Doncaster Metripolitan Council
Councillors:
56
Wards:
22
Committees:
25
Meetings (2025):
94
Meetings (2024):
113
Meeting
Regeneration & Housing Overview & Scrutiny Panel - Doncaster
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Tuesday, 29th July 2025
10:00 AM
Tuesday, 29th July 2025
10:00 AM
End:
Tuesday, 29th July 2025
2:00 PM
Tuesday, 29th July 2025
2:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
29 Jul 2025
29 Jul 2025
Location:
Council Chamber, Civic Office, Waterdale, Doncaster DN1 3BU
Council Chamber, Civic Office, Waterdale, Doncaster DN1 3BU
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Conservative Group Leader
Agenda
0
A. Items where the Public and Press may not be excluded.
1
Apologies for absence.
Minutes
2
To consider the extent, if any, to which the public and press are to be excluded from the meeting.
Minutes
There were no items on the agenda where the press and public were to be excluded from the meeting.
3
Declarations of Interest, if any.
Minutes
There were no declarations of interest declared at the meeting.
4
Minutes of the meeting held on 6th March 2025
Attachments:
- Document Minutes , 06/03/2025 Regeneration & Housing Overview & Scrutiny Panel 21 Jul 2025
Minutes
RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on 6th March 2025, be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
5
Public Statements - [A period not exceeding 20 minutes for statements from up to 5 members of the public on matters within the Committees remit, proposing action(s) which may be considered or contribute towards the future development of the Committees Work Programme].
Minutes
There were no public statements made.
6
Doncaster Tenancy Strategy 2025-2030
Attachments:
- Document DoncasterTenancyStrategyReport_OSMCamended (002) 21 Jul 2025
- Document DoncasterTenancyStrategy2025amended 21 Jul 2025
Minutes
The Panel gave consideration to a report relating to the Doncaster Tenancy Strategy 2025-30, required by the Localism Act. It was noted that all local authorities were required to produce a framework to guide registered providers of social housing on how they should formulate their tenancy policies. For example, the types of tenancies they could give including fixed term tenancies and make exceptions to their policies in terms of rental successions.
It was explained that because St Leger Homes of Doncaster managed the Council’s housing stock it was important that the organisation had input into the policy development. It was noted that following development of the Tenancy Strategy, the Tenancy Agreement for Council Housing stock would be developed.
It was accepted that the Strategy needed to be clear for people to understand. The unprecedented high demand for housing was also acknowledged and the requirement to develop sustainable communities that thrived, whilst making best use of the diminishing housing stock, was noted.
There were two distinct areas for consideration that the Localism Act required, being to either retain lifetime tenancies or adopt the flexible tenancy route. It was reported that in 2017 the Council made the decision to offer flexible tenancies on larger properties and remain with lifetime tenancies for remaining housing stock to ensure best use of stock and to retain sustainable communities. With regard to the larger properties it was explained that the length of tenancy would reflect the youngest child’s 19th birthday. What was being proposed now was to remain flexible tenancies on 4 bed plus properties only but to allocate for a fixed term of 5 years in line with the Localism Act requirements, and this term to be reviewed at the end and renewed where appropriate. With regard to succession, it was explained that the law now stated spouse only for automatic succession but further exploration of whether this should be extended would be reviewed as part of the tenancy agreement.
Members discussed the following issues in detail:
Council housing stock turnover – It was explained that current turnover of Council housing stock in the last year was approximately 1,100 properties which was a reduction from pre-covid years. Death was the highest reason for tenancy termination with all reasons closely monitored, particularly tenancy failure.
It was noted that there were tenancy failures in respect of rent arrears and anti-social behaviour (ASB) but support services and measures were in place to assist with these situations. Tenancies were RAG rated (red, amber, green), and if categorised as red tenants could be provided with intensive tenancy support for a period of up to 8 weeks. After this period hopefully they would be rated as amber or green and supported slightly differently, with a housing officer assigned. The performance in relation to this was measured with over 99% of tenants retaining their tenancies.
It was also reported that the company had introduced the Furnished Tenancy Scheme helping reduce the number of failed tenancies, with the scheme helping to make a house a home. Since launching this service in June 2024, St Leger Homes had signed 126 tenants to the scheme with only one person ending their tenancy, due to relocating to London. There were different types of furniture packs for tenants to choose from with payment for the furnished tenancy being added to a person’s weekly rent. The set criteria was for new tenants only or tenants that had fallen into particular hardship.
