Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the District Executive meeting held on 5th November 2015.

The minutes of the District Executive meeting held on 5^th November 2015, copes of which had been circulated, were taken as read and, having been approved as a correct record, were signed by the Chairman.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Angie Singleton.

In accordance with the Council's current Code of Conduct (adopted July 2012), 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. A DPI is defined in The Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1464) and Appendix 3 of the Council’s Code of Conduct. A personal interest is defined in paragraph 2.8 of the Code and a prejudicial interest is defined in paragraph 2.9.

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. As a result of the change made to the Code of Conduct by this Council at its meeting on 15th May 2014, 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.  If you have a prejudicial interest you must comply with paragraphs 2.9(b) and 2.9(c) of the Code.

Councillor Peter Gubbins declared a personal interest in agenda item 9, Report of the Licensing Task and Finish Group, as he is a member of Yeovil Town Council.

Councillor Henry Hobhouse declared a personal interest in item 9, Report of the Licensing Task and Finish Group as he has a Temporary Events Notice from SSDC.

Questions, statements or comments from members of the public are welcome at the beginning of each meeting of the Council. The total period allowed for public participation shall not exceed 15 minutes except with the consent of the Council and each individual speaker shall be restricted to a total of three minutes. Where there are a number of persons wishing to speak about the same matter, they should consider choosing one spokesperson to speak on their behalf where appropriate. If a member of the public wishes to speak they should advise the committee administrator and complete one of the public participation slips setting out their name and the matter they wish to speak about. The public will be invited to speak in the order determined by the Chairman. Answers to questions may be provided at the meeting itself or a written reply will be sent subsequently, as appropriate. Matters raised during the public question session will not be debated by the Council at that meeting.

There were no questions from members of the public.

The Chairman reminded members that agenda item 8, the Heart of the South West Formal Devolution Bid had been withdrawn from the agenda. He provided an update on the situation and explained that the set of papers to go to all the authorities for debate was not ready to come forward at the current time.

In response to a question from a member on another subject, the Westlands Leisure Centre, the Chairman noted it was a fast moving picture and the final terms had yet to be agreed. The Strategic Director (Operations and Customer Focus) reminded members it had been agreed that update reports would come forward to District Executive every three months, however she was happy to update members on a one to one basis if required.

The Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Culture introduced the report which set out the outcomes of a review of the organisation and sought approval of on the level funding to be included in the 2016-17 budget. She highlighted the organisation had changed its name to Citizens Advice South Somerset (CASS), and introduced a representative from CASS, who was present to answer any questions if necessary. It was noted that CASS served the community well, and they worked closely with the SSDC Welfare Advice team to combine knowledge, but there was no duplication of work.

The Assistant Director (Communities), noted a very comprehensive review had been undertaken regarding activities of CASS. She explained that services needed to be delivered in a different way due to changes in circumstances and resources, and briefly highlighted key changes to the service. Reference was also made to a new service specification in the future.

In response to questions raised during discussion, the Assistant Director (Communities), the Third Sector & Partnerships Co-ordinator and the representative from CASS clarified that:

·         CASS was still affiliated to the national network of Citizens Advice, and the name change reflected a national change to drop the word ‘bureau’.

·         Acknowledgement that accessing central government funding was an issue, but locally, funding for certain specific projects could be bid for.

·         There had been no apparent reduction in case loads as a result of the name change.

In response to comments raised by Scrutiny Committee, the Third Sector & Partnerships Co-ordinator noted that:

·         The SSDC grant currently represented 22% of turnover, but from the end of next year would represent around 35%, and CASS were constantly looking for alternative funding sources.

·         SSDC do charge rent and a service charge for the office space at Petters Way and would also do so when another CASS office is set up at the Boden Centre in Chard.

·         There was no duplication of work with the SSDC Welfare Advice team but there is additional capacity, and protocols were in place to check if clients were working with both.

·         The new service specification was close to being finalised.

Members thanked, and congratulated the team at CASS on the work achieved to date, and were content to allocate the funding in the 2016/17 budget.

