Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 222 KBVenue: Council Chamber, Brympton Way, Yeovil, Somerset.
Contact: Angela Cox, Democratic Services Specialist - 01935 462148 Email: angela.cox@southsomerset.gov.uk
| No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Minutes of Previous Meeting To approve as a correct record the minutes of the District Executive meeting held on 4th January 2018. Minutes: The minutes of the District Executive meeting held on 4th January 2018, copies of which had been circulated, were taken as read and, having been approved as a correct record, were signed by the Chairman. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: There were no apologies for absence. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Declarations of Interest In accordance with the Council's current Code of Conduct (as amended 26 February 2015), which includes all the provisions relating to Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI), personal and prejudicial interests, Members are asked to declare any DPI and also any personal interests (and whether or not such personal interests are also "prejudicial") in relation to any matter on the Agenda for this meeting. Members are reminded that they need to declare the fact that they are also a member of a County, Town or Parish Council as a Personal Interest. Where you are also a member of Somerset County Council and/or a Town or Parish Council within South Somerset you must declare a prejudicial interest in any business on the agenda where there is a financial benefit or gain or advantage to Somerset County Council and/or a Town or Parish Council which would be at the cost or to the financial disadvantage of South Somerset District Council. Minutes: There were no declarations of interest made by Members. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Public Question Time Minutes: There were no questions from members of the public present. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chairman's Announcements Minutes: The Chairman advised that SSDC had successfully bid for funding from the Housing Infrastructure Fund and had been awarded £1.98m towards construction of the link road through the Brimsmore development in Yeovil. Although further funding would be required to construct the road, it would open up the development site. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
SSDC Council Action Plan 2018-19 Additional documents:
Decision:
Minutes: The Chairman advised that Council had adopted a 5 year plan setting out the overall direction of travel for the Council in 2016. Underneath the Council Plan was the Annual Action Plan which was reviewed annually.
The People, Performance and Change Lead advised that all Members had been consulted by email on any amendments to the Annual Action Plan and the Scrutiny Committee had also provided feedback which would be incorporated into the final document to be presented to Full Council for approval. She said there had been reference to the inclusion of land based businesses however, this would form part of the Economic Development Strategy to be produced later in the year.
During discussion the following points were made:-
· SSDC were now part of the IAero project with a range of other partners and were understanding how it reacted with the Innovation Centre. · The Heart of the South West Joint Committee could engage with the NFU to understand their future direction through their Productivity Plan. · Although SSDC were not the delivery agent for Broadband, the connectivity in the area was a KPI. · An absence of formal complaints was not a measure of customer satisfaction and more work would be carried out on customer satisfaction, · Some of the KPI’s were directly benchmarked with other local authorities and some were local KPI’s. · There was data available at postcode level and there was some work to be done to join up this data to Ward level. · The measuring of the number of fly tipping incidences was to be separated from other incidences of anti-social behaviour. · The household recycling rates were now reported as a Somerset wide figure and were not separated into Council areas.
It was noted that there was no mention of the use of alternative technologies within the Council Plan and it was agreed to add this in to the Our Focus section.
At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to confirm the Council Plan, Annual Action Plan (as amended) and key performance indicators for approval by Full Council at their meeting on 22nd February 2018.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2018/19 Draft Revenue and Capital Budgets and Medium Term Financial Plan Additional documents:
Decision:
Minutes: The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services introduced the report and advised that a number of the key trends had been translated into pictures and the report contained some sensitivity testing to demonstrate the impact of an extra percentage on the budget. He noted that SSDC had experienced the most severe budget cut in England but despite this, a balanced budget was being proposed and services protected, due in part to officers work, Transformation and income generation. The recommended Council Tax increase was £5 for the year.
The Section 151 Officer confirmed that he was satisfied the proposed budget was reasonable and robust and the reserves were adequate. He noted that although a negative Rate Support Grant was proposed in the 2019/20 financial year, the Government were committed to consulting on this during 2018.
In response to questions from Members, the Section 151 Officer confirmed that:-
· The proposed Council Tax increase was £5 and the Somerset Rivers Authority funding of £1.85 was included within this. · The calculation for New Homes Bonus funding had changed the previous year and this was now reflected in the Medium Term Financial Plan. SSDC’s reliance on this funding would be reduced in the future. · He would clarify the incremental changes and absolute amounts in the report presented to Full Council.
At the conclusion of the debate, Members voted on each recommendation and unanimously agreed to confirm the Draft Budget and proposed council tax for 2018/19 to Full Council for approval.
(Voting: unanimous in favour) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2017/18 Revenue Budget Monitoring Report for the quarter ending 31st December 2017 Additional documents:
Decision:
Minutes: The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services introduced the report and advised that this was the third quarter review of the councils revenue budgets.
The Chairman noted that although planning income had increased, this was offset by the cost of the service. He also confirmed that SSDC had taken the opportunity afforded by the Government to increase planning application fees.
It was clarified that the Funding Adviser and grant mentioned in paragraph 13 of the report related to SPARK (part of the network of Councils for Voluntary Service).