Further information relating to the number of furnished tenancies broken down by single people or families would be provided following the meeting.
Fixed term and Lifetime tenancies – it was explained that the Council would only provide secure lifetime tenancies and always started with a 12 month introductory period. With regard to fixed term it was proposed for 4+ bed properties being the only properties to be let as 5 year flexible tenancies with the option to roll to a further flexible tenancy.
The benefit of lifetime tenancies mutually benefitted tenants and the Council in connection with creating successful neighbourhoods and communities. It was acknowledged that the whole fixed term approach could create higher turnover and resources.
In response to a Member’s query relating to succession tenancies and it possibly leading to Right to Buy by a family member after moving in to help a family member, it was explained that if a family member qualified for succession it was extremely difficult to ask them to relocate or refuse the purchase of the property. It was explained that the Housing Act provided a 12 month period giving automatic rights to a spouse, co-habitee and another other family members but the Localism Act amended this to give automatic succession rights to spouse or co-habitee only. The Act provided local authorities, if it wished, to add other family members in, under the express clause. The qualifying term for other family members was 12 months. One option for consideration would be to adopt the Localism Act with spouse or co-habitee qualifying and everyone else left in occupation be assessed under the allocations policy and if they qualify provide an introductory tenancy. A further option could provide for other family members but they must have lived in the property for 5 years.
The Panel stressed they wished to ensure that the housing stock was protected but to also support people from having to leave their family home and if eligible and fit, within the allocations policy be provided with a new tenancy. It was stressed that genuine people who had lived in a family homes for many years would be in a positive position but if not, could be moved to a different property or other housing options discussed.
It was noted that if a person was provided with an automatic succession tenancy they would inherit the tenancy years from the previous person. For example, a grandparents’ 50 years tenancy, and then if they wished apply to purchase the property, would then entitle them to a large discount on the property value.
Affordable rents – In response to how rents were set, it was noted that there were different rent formulas, for example, social housing rent and affordable rent (calculated at 80% of market rent). Social rent was set under Government formula with an increase of up to CPI plus 1%. The local authority made the decision each year within the fees and charges review on rent increase level.
With regard to the highest rent charged by St Leger Homes of Doncaster it was explained that the exact figures would need to be provided following the meeting.
With regard to newly Council built properties, it was noted that some properties were let to tenants on affordable rent, but the law had changed, now stipulating that all newly built social housing would be let on social rent charges.
A Member expressed concern that affordable rents in new build developments in one area could be different to affordable rents in other areas across the City and questioned how they could be kept low but also cost effective to ensure repairs and maintenance were undertaken correctly. The point was noted and outlined that work undertaken to address competing demands, including focusing on pressure on the HRA whilst continuing to provide good service at value for money. The Panel was informed of the consultation relating to rental increase and the significant difference a £1 or £2 per week increase could make providing investment to stock.
The Panel was also informed that the Government was currently giving consideration to the length of possible future tenancies being up to 25 years before a Right to Buy could be applied for.
Further information would be provided to the Panel on affordable and average rents for each property size following the meeting.
Local context and demand – a Member referred to the report and quoted thousands being on the housing register with high priority needs. It was stressed that the introduction of the new Tenancy Strategy would not have a significant impact in terms of demand but other strategies for example allocations policy would impact on Council housing. The proposed changes in the Strategy would go some way to improved stock management.
It was noted that people who were homeless were not to be confused with people who were rough sleeping.
Specifically with regard to people who were rough sleeping, it was explained there were hotspots across the City, for example City Centre and some of the outskirts, because all people in life supported each other and congregated where they felt happy and safe.
The top reasons for people who were classed as statutory homeless were relationship breakdown, mainly single people, ending of private sector tenancies and domestic abuse. These people would contact the “Homeless Tonight team” for assistance.
The top reasons for rough sleeping were eviction, relationship breakdown and tenancy abandonment.
The Outreach Team regularly assisted rough sleepers. The average number of people rough sleeping at the latest count were set out below and predominantly male:
April = 30
May = 36
June = 30
New people to rough sleeping:
April = 7
May = 3
June = 2
Further information would be provided in relation to housing allocations across the City.
Right to buy requirements – it was confirmed that fixed term tenancies were subject to the Right to Buy legislation but with the new rules a person had to hold a tenancy for 5 years before they could qualify.
