Agenda, decisions and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Alex Parmley, the Chief Executive, and Clare Pestell, Director for Commercial Services and Income Generation.

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. 

There were no declarations of interest made by Members.

There were no members of the public present.

The Chairman thanked Council staff for their work and particularly those who had responded to the flooding incident in Chard earlier in the week. 

The Chairman advised that the Appointments Committee were meeting the following week and they hoped to recommend the appointment of an interim Chief Executive to Council on Thursday 8^th July.  She also noted that there was a special meeting of the District Executive on the morning of 8^th July. 

(Voting: 9 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention)

The Portfolio Holder for Protecting Core Services introduced the report and said the planning service still required improvement but it was improving.  He felt the Scrutiny Committee debate had been very good and he said officers were doing all they could to improve the service.  The effects of COVID and the phosphate issues made evaluation of improvements in the service premature. The Planning Reimagined group would meet again in 6 months time and would report again to District Executive.

In response to questions from Members, the Portfolio Holder for Protecting Core Services the Director for Service Delivery advised:

• The number of planning enforcement reports had increased as people had worked from home and were more aware of their area but the staffing level had also increased.  There was also now an on-line reporting system and there had been an increase in reports since this had been introduced. 
• The majority of planning applications received were householder applications but there were still minor and major applications submitted.  Statistics on the number and type of applications would be circulated to Members.
• The fees for householder applications were lower and they often took more time to assess than allocated.  The recent amendments made to the Scheme of Delegation would save officer time as most applications would not be determined at Area Committees.
• It was very difficult to prevent breaches of planning permission.
• Planning conditions were clear and there were some repeat offenders who pushed the boundaries of their permission.  Some cases were being progressed to court action and it was hoped this would be a deterrent to other.

·         Meetings with Area Chairmen and planning officers had now started.

·         Due to the size of the proposals, many solar panel applications were automatically referred to Regulation Committee under the two star referral process.

·         Consideration that planning briefings should be compulsory for all Councillors.

·         Planning application validation had been reduced to less than one week which was a great achievement and would be maintained.

·         An interim Lead Specialist and a Technical Lead Specialist had been appointed to the planning service.

·         The interim Lead Specialist had been liaising with Town and Parish Councils to provide specific training to them, focusing on their role as consultees in the planning process.

·         The interim Lead Specialist would also be providing further training to all Councillors on the planning process, probity and the Member role as refresher training.  Any changes in legislation would also be communicated to all Members.

During discussion the following points were made:-

·         Review of 2 star reference of planning applications to the Regulation Committee was discussed at the Area Chairmens meeting the previous day.

·         The Scrutiny Committee members had expressed their gratitude to the officers who had assisted in the flooding event in Chard earlier that week.

At their meeting earlier in the week, the Scrutiny Committee had questioned how SSDC’s planning service performance compared to other local and national authorities.  They also raised questions regarding ward member involvement in applications going forward to Regulation Committee, concerns regarding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

The Portfolio Holder for Commercial Services and Income Generation advised that it was correct to review the Priority Project 1 of the Annual Action Plan as the Council recovered from the effects of the COVID pandemic and add a quarterly action plan.  

The Economic Development Specialist advised that if agreed, the outcomes and key milestones within Priority Project 1 would be aligned with the Recovery and Renewal Strategy as adopted by District Executive on 1^st April and would allow a more focussed delivery of the objectives.

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee said they had raised several points regarding sources of funding, engagement with education providers to assist with employment, what progress had been made with the health and well-being framework, more information required on the digital infrastructure, how the Action Plan would integrate in the future of local government in Somerset, and, any carry over of work not completed in quarter one to quarter two.  He noted that the majority of questions were answered at their meeting.  

The Portfolio Holder for Commercial Services and Income Generation advised that the funding of all Council Plan actions and objectives were regularly reviewed and further details would be reported shortly to the District Executive within the Financial Strategy report.  He also confirmed that SSDC worked closely with Yeovil College as an education provider of leadership in employment.

The Lead Specialist for Economy, Place and Recovery confirmed that he had attended the Scrutiny Committee meeting to answer their questions and he could provide more detail if required, particularly regarding the welfare and wellbeing plan, which was a joint project between Economy and Community.

The Lead Specialist for Communities advised that as the NHS emerged from the pandemic, they were more collaborative at a local level and they were developing a neighbourhood approach to working with SSDC and the voluntary sector to address health.   The long term health effects of COVID were not yet known and the NHS had done some public heath profiling so they could work together on a Health and Wellbeing Framework and use the information to bring funding applications forward. 

In response to a question, the Economic Development Specialist confirmed that the recovery and growth projects being progressed by Economic Development team had two overarching themes of inclusivity and environment.  Green jobs had been discussed with staff at Yeovil College in their training provision for re-skilling workers and there was an aspiration for employment hubs across the district which would link to the Government’s green jobs plan.

At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to propose the recommendations to Full Council. 

