Petitions Committee

Okay. Croeso nôl. Welcome back to the Senedd's Petitions Committee. We have now item 3 on our agenda. It's another evidence session for petition P-06-1307, 'The Welsh Government should commit to the adoption of the maintenance of new housing estates by local authorities'. We have representatives from Greenbelt with us. You describe yourselves as

'the UK’s leading specialist in the stewardship of public open spaces, providing long-term, high-quality management solutions for outdoor areas and amenities on new residential developments.'

Can I, firstly, thank you all for being here? Perhaps I can ask you to introduce yourselves for the record.

Yes. Robin Waddell, business development director for Greenbelt Group.

Colin Thomson, managing director of Greenbelt Group.

Adam Cooper. I'm the group legal director.

Thank you very much. Welcome to the Senedd Petitions Committee. We're grateful for your time here. I think this is going to be our last evidence session of this inquiry and we'll seek to report in the new year now. But we have heard from Member of the Senedd, Hefin David, who has a particular interest in this issue; he gave evidence to us. And we've heard from Cardiff Council's chief planning officer and we've also heard from the Home Builders Federation, if my mind serves me correctly. So, it's great that we have you here in front of us.

Can I start questions, perhaps? You describe yourselves as the leading specialist, as I've stated. Can you perhaps provide an overview of the role and responsibilities of Greenbelt, or companies similar to you?

At Greenbelt, we look after all the open spaces on your housing developments, straight from the point of when they are constructed and established by the house builder. We look after them with a long-term view. We take ownership, or a long-term lease of open space areas and there's a mechanism in place for contributions by all the home owners on that development to fund the open spaces that are established on there, be they just a small piece of grass or have a sustainable urban drainage system, play areas, woodlands—all the complex features that you now have on larger developments.

Thank you. Can I dig a bit deeper into the specialist role? Is it a specialist role? Are there specific qualifications required for this role or specific experience, or is this something that, perhaps, local authorities can do or others can do? Robin, I think—

Greenbelt originated from—. It was a spin-out from a local authority way back almost 30 years ago, Strathclyde Regional Council, and it was set up primarily to protect the urban fringing around the Strathclyde region, mainly trying to establish new woodlands and bringing back into management existing woodlands. And then, Greenbelt, when it spun out and became autonomous, was being asked by house builders and developers to not only look after establishing woodlands on new-build sites, but also to adopt amenity open space as well. And that amenity open space 30 years ago doesn't really bear that much resemblance to amenity open space on residential sites now. Public open spaces on residential sites is becoming more complex; it's being loaded with lots of additional features. So, back in the 1990s, it was usually just amenities, grass, trees and shrubs, and then, slowly, local authorities started stepping back from adopting play equipment, so we began to see play equipment becoming a feature on these sites, and, as a company, we had to adapt and build that skill set, as the company developed. And then it quickly went from the adoption of play equipment to the adoption of drainage systems, when they became an integral part of development as well, and we had to upskill in-house quickly on that. So, certainly all of our contracting base and our site supervision are all trained in the management of these.

But, in terms of personal qualifications, most people within the business have an environmental management qualification, whether it be landscape architecture, which is my one, and we have foresters, ecologists, horticulturists, and also we have an in-house legal team that deals with the complexities of some of the conveyance side of things as well. So, it has become more specialised as a result of the open spaces themselves evolving and becoming more complex, and obviously, now, with the onset of biodiversity net gain, that layers in another layer of complexity and responsibility too.

Thank you for that. I suggested that question because it is not as simple as, perhaps, a local authority moving resource from one department to the next. Local authorities, perhaps 30 years ago, could've done that, as you suggested, but probably not right now; they would have to invest significantly in training or environmental—

Yes. As Rob mentioned, in the past 30 years, the complexity on these new housing developments has increased significantly, so it's no longer a case of just a small piece of grass or a small woodland; it's now trying to make sure that everybody has the amenities and the facilities they would expect to have, not historically within the local authority but more on their doorstep.

Thank you. I'll move to questions from Members. Peredur Owen Griffiths.

Diolch. Thank you. Just following on from what the Chair was saying there, am I right in describing Greenbelt as, effectively, a management company for outside spaces or is—

Yes, that's our core specialism. We don't take on the property management. That's not our forte; it's more the amenity open space.

And then do you go to developers and tender for that? How does the process work? What involvement do the residents have in that and what sort of good practice have you developed over time?

In most cases, it is the developer that, through the planning process of obtaining planning consent, has usually the responsibility of getting the management entity up—well, certainly appointing it and then getting that entity up and running on the site initially. So, once the development is complete and they step aside, then that management body takes on responsibility, and the residents at that point can influence the outcome of certain aspects, but within reason, because, obviously, that management entity then has to make sure that all the open spaces are managed and comply with the approved plan's drawings and long-term management plans. Unfortunately, on some of these sites, a lot of the management plans are long term—they're a five, 10, 15-year works programme. So, it's starting to get a little bit more involved.

The local planning authority will have suggestions of mechanisms that might be put in place, but it's up to the house builder, pretty much, to do the tendering process and then find out what solution is best fitted for them and for the home owners.

And how many local authorities in Wales are you working with currently?

In Wales?

In Wales.

In Wales, I'd say probably about six.

Right.

Yes.

So, what have you found would be best practice from your experience? Where have systems been put in place that have worked well, that you've engaged with residents? We're trying to tease out some of the good stuff that you've been doing over the years.

We have, presently, around about 2,500 properties across 25 developments in Wales with, I think, another couple of thousand and another 15 or so developments in the pipeline. We have a strong collection rate as one mechanism of good practice and available customer care. We like to expect that the service we provide is accepted as a reasonably fair value price for the home owners, and, by that mechanism, we believe we're delivering a good service.

And that price element, is that something that, on a new estate especially, would be costed and explained to people as they're buying the property, or would it come out later? How does that process work?