Financial assistance for tenants – a Member referred to the report and highlighted that the local authority had financial support in place to assist with the impact of welfare reform and vulnerability and financial hardship via the Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP) administered by the Council’s Benefits Team to bridge the rent gap. In response it was explained that the Sustainable Tenancies Fund was administered by St Leger Homes for Council tenants and the Sustainable Tenancy Fund was used to help people purchase a range of everyday things, for example a cooker to ensure families were able to cook proper meals. It was not used to bridge the gap in rent.
It was noted that the Tenancy Support Team had supported 177 tenants to be successful in claiming a Discretionary Housing Payments since April 2024 with a financial gain for tenants of £137,685.
Income Management in the same period supported 263 tenants and had financial gains for the tenants of £70,000.
The Sustainable Tenancies Fund (SLHD) had supported 27 tenants since April 2024 to sustain their tenancies totalling of £18,000.
Tenancy Strategy Consultation – A Member recognised that Consultation had taken place with tenants, via St Leger Homes of Doncaster’s tenant consultation body, One Voice Forum during August 2024. He highlighted that the report stated tenants were satisfied with the reasons for the proposals and changes and understood the need for flexible tenancies. The only concerns raised by tenants were around vulnerabilities and the impact on some families having to move home but assurance was provided that this will be taken into account.
It was explained that the One Voice Forum had a representation of 15 to 20 tenant representatives from different areas. Broader consultation took place with the GIG (Get Involved Group) which currently had 264 members, with many ways of getting involved, with approximately 100 responses being received from this group to the current circulated survey. It was acknowledged that the response from individual tenants was poor. It was confirmed that methods of consultation used were through the website, Tenants and Residents Association and face to face discussions. With regard to Facebook the Panel acknowledged the pros and cons and in the past had been used, but not for this particular consultation.
It was noted that the Tenancy Strategy would therefore have an impact on the Tenancy Agreement and at the appropriate time every tenant would be consulted with, in writing, this was called a preliminary notice of variation.
A Member again raised the Councils diminishing housing stock and the current Right to Buy position. It was explained that nothing could be undertaken at a local level to prevent people from applying to buy their property as this was supported by legislation. It was explained that pre-Covid approximately 1,500 properties were being purchased through the Right to Buy scheme but this had reduced significantly. However, since the Government announced the new law relating to the increased time required to qualify approximately 600 to 700 applications had been received and were being progressed.
With regard to why Right to Buy was not advertised, it was explained that as a social housing organisation the ethos was to retain its stock as much as possible, but information was available on the St Leger Homes website for any interested tenant. In response to a question relating to selling old stock and building new from capital receipts, it was clarified that the capital receipts from Right to Buys would not achieve many new build properties, for example, the sale of 6 properties would achieve 1 new build. It was explained that it would cost approximately £270,000 to £300,000 to build a new 3 bedroomed property with a lot built on brownfield sites that required significant ground works, therefore increasing unit costs.
With regard to larger properties being split into two properties it was confirmed that the properties with 4 plus bedrooms for larger families and in contrast those that housed single people were desperately required. It was also noted that single person accommodation was also required and investigations were being undertaken into how this demand could be met.
It was ensured that enough income was made through rent to maintain the current stock. With regard to some housing stock that was built a century ago, there were discussions required with regard to their future, as was expected.
A Member raised the Express Clause referred to in the report regarding succession of tenancies. The Panel was reminded that in terms of the Tenancy Strategy it was a framework for all landlords across Doncaster City, stating that they must adhere to legislation and if they wished to add in an Express Clause they could. Consultation had been undertaken with social housing providers in Doncaster and no housing providers were allowing wider automatic succession. It was explained that the Council could remove the Express Clause and stick with legislation requirements, retain the current position or have an amended Express Clause introducing a 5 or 10 year rule. It was stressed that offering new tenancies would protect a family but would impact on their Right to Buy entitlement.
A Member requested and it was seconded that the Panel support the removal of the Express Clause to extend automatic success rights to other family members beyond spouse/partner and be granted a new tenancy to allow them to remain in the property providing they qualified, to make best use of the Council stock.
Doncaster Decency Standard – In response to a question it was explained that the Government introduced the Decent Homes Standard. It was outlined that when St Leger Homes became an arms length management organisation, it consulted with all tenants about the decent homes standard and the information received was, the standard was not high enough. The Doncaster Decency Standard was therefore developed. Work was currently ongoing in relation to delivering and funding the Governments Decent Homes 2 proposals.
In relation to the Balby Bridge Estate it was confirmed this met the decency and fire safety standards. It was confirmed that decency standards covered aesthetics inside properties, for example, kitchens, bathrooms, insulation. In connection with a question relating to Right to Buys in the high rise flats, that information was not available at the meeting and would be provided following the meeting.