At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to note the recommendations of the report.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2017/18 Capital Budget Monitoring Report for the quarter ending 31st December 2017 Additional documents: Decision:
Minutes: The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services introduced the report and advised that the estimated capital spend had been revised up to £18.497m. He also noted the flexible use of capital receipts.
The Chairman noted that the major slippage on the capital programme was the loan to the Somerset Waste Partnership for new vehicles.
There was no debate and Members were content to approve the revised capital programme.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Decision:
Minutes: The Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Culture introduced the report noting the proposal to move to a two year funding arrangement with the charitable organisations which would help them to access other funding and give them some security. There would be a monitoring agreement with break clauses and this could be a step towards three year funding in the future.
The Third Sector and Equalities Co-ordinator confirmed that the organisations had significantly improved their performance and the Council had confidence in them.
During debate, the following points were made:-
· The 3 organisations linked in with several SSDC services. · Recommendation 3 be amended to add ‘considering’ and ‘rolling’ · If a grant funded organisation had a service level agreement with SSDC it could only apply for further grant funding for a specific project or piece of work.
At the conclusion of the debate, Members were pleased to confirm the proposals for two-year funding agreements with Access for All, CASS and SPARK.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Loan to Somerset Care & Repair Ltd Decision:
Minutes: The Chairman noted that the report had originally been released as a Portfolio Holder decision, however, due to the size of the proposed loan and the departure from current policy, he had agreed that it be determined at District Executive. He noted that Somerset Care and Repair was a not-for-profit organisation working across Somerset and relied upon grants to bring homes back into use. The loan would allow the completion of the conversion at the Milford Inn and SSDC would have a charge on the property as security.
During discussion, it was noted that SSDC would have 5 year nomination rights to the converted properties when complete. It was also suggested that the current loans policy be reviewed in light of this situation.
At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to confirm the recommendations of the report.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Food Hygiene Rating Scheme - Cost Recovery for Requested Re-inspections Decision:
Minutes: The Portfolio Holder for Area West, Environmental Health and Health & Safety advised that there was a great deal of work involved in the setting up of a re-rating of a food hygiene inspection and the proposal was for full cost recovery only.
The Principal Food and Safety Officer advised that although food premises inspections were statutory, the food hygiene rating scheme was not. It had been introduced in 2011, and, in response to concerns from businesses who had to currently wait for 3 months for a re-inspection, the option to charge would mean a re-inspection could take place on receipt of the fee. He noted that the charge was similar to neighbouring authorities.
During discussion, Members noted the good relations with and helpful advice given by the food hygiene officers to food premises operators. I was noted that no charge was made for the first food hygiene rating scheme inspection, in accord with the scheme.
At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to agree the proposal to introduce a cost recovery fee for Food Hygiene Rating Scheme re-rating requests.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Decision:
Minutes: The Director for Commercial Services and Income Generation advised that following the David Lock Associates report the previous year, it had been agreed that SSDC would monitor its assets and ensure they were fit for purpose and performing. She said the Performance Management Indicators would feed in to the quarterly performance monitoring report to District Executive.
The Commercial Property Land and Development Manager advised that SSDC would be more strategic with its assets in the future and would measure their performance and plan in the short, medium and longer term what to do with them. She noted that two Property Development Managers would shortly be joining the team.
In response to questions from Members, the Director for Commercial Services and Income Generation advised that:-
· The Council’s Disposals Policy and Community Asset Policy would be reviewed and refreshed shortly. · The Performance Management Indicators would be in line with the Key Performance Indicators and would provide headline information. If further detail was required then it could be provided by officers. · If a decision to dispose of a property asset was made, then there may be need for confidentiality although the Area Member could be informed.
During discussion, the following points were made:-
· It was not in the public interest to breach confidentiality when disposing of an asset. · Properties where SSDC had tenants occupying them would be treated differently to those which were empty. · A more commercial approach would be taken to the disposal of small areas of land in the future, however, those disposed of in the past often enabled a housing development.
At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to confirm the implementation of the Performance Management Indicator (PMI) monitoring framework.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
District Executive Forward Plan Additional documents: Decision:
Minutes: The following addition to the Forward Plan was noted:
· Key 4 Life Project – March 2018
The following additional consultations were noted:-
· Local government ethical standards: stakeholder consultation · Improving the use of planning conditions: consultation on draft regulations
The Chairman noted that SSDC would not be making a corporate response to the County Council’s Library consultation but the Chief Executive would communicate the Council’s aspiration to work with communities to find the best solution for them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Date of Next Meeting Minutes: Members noted that the next scheduled meeting of the District Executive would take place on Thursday 1st March 2018 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Brympton Way, Yeovil commencing at 9.30 a.m. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Exclusion of Press and Public Decision:
Minutes:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Commercial Services & Income Generation Update (Confidential) Decision:
Minutes: The Portfolio Holder for Property, Climate Change and Income Generation introduced the report and outlined the investments made and possible future investment opportunities for the Council.
At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to note the progress to date on service income reviews and initiatives and note the early performance of the commercial property investment portfolio and ongoing property asset review, which was being delivered in line with the approved Commercial Strategy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