It is done in advance. I think we're slightly unusual in that, at the outset, when a developer comes to us, we fully price the maintenance. So, the mechanism for the obligation to pay goes into people's plot transfers, and there's a figure in there as well at the outset. One of the things we've been working on is what I refer to as our homebuyer pack, which gives the home owners details of the areas that we'll manage and the initial cost as well. So, we do price that, because I think there are examples out there where it does get priced at the end, and there'll always be some variation with that, because, inevitably, if you have a development building out, what it can look like at the beginning may look different to what it looks like at the end, particularly if it's a large development. But we do fully price, and we have a pricing system we're actually very proud of, I think, because it's unusual that part of what we do is, when they come to us, we do fully price it for everything that's due to be on there, so the home owners have an idea at the outset, and that's part of what they should be getting told when they're buying the house as well.

Just finally from me, if I may, what engagement do you have then with residents as this matures over time and if things are—? Inevitably, there's going to be some falling out, or there's going to be some people saying, 'Well, that's not being done. I thought it was going to be done'—some of those complaints, and that sort of thing. What sort of mechanisms have you got in place to alleviate some of that?

Prior to an initial billing of a development, we have our customer liaison team who will go to introduce themselves to home owners, explain what we're doing, explain why we're doing it. And also as the process is ongoing, we have a customer care team, we have operational managers, and in some developments we have wardens, all ready to look after what's going on in developments to make sure that, if there are any enquiries and queries and any issues that are addressed to us, we take care of them as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Pred. Just before I bring Rhys ab Owen in, we undertook a committee visit to Cwm Calon estate in Caerphilly. Hefin David was there as the constituency Member, and committee members were Buffy Williams and me, and there was a real confusion at the estate. It was a large development. There was a mixture of management companies, local authorities, house builders themselves, and there was a real confusion from them: (1) they didn't know who was responsible for what; there were all sorts of different plans everywhere, but when you were looking and walking the estate, you could see overgrown grass where it shouldn't have been, there was cut grass, there were weeds on certain roads and not on others, and broken fences, I remember, next to children's playgrounds. And it was that difficulty for members of the public and residents of the estate to find out who was responsible for this and actually get it addressed. It was a real mess, quite frankly. So, is that the experience on your sites? I think you have 25 developments, I think. Is it your experience that it's pretty straightforward?

So, we're appointed generally before any houses are sold, so we're able to generate those information packs, as Adam was saying, early, and then get them out to the sales outlets that the developer has in place.

And would that typically look—? So, what does that look like, then? You're appointed before the houses are sold—you take the whole estate?

Yes. So, we will enter into a contract with the house builder to eventually take access and ownership or a long-term lease on those open spaces, so we know what's going to be coming to us, and so the residents, when they buy a house, know exactly what they're going to be paying towards once the site is partially occupied and fully occupied. So, these home-buyer packs help to explain that process as clearly as we can, and they include plans showing exactly where all the open spaces are located on the site, obviously, and then also an indication of where their property is on the site as well. So, they're able to see where they are in relation to the open space.

We are also looking to engage as early as possible with all the home owners and provide information more readily. Another example of the difficulty in—. You're talking about the difference of who's looking after which open spaces. We always provide a plan prior to issuing any correspondence, to make sure the home owners understand what it is we are and not managing, but the larger the development, it does become more complicated, because of the phased handover of these areas.

Sorry, Rhys, I will bring you in. In terms of the engagement with residents and householders, do you try and do that at the start? Is that just a business decision—you're not forced to do that?

It's a business decision. We're not forced to do it; it is a business decision. We want to explain our services and what we are doing with the development. As I say, we are long term. We're not looking at this as just coming in for a few years and see what happens. We are looking at this as a long-term project. We're there for the lifetime of that development, so we want to build a relationship with the home owners as early as possible.

Thank you. And I should state, we're not trying to catch you out here, we're trying to use this as valid information for our committee and the recommendations we seek to make. I know you've travelled from Scotland to be with us—we're grateful, because we did struggle getting other management companies in.

Peredur Owen Griffiths to ask a short supplementary, and then Rhys.

Do you ever take on an estate that's already developed, rather than getting involved at ground zero, as it were—you get involved afterwards?

We used to do that. The only way we used to be able to do that—we don't do it any more—was to have a local authority commuted sum, a lump sum, usually based on a 20 or 25-year multiplier. But we don't do that because, in our opinion, commuted lump-sum payments are just—. You can't, especially at the moment, with interest rates so low, you just can't—. It just takes a few unforeseen events, some damage or windblown trees or damage to a play area, and before you know it, your annual budget for maintenance for that year or the next couple of years is seriously compromised. And what we were finding with commuted sums is that they were just dwindling very, very quickly and not sustainable. So, we've taken a business decision not to take that kind of business on any more.

So, you wouldn't take that risk on, basically?

No.

Rhys ab Owen, who's on the screen.

Thank you very much. Diolch, Cadeirydd. Thank you for coming to this committee today. This is something that we, as individual Members, hear about a lot, and I'm pleased to hear what you're saying seems to suggest that you set out right at the beginning what you're doing, what's expected of the residents. Because we've heard evidence—and I'm sure Members have received correspondence individually—of people buying properties and saying that they didn't know about these extra charges and when they do receive an invoice, there isn't a breakdown of the work done. So, just to clarify, when you do invoice residents, is there a breakdown of exactly what you are charging?

The way that our systems work, we bill in advance. So, the annual management charge, as Adam mentioned earlier, is calculated based on an expectation of what the cost would be for that next 12-month period. Once that 12-month period is complete, we will then provide a detailed breakdown of the costs that we've incurred in that year. So, there is information provided, but it's after the full period has been taken out. As we are meeting them in advance of the bills going out, we will try and explain all the services that we will provide for the forthcoming year.

So, when I receive the original bill, when I need to pay up, I don't know exactly where the money is going, do I?

Yes. It will be explained by our customer liaison team in advance what we'll be doing on the development and the annual management charge is effectively the budget for that development for the year. Year on year, they tend to be quite repetitive and quite similar in the expenditure. So, after the first year has taken place, you would primarily know what was going to happen. We can't foresee everything. If there is any storm damage or vandalism, we would make sure that that is taken care of as a priority, to make sure everything is safe for those using those facilities, and we will incur that cost and we will collect that within the reconciliation of the account at the end of the year.