RESOLVED that:-
1. The report be supported; and
2. To make best use of Council stock the Executive be asked to give consideration to removal of the Express Clause to extend automatic succession rights to other family members beyond spouse/partner and be granted a new tenancy to allow them to remain in the property providing they qualified.
It was explained that because St Leger Homes of Doncaster managed the Council’s housing stock it was important that the organisation had input into the policy development. It was noted that following development of the Tenancy Strategy, the Tenancy Agreement for Council Housing stock would be developed.
It was accepted that the Strategy needed to be clear for people to understand. The unprecedented high demand for housing was also acknowledged and the requirement to develop sustainable communities that thrived, whilst making best use of the diminishing housing stock, was noted.
There were two distinct areas for consideration that the Localism Act required, being to either retain lifetime tenancies or adopt the flexible tenancy route. It was reported that in 2017 the Council made the decision to offer flexible tenancies on larger properties and remain with lifetime tenancies for remaining housing stock to ensure best use of stock and to retain sustainable communities. With regard to the larger properties it was explained that the length of tenancy would reflect the youngest child’s 19th birthday. What was being proposed now was to remain flexible tenancies on 4 bed plus properties only but to allocate for a fixed term of 5 years in line with the Localism Act requirements, and this term to be reviewed at the end and renewed where appropriate. With regard to succession, it was explained that the law now stated spouse only for automatic succession but further exploration of whether this should be extended would be reviewed as part of the tenancy agreement.
Members discussed the following issues in detail:
Council housing stock turnover – It was explained that current turnover of Council housing stock in the last year was approximately 1,100 properties which was a reduction from pre-covid years. Death was the highest reason for tenancy termination with all reasons closely monitored, particularly tenancy failure.
It was noted that there were tenancy failures in respect of rent arrears and anti-social behaviour (ASB) but support services and measures were in place to assist with these situations. Tenancies were RAG rated (red, amber, green), and if categorised as red tenants could be provided with intensive tenancy support for a period of up to 8 weeks. After this period hopefully they would be rated as amber or green and supported slightly differently, with a housing officer assigned. The performance in relation to this was measured with over 99% of tenants retaining their tenancies.
It was also reported that the company had introduced the Furnished Tenancy Scheme helping reduce the number of failed tenancies, with the scheme helping to make a house a home. Since launching this service in June 2024, St Leger Homes had signed 126 tenants to the scheme with only one person ending their tenancy, due to relocating to London. There were different types of furniture packs for tenants to choose from with payment for the furnished tenancy being added to a person’s weekly rent. The set criteria was for new tenants only or tenants that had fallen into particular hardship.
Further information relating to the number of furnished tenancies broken down by single people or families would be provided following the meeting.
Fixed term and Lifetime tenancies – it was explained that the Council would only provide secure lifetime tenancies and always started with a 12 month introductory period. With regard to fixed term it was proposed for 4+ bed properties being the only properties to be let as 5 year flexible tenancies with the option to roll to a further flexible tenancy.
The benefit of lifetime tenancies mutually benefitted tenants and the Council in connection with creating successful neighbourhoods and communities. It was acknowledged that the whole fixed term approach could create higher turnover and resources.
In response to a Member’s query relating to succession tenancies and it possibly leading to Right to Buy by a family member after moving in to help a family member, it was explained that if a family member qualified for succession it was extremely difficult to ask them to relocate or refuse the purchase of the property. It was explained that the Housing Act provided a 12 month period giving automatic rights to a spouse, co-habitee and another other family members but the Localism Act amended this to give automatic succession rights to spouse or co-habitee only. The Act provided local authorities, if it wished, to add other family members in, under the express clause. The qualifying term for other family members was 12 months. One option for consideration would be to adopt the Localism Act with spouse or co-habitee qualifying and everyone else left in occupation be assessed under the allocations policy and if they qualify provide an introductory tenancy. A further option could provide for other family members but they must have lived in the property for 5 years.
The Panel stressed they wished to ensure that the housing stock was protected but to also support people from having to leave their family home and if eligible and fit, within the allocations policy be provided with a new tenancy. It was stressed that genuine people who had lived in a family homes for many years would be in a positive position but if not, could be moved to a different property or other housing options discussed.
It was noted that if a person was provided with an automatic succession tenancy they would inherit the tenancy years from the previous person. For example, a grandparents’ 50 years tenancy, and then if they wished apply to purchase the property, would then entitle them to a large discount on the property value.
