support their recommendations to Cabinet.

The Chairman thanked the group for their work and the Panel agreed to endorse its recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS:

To support the recommendations made by the Small Business Units Working Group and to refer them to the Cabinet.

Grantham Canal Basin Working Group

Members agreed that the Canal Basin Working Group had completed its initial task of promoting the scheme and agreed that one should be reformed as soon as a new task was identified, bearing in mind that this important project is set to move forward, requiring significant pre-scrutiny. Updates at regular intervals should be sought from the Economic Portfolio Holder.

Rail Link Working Group

The Rail Link Working Group stated that they would report to the DSP at a future meeting.

(Enclosure)

Noted. The Acting Scrutiny Officer advised the Panel that the indicator for the number of VAT registered businesses had gone from red to green. A sheet detailing figures on Economic Development Performance Management was circulated.

(Enclosure)

Noted.

It was requested that Susan Swinburn from Voluntary Action Kesteven be invited to the next meeting of the Panel to discuss Voluntary Action Kesteven, Voluntary Sector funding and the impact its having.

The Chairman requested that the date for the next meeting should be changed. Panel members provisionally agreed to have the meeting on the afternoon of Wednesday 15^th March 2006.

The meeting was closed at 17:13.