So, it's at the end of the year, then?

Yes.

Before the forthcoming year, then?

Yes. We'll bill in advance and then we'll reconcile at the end of the year. If there's a balance over or a balance under, it will carry forward.

I think what I'm asking—I'm probably not saying it very clearly—the subject of this petition is the Mill development in Cardiff, and we had some residents there saying that they were asked to pay a sum at the beginning of every year and they didn't know where their money was going. So, I just want to know, when you invoice, for example, when you ask for, I don't know, £200, do you say £50 for the park facilities, £50 for cutting grass? Is that how it works, or not?

We wouldn't necessarily provide a definitive breakdown of that ilk, but it's not to say that it couldn't be provided, but it has to be treated as a budget position. Because you can't tell exactly what's going to happen in the next 12 months—things can change.

We probably should say as well that part of when the bill goes out to home owners is they will get the bill for the year, which is based on anticipated costs, but what they'll also get is a plan showing the areas we're going to maintain and what we refer to as our 'written statement of service', which details the features that are within those areas and how we'll maintain them. So, whilst they're not specifically listed as £50 for the grass cutting, £20 for the trees, what they get is they get a plan showing the areas we're going to maintain, and they get told how they will be maintained, because they're maintained on a specification basis. So, they know that that grass will have to be kept between this length and that length, and that's what their payment is for, to deliver what we refer to as our routine maintenance.

At the end of the year, would they get a breakdown?

Yes, yes.

So, at the end of the year they would know exactly where there money has gone, would they?

Yes. In the year, they will get a full breakdown of where that money's been spent, and just in addition to that, if there are any non-routine works over, I think it's presently £15 per property, we will write to every property and advise them of that cost before it's actually been incurred, so they're aware of an addition to their Bill, effectively, at the end of the year.

Thanks for that. I was interested, in the answer to the first question, that you mentioned how things have become more complicated in the past three decades, and I think the development that's the subject of this petition is quite complicated. Flood defences are involved, and park equipment, drainage et cetera, et cetera, so it isn't as straightforward as just hiring somebody to cut the grass. We've heard some suggestions, some examples of residents taking over. Now, of course, that requires a level of expertise, or certainly knowing where to get the expertise, and it also requires a large amount of time and energy. Do you have any examples of where residents have taken over? Do you have any examples of you actually being accountable to residents themselves?

Yes. We predominantly work on the basis that we've already discussed, which is that the land gets transferred to Greenbelt and Greenbelt will manage and maintain it in perpetuity. We do have what we refer to as our consumer choice option, which gives home owners the option of collectively getting together, forming their own company, and taking over if they wish, but we do have a small number of residents' management company arrangements. That's where the home owners are directors of a company that will own the open spaces, and we act as a managing agent for them. We have seen some good examples, typically where it is less complex, because you are asking the home owners to take on that responsibility. As you've touched on, if the features and areas are complicated, it is a big responsibility, and a big liability as well, because obviously some home owners are going to step up and be directors and accept all of the liability associated with that. And equally, we've seen some bad examples. Without naming them, we've worked with some management companies where—Colin touched on it—we sent out proposed works, and there was one that I dealt with and there were over 200 properties on the development. We had nine objections but three of them were from the directors of the management company, so the work didn't get carried out, because we have to take instructions from the directors, from the home owner directors. So, I think there are good examples and bad examples.

I think one of the things with the residents' management companies is it is a big responsibility and it's also a big liability, both on the directors but also for the development itself, because it is more complex, and what happens if areas aren't maintained, whether you're talking about injuries or whether you're talking about the likes of the sustainable urban drainage systems that we touched on and the risk of flooding and things like that? So, I think there are good ones out there, and I think there are some not so good, and I think there are also some—. I think a lot of the residents' management company ones are still currently sat with the house builders, with house builder directors, so it's still to be fully handed over to the home owners and them having to accept that responsibility.

And I suppose you're very reliant on individuals, then. Circumstances can change, people move, and then things can change very quickly. But anyway, thank you very much. I found that very useful. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you, Rhys. Peredur Owen Griffiths.

I'll just ask a quick question around—. You talked about your reconciliation process at the end of the year. If there are underspends, I assume that comes off the following year. From a fairness or a disputes point of view, if you've carried out works—and you talked about that £15 leeway—if you had something that happened that was going to cost £30 per property, for example, and people were saying, 'Well, actually, I don't want that work carried out', what processes do you have, then, to be able to go through that dispute resolution type of situation?

We do have engagement with a lot of residents associations. So, if it does come to the point where costs are larger than you would expect, or may come as a kind of a shock—

At the moment, inflation has been up at 10 per cent, and everything goes up in cost; it's coming up to the end of the year, and the costs are going to be higher. What sort of dispute resolution efficiencies have you made throughout the year? What sort of stuff have you been dealing with?

Ultimately, with that, we do have a process. We write, if we know there's an individual one. We do have an in-house customer care team, so they can get in contact with that. And we do have our regional operation managers, who are the ones that are actually responsible for doing the works. Part of it is engaging with the home owners, and Colin mentioned you might have an RA. Sometimes, those works just have to be carried out, and people may not want them, but they need to be carried out, whether that's because it's part of the planning, or whether it's for safety reasons.

Ultimately, I suppose, sat right in the background, we have our ombudsman service. So, if, ultimately, home owners are really unhappy, they can go through that ombudsman service, and I suppose the extreme of that is, then, consumer choice. So, if they're really not happy with our maintenance, they can take over themselves. I suppose that's the kind of worst-case scenario. I think we touched on it earlier—I think part of what we try and do is not let it get that far, because it's not in our interest, and it's not in the home owners' interest, because, ultimately, we provide a service for the home owners and they pay for it, and if they don't pay for it, we've got a problem.

We're there for the long term. We make common-sense decisions. We're not just going to do works that are excessive for no real reason. There's always a reason for doing works, and it's the long term we're there for, so we want to make sure a relationship is actually built between us and the home owners.