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services advised that the impact of COVID had affected staff as they administered the new business grants as well as continuing in their budget forecasting and monitoring roles and he thanked them for their work in a challenging year.  He said there were some favourable and some adverse variances by service as detailed in table 2 and he said the key areas for the year were the adverse impact in the commercial investments, car park income, the suspension of the recovery action in revenues and benefits, the increase in planning applications for development management and the enforcement action required.  Also, the remote working by all staff had meant a number of changes to support this.  He concluded that the Council continued to secure value for money and remain in a good financial position.  Some unallocated funds had been drawn down but this was within tolerance.  He proposed that the recommendations be agreed by Members.

In response to a question, the Director for Strategy and Support Services said she would confirm later that SSDC data had been passed to SCC on those businesses who had previously received government grants  to help them administer the new £6M for business grants.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services said that Somerset had a high proportion of micro businesses and many missed out in the original government COVID grants scheme for various reasons. It was hoped that the new funding would be targeted towards those businesses.

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee said they had sought clarification on the term re-gear in relation to the commercial investments in the report and also Table 1 – page 23 – members noted there was a large variation on spend associated with the Chief Executives (Directorate) budget.

The Lead Specialist for Finance confirmed that there had been an overspend of £270,000 relating to the Director post, an efficiency of service, transformation and consultancy costs and a small  amount on Stronger Somerset.   

The recommendations were proposed and seconded and were unanimously agreed by Members.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services noted that SSDC had increased the capital allocated for commercial investment during the year to allow the Fareham battery storage project to come forward, but there was still an underspend at the year-end. He noted that the majority of expenditure had been on commercial investments made to support the delivery of council services. The council’s regeneration schemes had benefitted from capital expenditure as detailed in paragraph 8 of the report.  The Council’s borrowing was mainly internal borrowing and it was backed by the assets bought. He concluded the year end point was favourable in a changeable financial environment and he proposed the recommendations be agreed by Members.

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee said they had asked if there was any update regarding the Arlingclose review of external borrowing options and if so, could it be circulated to Scrutiny members for information?  They had also requested additional training regarding capital and interest payments and had asked why the council was barred from utilising Public Works Loans Board for low interest borrowing, for which a response had been provided.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services advised that there were restrictions placed by the Government recently on how the Public Works Loan Board could be used to discourage some Councils from using it to gain commercial income.  Therefore SSDC could not use this as a source of funding as it had future intent to borrow for commercial income generation.  

The recommendations were proposed and seconded and unanimously agreed by Members.

The Portfolio Holder for the Yeovil Refresh said that unless grant funding was forthcoming then areas of the Yeovil Refresh scheme would have to be deleted and SSDC would have to re-apply to the Future High Streets Fund.  Doing this then ran a risk of not meeting future criteria of the Future High Streets Fund and so also risked losing the £9.75m granted by them.  He said that town centres were changing and they needed the support of their local councils to survive, as they were being supported by various local employers and national companies.  He also thanked officers for their commitment to the projects and he proposed that the recommendations be agreed by Members.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services noted that Councillors had benefitted from a confidential appendix which detailed the additional costs which could not be made public without compromising the Council’s commercial position. He noted that development costs had increased in some areas and all the possible savings had been reviewed.  The town centre workspace project was not included and it would come forward as a separate business case.  He said it was an unavoidable cost to move forward with the Yeovil Refresh and it was affordable.  It would attract attention from developers and businesses who were looking for places to invest and he seconded the recommendations. 

During discussion, Members voiced their support for the Yeovil Refresh and to support long term regeneration across the district. 

It was clarified that the Yeovil Vision had covered the whole of the town and surrounding area whereas the Yeovil Refresh was specific to the town centre.

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee thanked the Portfolio Holder for the Yeovil Refresh and the Portfolio Holder for Protecting Core Services for attending their meeting and answering Members questions.  He said they had questioned the repayment period of 50 years for the loans and also whether there would be developer contributions or business rates pooling funding in the scheme.  They had also asked what would happen if the funding detailed in the report recommendation was not agreed and how much of the scheme would be scaled-back.

The recommendation, having been proposed and seconded, were unanimously agreed by Members.

The following additions and amendments to the Forward Plan were noted:

•         Cyber Security Strategy – August 2021

•         SSDC Financial Strategy – moved to Sept 2021

•         Review of SSDC Commercial Strategy – moved to Sept 2021

•         Capital and Revenue Budget Monitoring reports for Quarter 1 – moved to Sept 2021

•         Refresh of Medium Term Financial Plan – Sept 2021

•         Review of Chard Regeneration Scheme – Sept 2021

•         Update on the Recycle More Project – November 2021

It was also noted that the Scrutiny Committee had suggested it would be useful to compare and align the Scrutiny Work Programme with the District Executive Forward Plan where appropriate. Scrutiny Members had also asked when the CIL funding and allocation report would be presented to Council, the status of the current Local Plan review and also regarding the A358 Taunton to Southfields dualling, what role did SSDC have in supporting the parishes affected.

Members noted that there was a Special meeting of the District Executive on Thursday 8^th July 2021 commencing at 9.30am as a virtual meeting via Zoom.

They also noted that the next monthly meeting of the District Executive would take place on Thursday, 5^th August 2021 commencing at 9.30 a.m.

The venue of the meeting would depend upon the decision of Council on 8^th July 2021.