Affordable rents – In response to how rents were set, it was noted that there were different rent formulas, for example, social housing rent and affordable rent (calculated at 80% of market rent). Social rent was set under Government formula with an increase of up to CPI plus 1%. The local authority made the decision each year within the fees and charges review on rent increase level.
With regard to the highest rent charged by St Leger Homes of Doncaster it was explained that the exact figures would need to be provided following the meeting.
With regard to newly Council built properties, it was noted that some properties were let to tenants on affordable rent, but the law had changed, now stipulating that all newly built social housing would be let on social rent charges.
A Member expressed concern that affordable rents in new build developments in one area could be different to affordable rents in other areas across the City and questioned how they could be kept low but also cost effective to ensure repairs and maintenance were undertaken correctly. The point was noted and outlined that work undertaken to address competing demands, including focusing on pressure on the HRA whilst continuing to provide good service at value for money. The Panel was informed of the consultation relating to rental increase and the significant difference a £1 or £2 per week increase could make providing investment to stock.
The Panel was also informed that the Government was currently giving consideration to the length of possible future tenancies being up to 25 years before a Right to Buy could be applied for.
Further information would be provided to the Panel on affordable and average rents for each property size following the meeting.
Local context and demand – a Member referred to the report and quoted thousands being on the housing register with high priority needs. It was stressed that the introduction of the new Tenancy Strategy would not have a significant impact in terms of demand but other strategies for example allocations policy would impact on Council housing. The proposed changes in the Strategy would go some way to improved stock management.
It was noted that people who were homeless were not to be confused with people who were rough sleeping.
Specifically with regard to people who were rough sleeping, it was explained there were hotspots across the City, for example City Centre and some of the outskirts, because all people in life supported each other and congregated where they felt happy and safe.
The top reasons for people who were classed as statutory homeless were relationship breakdown, mainly single people, ending of private sector tenancies and domestic abuse. These people would contact the “Homeless Tonight team” for assistance.
The top reasons for rough sleeping were eviction, relationship breakdown and tenancy abandonment.
The Outreach Team regularly assisted rough sleepers. The average number of people rough sleeping at the latest count were set out below and predominantly male:
April = 30
May = 36
June = 30
New people to rough sleeping:
April = 7
May = 3
June = 2
Further information would be provided in relation to housing allocations across the City.
Right to buy requirements – it was confirmed that fixed term tenancies were subject to the Right to Buy legislation but with the new rules a person had to hold a tenancy for 5 years before they could qualify.
Financial assistance for tenants – a Member referred to the report and highlighted that the local authority had financial support in place to assist with the impact of welfare reform and vulnerability and financial hardship via the Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP) administered by the Council’s Benefits Team to bridge the rent gap. In response it was explained that the Sustainable Tenancies Fund was administered by St Leger Homes for Council tenants and the Sustainable Tenancy Fund was used to help people purchase a range of everyday things, for example a cooker to ensure families were able to cook proper meals. It was not used to bridge the gap in rent.
It was noted that the Tenancy Support Team had supported 177 tenants to be successful in claiming a Discretionary Housing Payments since April 2024 with a financial gain for tenants of £137,685.
Income Management in the same period supported 263 tenants and had financial gains for the tenants of £70,000.
The Sustainable Tenancies Fund (SLHD) had supported 27 tenants since April 2024 to sustain their tenancies totalling of £18,000.
Tenancy Strategy Consultation – A Member recognised that Consultation had taken place with tenants, via St Leger Homes of Doncaster’s tenant consultation body, One Voice Forum during August 2024. He highlighted that the report stated tenants were satisfied with the reasons for the proposals and changes and understood the need for flexible tenancies. The only concerns raised by tenants were around vulnerabilities and the impact on some families having to move home but assurance was provided that this will be taken into account.
It was explained that the One Voice Forum had a representation of 15 to 20 tenant representatives from different areas. Broader consultation took place with the GIG (Get Involved Group) which currently had 264 members, with many ways of getting involved, with approximately 100 responses being received from this group to the current circulated survey. It was acknowledged that the response from individual tenants was poor. It was confirmed that methods of consultation used were through the website, Tenants and Residents Association and face to face discussions. With regard to Facebook the Panel acknowledged the pros and cons and in the past had been used, but not for this particular consultation.
It was noted that the Tenancy Strategy would therefore have an impact on the Tenancy Agreement and at the appropriate time every tenant would be consulted with, in writing, this was called a preliminary notice of variation.