Thank you. Diolch.

Thank you, Peredur. We move to Joel James.

Thank you, Chair. Thanks ever so much for coming in this afternoon, and for making that journey all the way down, actually, because we sometimes struggle to get witnesses in person. So, we're really grateful for that. I suppose I've often wondered—I know it's quite a glib statement—how management companies, or companies like yourselves, actually make money, if that makes sense. Because you're taking on liabilities that councils don't want, because they see it as a drain on their finances. And you've got to then, somehow, try and make it work, if that makes sense. So, I don't necessarily envy you, really. But I suppose, going forward, the key thing I'd like to try and get an idea of is what you think needs to be changed going forward. Are there any practices or any policies that you think, 'In order to ensure proper maintenance going forward, or ensure that residents get the best out of this, this is what needs to be adopted going forward'? I'm just keen to know what your views are on that. It's quite a broad question, so sorry about that.

I think there's a few bits to that. I think, if we split it down, there's the kind of maintenance side of it, and I'd hope that would really take care of itself, insofar as I see the planning, and you'd expect there to be maintenance obligations as part of the planning, so having maintenance specifications in there. And I think there's an important piece that is the responsibility of Greenbelt, or anybody acting in management, about making themselves available to home owners, because that might not look like what they think, particularly with—and it's not my area of expertise—wildflower. It looks amazing for very short periods, and for the rest of the time, it doesn't, but it's quite important. So I think there's the maintenance side of it, and it's about home owners as well, and understanding that and the interaction with them.

I think a big part of it is probably the house builds and the point of sale—making them aware about what's going to happen. And that should be everything, in terms of that there's going to be a responsibility to contribute. I'd hope that happens. I think the National House Building Council and the new homes quality code that's been introduced has really focused in on giving home owners that information. So, you'd hope they'd have that at the outset, about knowing that there's a charge there, because I think historically, if you look back, a lot of the time it was falling on the conveyancers, and they should be passing that information on, but if it was good enough or not is another thing.

Beyond that, I think there is a piece as well about letting home owners know what they're signing up for in terms of roles and responsibilities, and what structure it's going to take, what role they'll have to fulfil. It could be quite onerous if they've got to step up and do this. And that's fine—some people will want to do that, and that's good, but they have to be aware of it. And I think, as well, part of it is an awareness for the home owners, not only about what's going to be done and what they'll be contributing to, but, ultimately, the mechanisms in place and what happens if that doesn't happen as well. I think it's quite important, really. So, I think there's a lot of information going on there.

There's also the local planning authorities. We feel that they really, probably, should be a little bit more in a position to offer advice to developers about the right type of model for the right scale of development and what will work. And if they can give that kind of advice at planning, then I think you'd get the right model being implemented in the right places. Because it's not horses for courses; the models have to vary based on the scale of the site and the complexity of the open spaces.

Can I just raise two points before Joel carries on? We hear, don't we, where house builders should give the information about there will be a management company coming on board that charges £300 a month, whatever, and they should do that. They may do that, but the majority of people we speak to, or certainly I have spoken to, either don't realise until they get the bill, or it's somewhat hidden in the idea of you're buying your dream home, you're buying your first home, whatever that might be, and it gets lost. So, should there be a strengthening in regulation or guidance—perhaps we'll come onto that a bit later—to make that information be more readily available to home owners? And then, again, there's the other information—you just spoke about a number of things, the information that is around. Who should be providing that information, and how do we ensure that happens? Because you know it's there. My question is, if I asked a home owner, would they know it's there.

As part of, as Adam mentioned, the new homes quality code, it should provide information that details all this information for the home owner before they purchase the property. There is, obviously, an obligation on the house builder to make them aware of any council tax bands or expected electricity or water values for that property. It should be the same for any common fees that they will incur on a development. That system there should negate any misconceptions or not advising them of that information. There's also an obligation on the solicitor they've chosen to assist them with the purchase of the property to ensure they've looked through all the terms and conditions that actually they're responsible for when they're buying the property as well.

I think one of the challenges is about making it palatable as well, because, as you said, people are buying the houses, and it's just part of it. So, it's trying to supply that information in a way that is—. I think, sometimes, the house builders—. There may have been instances where house builders haven't provided this information, and I'm sure there will be examples as well where they have provided it, but it's just in the mix with other things, and I think there's only so much that can be done. But it's providing it in a palatable way that home owners can see it there and have some idea. And it might be that that's enough for some home owners. Others might want to go and do further digging. But, yes, making it available, I think, is the challenge, and in a way that they'll actually be able to engage with.

Thank you for that. Sorry, Joel.

Thank you, Chair. No worries. It's useful that you brought in the local authorities there, and also the house builder, because it's always been my experience—. It almost seems to be like a breakdown in relationship. Naturally, you assume that the developer will build a housing estate, they'll hand over to the council the commuted sum for future maintenance and that, and it almost feels as if management committees, or where you guys come in, is like a last resort. I remember I visited a new build, and I asked the showroom guy, 'Is this going to be a managed estate or council?', and he said, 'Oh, it depends if the council want to adopt it or not.' I just feel like you would think that that would be sorted before the diggers went in, you know? And I just feel that, really. But thank you, Chair. It was just a good idea to see about what role the councils can play. Thank you.

Thank you, Joel. I'll move to perhaps final questions from Members. I'll start them, and then perhaps Members may want to come in at the end. I touched on regulation in the last question to you. What does regulation look like as a possibility? Would you welcome it? You're in front of us today, you've provided some good information for us, you've made conscious business decisions based on you want to be in it for the long term, that's your business goal there. Not every management company who would be in front of us would perhaps be able to say the same thing, or we would find other—. Would regulation of management companies address that issue? Would you be open to it? If not, why?