The Performance Manager introduced the new Performance Officer, who then presented the report to members highlighting three performance indicators of interest PI010, PI031 and PI029. The Performance Manager noted that new software was due to be installed to monitor performance of the call centre and a further report was due to made to Scrutiny Committee in January.

The Scrutiny Chairman, commented that members sought clarification as to what steps were being taken to address the increase in PI 029. Members had also noted a report was due to District Executive in the new year regarding transforming customer handling within SSDC.

The Portfolio Holder for Area South explained the nature of the increase in complaints at the Crematorium. During a brief discussion members and officers gave suggested explanations for changes in other performance indicators.

At the conclusion of discussion, the Chairman noted that a message would be circulated to all members when the software for monitoring of performance of the call was back in place.

The Heart of the South West formal devolution bid is due to be discussed at a meeting in Cullompton on Wednesday 25^th November.  Therefore, this report will be circulated under separate cover on Friday 27^th November to include the latest information from that meeting. 

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Task and Finish Group provided a brief overview of the report and the work undertaken. He explained they had met with representatives from Wincanton and Yeovil Town Councils, and one was happy to stop the delegated work whilst the other was not so keen. There had been much work and discussion about fees and in several cases they did not cover SSDC costs. He highlighted that regarding town council delegation enforcement was an issue, as SSDC did the enforcing but the fees were taken by another authority.

Scrutiny Committee endorsed all the recommendations and noted that should delegation arrangements with Wincanton Town Council cease, arrangements had already been put in place to allow taxi drivers to liaise with SSDC Customer Services staff based at Churchfields.

In response to comments raised during discussion, the Licensing Manager clarified that:

·         Ideally SSDC need to look at reducing some fees and raising others.

·         SSDC policy was that stall holders in a designated market which acquired this status by virtue of a grant, enactment or order, were not considered to be street traders.

·         SSDC were the only authority nationally, who delegated the taxi licensing function.

At the end of discussion the Chairman noted he would also raise the issue of licensing fees at the District Councils Network (DCN). Members were content to approve the recommendations and to endorse recommendation 1 for final confirmation by Full Council.

The Portfolio Holder (Environment and Economic Development) introduced the report as detailed in the agenda, and the Economic Development Manager provided a presentation giving a brief history of the site and concept, achievements to date and examples of some of the tenants and types of businesses now operating from the centre. The presentation included highlights about:

·         Occupancy rates and the 4-year criteria regarding ‘churning’ was becoming more relevant

·         Tenant satisfaction

·         Project outputs, job creation and financial projections

·         Making a profit since 2013 and now recovering our earlier losses

·         Proposals for a phase 2 in the future

In response to comments raised during discussion, the Economic Development Manager noted that:

·         The team were assessing the wider impact on the local economy of the businesses based at the centre.

·         The rental space at the centre was not subsidised, and had been set independently by the District Valuer with rental values reflecting the higher end of the Yeovil rental market.

·         With the exception of the anchor tenants, tenants were not leaseholders but held a licence on a rolling 28 days basis. Businesses could give just 28 days notice and leave.

·         Superfast broadband was available at the centre and business support provided for the tenants where required.

·         SSDC Property Services had compiled the maintenance plan and schedule for the building and so there should not be any surprises for maintenance work required.

Some members expressed the concern that there was a need for similar workplaces in centres outside of Yeovil. In response, the Interim Chief Executive noted there would be a meeting shortly to discuss the issue of workspaces across the district.

At the conclusion of debate, members were content to approve all recommendations.

The Chairman introduced the report and there being no further discussion members were content to note the decision taken.

In response to comments made by Scrutiny, the Assistant Director (Finance and Corporate Services) noted that the Motion raised at Council in September to investigate the possibility of two hours free car parking would be part of the Budget update report presented to District Executive in January 2016. The Chairman noted a report on the new Council Plan would not come forward until at least February as officers were waiting to understand fully the implications of the Comprehensive Spending Review and a statement was not due to be made until mid-December.

The Chairman informed members of amendments to the forward plan which included two new reports for January and February and a revised date for the County Wide Tenancy Strategy report.

Members noted that the next scheduled meeting of the District Executive would take place on Thursday 7^th January 2016 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Brympton Way, Yeovil commencing at 9.30 a.m.