A Member again raised the Councils diminishing housing stock and the current Right to Buy position. It was explained that nothing could be undertaken at a local level to prevent people from applying to buy their property as this was supported by legislation. It was explained that pre-Covid approximately 1,500 properties were being purchased through the Right to Buy scheme but this had reduced significantly. However, since the Government announced the new law relating to the increased time required to qualify approximately 600 to 700 applications had been received and were being progressed.
With regard to why Right to Buy was not advertised, it was explained that as a social housing organisation the ethos was to retain its stock as much as possible, but information was available on the St Leger Homes website for any interested tenant. In response to a question relating to selling old stock and building new from capital receipts, it was clarified that the capital receipts from Right to Buys would not achieve many new build properties, for example, the sale of 6 properties would achieve 1 new build. It was explained that it would cost approximately £270,000 to £300,000 to build a new 3 bedroomed property with a lot built on brownfield sites that required significant ground works, therefore increasing unit costs.
With regard to larger properties being split into two properties it was confirmed that the properties with 4 plus bedrooms for larger families and in contrast those that housed single people were desperately required. It was also noted that single person accommodation was also required and investigations were being undertaken into how this demand could be met.
It was ensured that enough income was made through rent to maintain the current stock. With regard to some housing stock that was built a century ago, there were discussions required with regard to their future, as was expected.
A Member raised the Express Clause referred to in the report regarding succession of tenancies. The Panel was reminded that in terms of the Tenancy Strategy it was a framework for all landlords across Doncaster City, stating that they must adhere to legislation and if they wished to add in an Express Clause they could. Consultation had been undertaken with social housing providers in Doncaster and no housing providers were allowing wider automatic succession. It was explained that the Council could remove the Express Clause and stick with legislation requirements, retain the current position or have an amended Express Clause introducing a 5 or 10 year rule. It was stressed that offering new tenancies would protect a family but would impact on their Right to Buy entitlement.
A Member requested and it was seconded that the Panel support the removal of the Express Clause to extend automatic success rights to other family members beyond spouse/partner and be granted a new tenancy to allow them to remain in the property providing they qualified, to make best use of the Council stock.
Doncaster Decency Standard – In response to a question it was explained that the Government introduced the Decent Homes Standard. It was outlined that when St Leger Homes became an arms length management organisation, it consulted with all tenants about the decent homes standard and the information received was, the standard was not high enough. The Doncaster Decency Standard was therefore developed. Work was currently ongoing in relation to delivering and funding the Governments Decent Homes 2 proposals.
In relation to the Balby Bridge Estate it was confirmed this met the decency and fire safety standards. It was confirmed that decency standards covered aesthetics inside properties, for example, kitchens, bathrooms, insulation. In connection with a question relating to Right to Buys in the high rise flats, that information was not available at the meeting and would be provided following the meeting.
RESOLVED that:-
1. The report be supported; and
2. To make best use of Council stock the Executive be asked to give consideration to removal of the Express Clause to extend automatic succession rights to other family members beyond spouse/partner and be granted a new tenancy to allow them to remain in the property providing they qualified.
7
Overview and Scrutiny Work Plan 2025/26 and Council's Forward Plan of Key Decisions
Attachments:
- Document MASTER WORK PLAN 202526 approved 21 Jul 2025
- Document Forward Plan 1st Aug to 30 Nov 25 Cabinet 21 Jul 2025
Minutes
The Senior Governance Officer presented the Overview and Scrutiny Work Plan for the period 2025/26 and Council’s Forward Plan of Key Decisions, for comments.
A Member requested that the Panel address specific information that was provided with planning applications, to help them understand issues in the broader context. For example, how the supporting infrastructure information was taken into account when planning applications were presented to planning committee. This included, school places, doctors and chemists.
RESOLVED that:
1. The Overview and Scrutiny Work Plan and Council’s Forward Plan of Key Decisions, be noted; and
2. Consideration of how the supporting infrastructure information was taken into account when planning applications were presented to planning committee, be added to the work plan for future consideration.
A Member requested that the Panel address specific information that was provided with planning applications, to help them understand issues in the broader context. For example, how the supporting infrastructure information was taken into account when planning applications were presented to planning committee. This included, school places, doctors and chemists.
RESOLVED that:
1. The Overview and Scrutiny Work Plan and Council’s Forward Plan of Key Decisions, be noted; and
2. Consideration of how the supporting infrastructure information was taken into account when planning applications were presented to planning committee, be added to the work plan for future consideration.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in