I think we would be open to it. I think it's one of those things where the industry has a problem. That's one of the reasons that you're sat here, because there's a problem. I think that's part of the conversations that we've had with people now, and house builders and third parties: realising that there are issues, and what the average charge is, and it's been increasing. I think, as you'll be aware, there's quite a lot going on with the likes of the Competition and Markets Authority looking at this, and the freehold and leasehold Bill that has been introduced, and it is kind of an eye-opener. So, I think regulation is quite important and we'd actually welcome it. I think it's got to be done in the right way as well. I think the challenge will be regulation that doesn't actually prevent good management and some of the benefits that you can have with various structures, because I think that's something that's gone on so far and that I've seen from the legal side of it sometimes, with certain aspects that focus in on a certain way of doing things that isn't necessarily best for home owners.

That's a very welcome comment, and we'll make a note of that when we write our report. In our report, we'll make specific recommendations to the Welsh Government to respond to. I wondered if perhaps you could help us in some way. What recommendations do you think the committee should make?

I think, firstly, one of the things you could do is look at the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011, which is looking at the factoring and the managing agent side of things, and has been broadly well received in the whole of Scotland. We've been there since day one of its inception, and they have evolved it two or three times now, and are still in constant dialogue with ourselves about how they can refine and develop that and make it more efficient, going forward.

Any further comments?

I think it's a big question. I think there's a lot that can be done. You've touched on regulation. I do think it's a good idea. I think that, as Colin said, looking at the PFSA as something that—. Scotland has done the work there for X number of years now, and we've taken it, and whilst that applies to our properties in Scotland, we've applied it across the UK. So, the likes of our written statement of service, I think that was a requirement of PFSA, and our community choice actually predates it, but what we've then done is rolled it across so it's open to Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. So, I think, as Colin said, there's some lessons to be learnt from that. But also, I think it's quite useful—. We appreciate being here, because it's nice to actually talk to someone. We've been to speak to lots of parties at the moment about what it's actually like down the line to actually deliver the management and maintenance, and our experiences of it, and the challenges of that, and allowing that to actually feed into plans, I think, is really quite important.

As I say, we struggled getting some management companies here, so we're grateful for—. I've actually written at the top of my page of notes 'written statement of service', and the question was going to be, again, you do that because it's a conscious—. You have to do it in Scotland, fine, but it's a conscious decision that you want to do it elsewhere.

Yes. We have treated a lot of what was introduced by the PFSA as good practice or best practice, and we've, as I say, pushed that out across all of our developments in the whole of the UK.

Would there be any initial improvements you could make to the Act that perhaps you would like to see if Welsh legislation came forward? I'm conscious that there's—

I don't know if that's for us to decide, I suppose. [Laughter.]

Okay. Let's leave that there. If there is, after the session, it would be good to have that in writing. Peredur, you wanted to come in.

It's just something that I should have asked earlier, really. When you're talking about charging the home owner and that sort of thing, how does it work when the home owner is the landlord rather than the occupier? How does that relationship work?

So, typically, we will bill the landlord. The way it works for us is the obligation to pay going to the—. Whether it be a long lease or a transfer, that connection for us is with the landlord, with whether it be the freehold or long-leasehold owner. So, if you do have an arrangement whereby, say, you've got a short-term lease, we won't bill those people; it will be the freeholder that we'll bill. Now, what that landlord then does is—. We don't know. And the same works with—. We have arrangements with housing associations, so, typically, we'll bill the housing association as the freeholder rather than, with some exceptions, the shared-ownership leaseholders or—.

Thanks. I just wanted to clarify that, that's all.

No problem. I'm just looking to Joel and Rhys for any further questions. No. Any further comments you would like to make?

No. Thank you very much for having us in and letting us have a discussion with you.

And again, thank you for travelling from Scotland to join us today; we do appreciate it. I think you've given us some steer into where we may want to go. You'll get a transcript—it'll be shared with you after today's session. Please check that for factual accuracy. Any inaccuracy—if you let the clerks know and we can correct the record. And again, we may have some further questions to follow up in writing. The same for you, if you have further comment that you'd wish to make, particularly on any improvements, I'd be interested in hearing that. If you let us know by writing, then of course we can take that into consideration. For the record and for the public to know, we will discuss this evidence session later on. We will seek to report some time in the new year. As you've given evidence, you'll get prior sight of that report and any recommendations that we do decide to make to Welsh Government. But, in the meantime, thank you very much for your time. We do appreciate it. So, thank you.

Okay. I'll move to item 4 on today's agenda. Item 4.1, P-06-1377, 'Decline planning permission for the development planned, proposed as Parc Solar Caenewydd'.

'Decline planning permission for the development planned proposed as Parc Solar Caenewydd; on farm land at the farm known as Penyfodau Fawr Farm, Swansea, SA4 4LN and surrounding areas.

'This development will result in some of the farm being covered in solar panels. The resulting visual impact will be negative on an approach route close to the Gower AONB.'

Additional information is available to members of the committee and members of the public. This was submitted by Richard Lake, with 8,274 signatures online, 2,092 signatures on paper, totalling 10,366 signatures. I'll bring committee members in to discuss this petition and any actions they may wish to take. Rhys ab Owen.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. As the figures you mentioned indicate, this is an important matter locally. However, I think our hands are tied as a committee, as this is going through the developments of national significance process at the moment, so we will not be able to have any response from the Welsh Minister. It's my recommendation, therefore, that we wait until the pending decision, and we keep it open for now until we have received the decision about the DNS process. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch, Rhys. Any other comments from Members? Are Members content? Content. Okay.

Item 4.2, P-06-1378, 'We want farm subsidies to be extended to small scale and market gardeners.'

'Most farmers receive around 50% of their income from government subsidies. This means they have enough money to make a living from farming and they can continue to grow food. Most farms are large but small farms (1-5 hectare) are more productive and tend to grow fruits and vegetables for local markets. These currently are not eligible for subsidies, due to their size, which is unfair and shows a lack of support for local, seasonal food growing.'

Again, additional information is available to members of the committee. Submitted by Karen Schneider, with 413 signatures in total. I bring in Joel James to discuss this petition.

Thank you, Chair, and thanks ever so much for bringing me in there. This is quite an interesting petition, really, that we've received, something that actually I'd never really given thought to before. But I know from the Minister's response that there is going to be a consultation launched soon about farm subsidies, so I think it would most probably be beneficial to almost have a holding exercise, to see what the outcome of that consultation is. I know the Minister is aware of this petition, and that's been fed to her—the comments and that. So, I think that's probably the best step at the moment.

Thank you, Joel. I can see Members are in agreement.

Item 4.3, P-06-1379, 'Ban the sale of single-use vapes'.

'Single-use vapes are becoming increasingly popular, particularly amongst younger people and there is an increasing trend of these being disposed of incorrectly. Whilst the components are recyclable, they are typically, at best, thrown into general waste and more often than not are left as litter in public areas, causing problems for the local environment.'

Submitted by Joseph Pashley, with 455 signatures in total. I will bring committee members in to discuss this petition, and any actions the committee may wish to take. Peredur Owen Griffiths.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I know this is quite a hot topic, especially if you go and speak to young people in high schools in particular—it's a big topic of discussion. I know Rhys ab Owen brought this up in some amendments fairly recently in the Chamber, and obviously it's been debated quite a lot, with other Members as well, including John Griffiths—and Joel, yourself as well—bringing some contributions in on this. It's a difficult one, because a lot of it is a little bit outside our competence, but some of it is within as well. There is work obviously being done—it's been raised with the Government, and it's, as I say, a hot topic, especially with the Minister. I think, because the work is being done, and it will hopefully deliver on the objective that this petition has raised, if we thank the petitioner for raising this, that it is on our radar, but we could either close the petition now or keep it open for 12 months and see how it goes. Chair, I'd be guided by yourself, but I'm thinking, because it's quite a high-profile one, that we keep it open for 12 months and see how it goes from there. But there is also another argument that could say close it now, because the work is going on. But I think my recommendation would probably be to keep it open for 12 months.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr, Peredur. Rhys.

I agree with Peredur Owen Griffiths—with his recommendation to keep it open for 12 months. It's a very topical issue, and it would be very interesting to see where we are within a year.

Okay. Thank you. I can see all Members are in agreement there. I too have had conversations locally about this issue, particularly in Coleg Cambria. So, yes, we will keep it open, seek the update in 12 months' time, unless anything major changes, and we'll bring it forward ahead of that.

Item 4.4, P-06-1380, 'Make Blue badge Applications Lifelong for individuals who have a lifelong diagnosis'.

'Not all disabilities are the same, some are life long, meaning they do not change over time.

'Unfortunately, current guidelines require individuals with lifelong diagnoses, which include learning disabilities or profound and complex needs, to reapply for a blue badge every three years. This process can be very frustrating and time consuming for both individuals and their caregivers and focus heavily on the negative aspects of an individual’s abilities.'

There is further information available to this petition, including a statement from the Equality Act 2010 and other information available to Members. This was submitted by STAND North Wales community interest company, with a total of 1,618 signatures in total. For the record, I have met with STAND North Wales CIC in my capacity as Member of the Senedd for Alyn and Deeside around a different issue, but noted this petition is submitted by them. I met them last month to discuss local issues. At this point, I'll bring Members in to discuss this petition and any actions they may wish to take. Rhys ab Owen.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. I thank the petitioner for this very important petition, a petition that has gained some media attention today. We have received a reply from the Deputy Minister for Climate Change. I must say, I found his description of the reapplication process as being 'essential' to verify applicants' identity and to protect against fraudulent applications to be rather unconvincing. I can't see how it's essential. I accept there is a concern about fraudulent use of blue badges, but the petitioner has responded to the Deputy Minister's response with some quite powerful questions. I think we should certainly write back to the Deputy Minister with those questions and to see his response. It's incredible that they didn't know that there was an opportunity to acquire a lifetime badge. There's certainly a piece of work to be done there to allow people to know of that opportunity. So, I would certainly want those questions to be answered—I would certainly recommend that those questions are put to the Deputy Minister.

Diolch yn fawr, Rhys. Peredur Owen Griffiths.

I'd echo what Rhys says there. I think the process seems to be onerous. The only caveat I would say—this is me racking my brains a little bit; it may be something we can check out with the Deputy Minister—is, from scrutiny of the legislation on elections currently going through, is a blue badge one of the IDs that could be used to vote in a general election? I can't remember if it is—it may not be—because I think it might be photographic evidence, I'm not sure, but it's something that could potentially put an element of risk there that would need to be thought through if that was the case. But maybe the research team, before going ahead with the letter, could just look into that, just making sure that there's not something—. There's something—I can't remember exactly—I'm sure I've seen something somewhere, but I might be barking up the wrong tree. But I would suggest that we write back to the Minister as well.

Okay. Thank you. I can see clerks have made note of your comment. We'll ask the research team to do some investigations into that, but I can see Members are content as well with Rhys's suggestion to write back to the Minister. I agree. They've responded with a series of questions from campaigners that need to be addressed by the Deputy Minister in his response to us as a committee. Okay.

Item 4.5, P-06-1383, 'Pause onshore wind & solar projects >10MW until the full potential of off-shore wind is included'.

'To prevent widescale and needless damage to the Welsh countryside, we call upon the Welsh Government to place a temporary moratorium on all onshore wind and ground based solar developments over 10MW, until Future Wales 2040 and the Welsh Government’s renewable energy targets are updated and incorporated with Wales Marine Energy to ensure that the full potential of offshore wind, rooftop solar, and other emerging energy sources is recognised as a critical priority to combat climate change.'

There is again additional information for members of the public and the committee on this petition, submitted by Carys Matthews with 5,160 signatures online and 3,166 signatures on paper—a total of 8,326 signatures. Just to say, just over half of those, 4,687, are from Wales. I will bring in committee members to discuss this petition and any actions they may wish to take. Joel James.

Thank you, Chair. Thanks ever so much for bringing me in. Unfortunately, this is quite a difficult one. As we've seen with the discussion earlier about the solar panel petition, the Minister won't necessarily comment on planning applications, and made it clear that she doesn't support a moratorium, and I don't necessarily know what more we can do other than maybe to look for change with our constituency or regional hats on, and maybe to thank the petitioner and to close it. But I'm open to suggestions from the other committee members, really—to pass the buck on that. Maybe Rhys might have some comments there. I see him looking down. But if Members are happy that way, I think probably closing the petition is probably the best bet there.

Thank you, Joel. I can see the Minister has been very clear in her response. She does not support a moratorium, so I think it would be difficult for the committee to do much more than that, unless there are ideas from committee members, which I don't think there are. So, are we agreed to close this petition and note it? Yes, all Members are in agreement. Thank you.

Item 5.1, P-06-1247, 'We call on the Welsh Government to lead the way by supporting trials of a four-day week in Wales', submitted by Mark Hooper with 1,619 signatures. Before I bring Members in, I'll make a declaration for the record. I know Mark Hooper really well. I think a lot of people in this room perhaps do. We'll take it as noted for committee members. I will bring in Members now to discuss this petition and any actions they may wish to take. Peredur Owen Griffiths.

I echo that: I know Mark well as well. The other thing is I'd direct people to my register of interests. I've been on a four-day working week seminar as well, so it was one of the things I was paid for, so just for people to be aware of that. I'm an advocate for a four-day working week, so it's apt that I look at this one.

The work that's ongoing has been excellent, I think. The Minister has been good in looking at and undertaking the work and the sub-groups to look through this. I think we should welcome the detailed work that's ongoing in response to our report from this committee. I think we're probably a little bit early to do anything other than keep a watching brief on what's developing and keep this ongoing until we see some further updates on the work being carried out.

Thank you, Peredur. I should say that the work of the Welsh Government was in response to the recommendations made in our report, 'From Five to Four?', following the inquiry into this petition. I should state for the record as well that that report was agreed subject to the addition of the minority view of Joel James, just so it's clear for the record.

Thanks for clarifying that, again, Chair. It's in the sense that if private companies want to go down to a four-day working week, that's up to them, really, but I don't necessarily see why the public sector should be looking to do that.

Noted.

We won't rehearse those arguments now.

We've had an extensive inquiry into this, but nonetheless I think again it's important to note the Member's view. Are Members content to wait for the conclusion? They are. Okay.

Item 5.2, P-06-1294, 'Don't leave metastatic breast cancer patients in Wales behind', submitted by Tassia Haines, with a total of 14,106 signatures. I'm pleased to say that Tassia is here with us in committee this afternoon. Welcome again, Tassia, and to those with you, to be witnessing again our consideration of your petition. Can I firstly, on behalf of the committee, thank you for your engagement with our committee on this important petition? I think that it stands out, and it provides an example of where petitioners engage well with the committee and what the committee can do. So, I'm grateful for that. I will bring Members in to discuss this petition and any actions that we might wish to take. Rhys ab Owen.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. Yes, I'd reiterate the inspiration that this petition is, and how the petitioner has really fought for this despite her own ill health and seeing others suffering. It's very inspirational, and we are very grateful for her work and for her engagement with the Petitions Committee. It has been a long process. The petition closed back in September 2022, but we are very pleased and very grateful for Tassia's perseverance in this.

Tassia has raised some very important questions—questions that I think we need to have clarity from the health Minister on. These are basic questions, such as: why hasn't the Wales Cancer Network board published minutes of meetings yet? There needs to be transparency here, and it's unfortunate that we haven't received information from the cancer network board regarding the decision as to whether it is going to approve the pathway, and if it is, what the plans are for its implementation. So, I think that there are very important questions that we still need to ask.

So, I am grateful to Tassia for the questions that she has provided. My recommendation is that we write to the health Minister again to seek clarification on the decisions made by the cancer network board, and to raise the important and relevant questions that Tassia has asked us to raise. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch yn fawr, Rhys. I can see Members here nodding. I do believe—but we haven't had it confirmed from the Minister, which we should—that the pathway has been approved by the cancer network board on 24 November. Nonetheless, the Minister can make that clear in her response to us, and I think that the remaining questions are ones that need answers from the Minister as well. Do Members agree? They do. Diolch yn fawr, Rhys, and thank you, Tassia, too.

Item 5.3, P-06-1348, 'Commission suitable NHS services in Wales for people with EDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders', submitted by Natasha Evans-Jones, with 1,125 signatures in total. I will bring Members in to discuss this petition and any actions that they may wish to take. Joel James.

Thank you, Chair. As you might know, I met with the petitioner a couple of weeks ago to discuss a few things that I could do as a Senedd Member, in terms of writing off to the health boards. I have also agreed to sponsor a drop-in event raising awareness of that. That's in the process of being finalised, but I think that that will be in the new year at some point. I know, from recent correspondence that the committee has had with the petitioner, that they have raised some further questions and information. I was wondering whether or not we could go back to the Minister and highlight that with her.

Thank you, Joel. Are Members content to do that? They are. We will seek to do that: write back to the Minister and also look forward to the event that you are sponsoring in the Senedd.

And you are more than welcome—. Well, everyone here is more than welcome to attend.

We will certainly try and take you up on that offer.

Item 5.4, P-06-1341, 'Accessible guidance for parents and schools to help develop plans to support children with additional learning needs'. This was submitted by Zoe Beasley, with 347 signatures in total. I bring committee members in to discuss this petition now. I should say that I received correspondence from Zoe, I think maybe last week, or a couple of weeks ago, certainly, in relation to this petition. But, Peredur Owen Griffiths.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. This petition is really important and I thank Zoe for raising it. The Chair of the Children, Young People and Education Committee confirmed that the issues have been raised by the petitioner through their inquiry into equal access to childcare and education for disabled children and young people, and she's noted that the petition is also to be considered as part of that evidence. So, that's a good thing. We know that Zoe welcomes the opportunity for her petition to form part of that inquiry and intends to provide further evidence to that. She's also asking the committee to keep her petition open until the inquiry report is published and the Welsh Government responds, to consider whether the petition's calls have been handled in that. So, I think in light of that, if we can keep it open—I'd agree with Zoe—until we see the outcome of that, to see if there's any further work that we need to do, or whether or not that committee has reported fully, and see what the Government will do on the recommendations.

Okay. Thank you, Pred. I can see that Members are in agreement to do that.

Item 5.5, P-06-1350, 'Re-open Dyfi Ward at Tywyn Hospital now'. This was submitted by Jane Eleanor Seddon Barraclough, with a total of 5,528 signatures, the majority of those on paper. I should say as well that we have received a number of items of correspondence from residents and those interested in this petition in the last few days. I have them in front of me and Members do too. I bring Members in to discuss this petition and any actions they may wish to take. Rhys ab Owen.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Another very important petition this afternoon. We've received evidence of serious concern within the local community about the ward still being closed, and it's disappointing that the ward has been closed since April of this year. We've received a number of questions from the group involved in the ward, trying to reopen it—questions they say have yet to be answered by the health board. It's my recommendation that we should write to the health board, ask for a quarterly update on what action they are taking to recruit staff to reopen the ward, and to present the other questions that the community group has provided to us and to try and get an answer to them, because at the moment, they don't feel that they're being listened to. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch yn fawr, Rhys, for that suggestion to write to the health board. I can see that Members are content and we will take that action up.

Item 5.6, P-06-1356, 'Introduce comprehensive safety measures at the A477 "Fingerpost" junction', submitted by Elliott Morrison, with a total of 10,310 signatures. To provide an update to the committee, as you know, I visited the Fingerpost junction with the constituency Member, Sam Kurtz, on 26 October. We then debated the petition during Road Safety Week here in the Senedd, and we have now received further correspondence from the petitioner. I think we should quote from the correspondence, if that's allowed:

'I am...extremely pleased to see members of the Senedd providing their support to the need for substantive change at this dangerous junction in recognition of the fact that further similar, avoidable, tragedies may be avoided.

'The goal of this petition had one sole purpose, which was to prevent further avoidable loss of life along this stretch of road, and it now seems that this outcome will surely be achieved.'

Therefore, can I thank all those who supported this petition, collecting signatures in their local campaign work? I know the local Members, local representatives, councillors and the MP have been working on this issue for a long time. I thank the petitioner, and we will seek to close this petition on that outcome, but, in doing so, remember Ashley Rogers, who lost his life, and also those others who've tragically lost their lives, their family, friends and loved ones. Our thoughts are very much with them. Members are content.

The next two items will be considered together. We have received a response for both from the Welsh Government. Firstly, item 5.7, P-06-1359, 'Offer Welsh working parents the same financial support for childcare as England', submitted by Jade Richards, with 10,820 signatures, and petition 5.8, P-06-1362, 'Match the new childcare offer in England of 15 hours for 2 year old's from April 2024', submitted by Madelaine Hallam, with a total of 407 signatures. As I said, these two will be considered as one item, and I will bring Members in to discuss these petitions and any actions we may wish to take now. Joel James.

Thank you, Chair. I think it is right that we discuss the two petitions together. I know the petitioner for the first petition, Jade, and I share her frustrations, really, in the sense that the point of that petition is about working parents and the response that they seem to be getting is, ultimately, about non-working parents, really, from the Minister, and there isn't a clear message coming from the Minister. But I note that one petition alone has gone over 10,000; if we add them together then, it's substantially over 10,000, nearly 11,000 signatures. That hits the mark, then, for a debate. I'm conscious there are a lot of other petitions waiting for a debate, as well, but I definitely think this is something that should be highlighted in order to give other Members an opportunity to speak to the Minister in the Chamber and have that discussion about how best to proceed.

Thank you, Joel. A suggestion from Joel James to write to the Business Committee to seek a debate in Senedd time. Are Members content? I can see they are. Okay, we will seek to do that. Joel was right to mention that there are a number of things that have reached the threshold for the item to be considered for debate, but Members are content to push this forward, and, as you say, there's more than one petition on the same item. This is quite an item that is drawing the attention of members of the public. Peredur Owen Griffiths.

Just a thought, because the budget is obviously going to be laid on the nineteenth, and then we'll be debating budgets, and this is to do with funding, in essence, rather than calling for a debate now, that we relook at it after we've seen the budget itself and seen what the outcome would be from the scrutiny of the budget. I'm just throwing it out there, really, because I know our time for debating in the Chamber is limited, and so whether or not some of the answers might come in scrutiny of the budget before we decide to ask for time in Plenary. It's just a question, that's all.

The only thing I was going to say was we're unlikely to get a debate tomorrow; it will be at least the end of January, more likely February, before we'd get one, even with urgency.

Or the other thing that we could do, I suppose, is ask in the general scrutiny of the budget in—I'd imagine this would be children and young people's committee—for them to pick this element up within that scrutiny and then report back to us before we call for a debate.

Given the number of petitions we've had on the matter, why don't we suggest—or I suggest as Chair—we do ask for permission to seek a debate, and if the answers to the questions that the petitioners are seeking are drawn out in the conversations on the scrutiny of the budget and then the scrutiny of the Minister through the committee, then I will take the decision as Chair to withdraw our request, and then do it that way. I think, otherwise, we may be waiting later, and I'm conscious other petitioners are going to come forward into this space as well. So, we will seek a debate now, and if there are substantive answers, or that this will have been answered in those, between now and then, then we can bring that to committee to consider the item.

And just for clarity, are we writing to Children, Young People and Education Committee to bring it to their attention so they could bring it up in their budget scrutiny?

I think it makes sense to do that.

Thank you.

Okay, if Members are content, that was our last petition today.

So, can I, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(ix), propose that the committee resolves to meet in private for the remainder of the meeting, where we will discuss the evidence from Greenbelt, in particular, and perhaps have a discussion about the session before that with Professor Cristina from Leeds university about the work and how we can respond, hopefully positively, to the report and her recommendations there? Okay, I can see Members are content. We will, therefore, see you in January—15 January—2024.

Just as a final comment from me, again, to thank committee Members, but in particular to thank our clerking team and our research team—everyone who helps put our work together throughout the year for another sterling year. Your efforts are truly appreciated. We couldn't do our job without the support that we have, so we're very grateful for another year of that and we look forward to next year. Thank you very much. Meeting closed.