Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the District Executive meeting held on 4^th February 2016.

The minutes of the District Executive meeting held on 4^th February 2016, copes of which had been circulated, were taken as read and, having been approved as a correct record, were signed by the Chairman.

The minutes of the District Executive meeting held on 4^th February 2016, 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 Jo Roundell Greene.

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.

There were no declarations of interest made.

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.

Mr J Bowman, a local Post Master, addressed members regarding agenda item 10 – Proposed Amendments to the Business Rates Discretionary Rate Relief. He highlighted to members there were differences in the relief available between some town Post Offices and those in rural areas. With changes to contracts in the future many more Post Offices were likely to become less viable. He hoped members would reconsider the item and think of the implications to the rural Post Office network.

The Chairman noted that he and the Interim Chief Executive had recently attended a Heart of the South West devolution meeting, where it had been agreed to undertake a governance review. He also provided a brief update on the latest situation regarding develoution.

Councillor David Recardo, as SSDC appointed governor to Yeovil District Hospital, had given his apologies for the meeting, as he was attending a governor’s meeting.

In response to a comment from the Scrutiny Committee, it was confirmed that the problems the hospital had encountered since introducing ANPR parking arrangements would be noted, and forwarded to the SSDC Engineering & Property Services Manager to consider when implementing any similar arrangements for SSDC.

The Strategic Director (Operations and Customer Focus) also provided a brief update on health prevention programmes.

At the conclusion of the short discussion, members were content to note the report.

The Chairman introduced the report and noted that if approved at Council, it would be the biggest decision the authority had made for over fifteen years. It would be a significant decision and not without risk, but at the moment members were only being asked to approve the concept. He acknowledged the transition through transformation would not be smooth, but there were experiences to draw on from elsewhere and SSDC would design its own model.No matter what option was taken, the funding shortfall for future years would have to be found.

The Portfolio Holder for Transformation commented the programme would enhance the customer experience and that there would be substantial savings which is why it was being recommended to Full Council.The proposals should also free up staff to work onpriorities such as income generation. She also thanked the Scrutiny Committee for their comments.

The Performance Managers explained aspects of the report in more detail including:

·         The report sets out the design principles for a citizen centric council.

·         In essence it describes a commissioning model, there is a degree of separation between strategy and delivery roles.

·         The Headline Business Case sets out the main roles.

·         Technology is essential to the model, but the technology enables transformation it does not lead it.

·         Significant financial implications

The use of funding from New Homes Bonus to support the Medium Term Financial Plan via the Revenue Support Reserve was queried. It was agreed that the Assistant Director (Finance & Corporate Services) would re-word the explanation to provide more detail in the report to full Council.

During further discussion other comments included:

·         This will be a colossal change for our staff but we can benefit from the experience of others who have taken a similar route, so lessening our risks.

·         There are positives for SSDC in better, more efficient and sometimes different delivery to citizens.

·         Case work will be followed through in a shorter time.

·         Performance measures will be much improved and assist better performance management.

·         Transformation is open ended and SSDC will need to be open to data sharing with other agencies in the future.

·         There is a need to be radical to get the required savings.

·         Selecting the right IT will be key.

·         Although it may not look the same as it does now, feel a commitment to Area Working should remain.

·         As members, we need to be clear on where we want to arrive as there may not be enough funding to do all that we want to do.

·         The proposed governance through the programme board, which will periodically report back to District Executive, will allow everyone to ask questions and know what is going on.

·         The sooner the end aspirations and structure are clear the better.

·         Unions have not been formally consulted to date.

·         Staff are important and need to be happy in their work, properly involved and have their fears acknowledged. They must also be helped to cope with change, including possible redundancies.

·         Fully support transformation and confident  ...  view the full minutes text for item 148.

The Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Culture introduced the report and the Third Sector & Partnerships Co-ordinator presented it in more detail. He reminded members that funding for Citizens Advice South Somerset and South Somerset Voluntary & Community Action had already been agreed but data monitoring to date was included within the report.

In response to comments made by members and by the Scrutiny Committee, officers responded to points of detail and explained that:

·         Use of digital technology and being involved with carnivals in South Somerset had increased participant numbers significantly for Somerset Film.

·         As Somerset Rural Youth Project had been successful with projects to help reduce anti-social behaviour, the requests for them to work in communities with such issues had reduced.

At the end of a brief discussion members acknowledged the valuable work of volunteers, and were content to approve funding to the organisations numbered 3 to 5 as indicated in table 1 on page 65 of the agenda.

The Performance Officer presented the report as detailed in the agenda and highlighted two performance indicators of interest which were below target – PI 003 and PI 032. She noted with regard to PI 031 that data was still being collated, but figures were unavailable for the third quarter as monitoring software for the call centre had only recently been installed.

Scrutiny Committee had noted a slight rise in complaints within Arts and Leisure but acknowledged the service had also been engaging with more customers. It was also noted by the Chairman that a show at the Octagon had been cancelled by a director at very late notice, which understandably had generated some complaints.

In response to a question raised during discussion, the Chairman noted there would be a separate discussion with officers, regarding the timeframes involved with completing the legal paperwork for Section 106 agreements.

At the conclusion of discussion members were content to note the corporate performance monitoring report.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services introduced the item, and referring to the comments made at public question time, noted there were two ways in which Post Offices received rate relief, with the criteria laid out by government. He noted that substantially the policy document was same as previously but with some re-wording.

During debate there was much discussion about Post Offices and local examples provided of the issues some communities were facing. The Assistant Director (Finance & Corporate Services) and the Revenues & Benefits Manager responded to points of detail and noted:

·         If members wished to do something specifically for Post Offices then the whole policy would need to be revised accordingly.

·         Struggling Post Offices could apply for hardship relief but this was only short-term.

·         The policy regarding Post Offices had not been amended in the document.

·         The order in which reliefs were applied was laid down by government

·         If members were happy to approve the changes in the policy, as they are not specific to Post Offices, it was suggested officers including Area Development representatives, meet with Mr Bowman to discuss the wider issues affecting Post Offices, especially those in rural areas.

Scrutiny Committee had not raised any concerns and noted the detailed work of the Task and Finish group on the matter.

Members were content to approve the amended Discretionary Rate Relief Policy, (DRRP) to come into effect on 1 April 2016, and to note the work of the Scrutiny Task and Finish Group.

The Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning introduced the item noting the document was very technical. Due to the importance of the consultation, District Executive were being asked to approve the response.

The Assistant Director (Economy) explained the consultation in more detail and highlighted elements of the report.

During discussion some members felt Question 7 was a little strange and the response could be worded more strongly. In response, the Assistant Director (Finance and Corporate Services) explained that when read in conjunction with Question 6, the detail was more clear.

Scrutiny Committee felt the response was very detailed and thorough and thanked officer for their work.

At the conclusion of discussion members were content to approve the response to the Government consultation on the future criteria for payment of new Homes Bonus.

Members noted the following additions and amendments to the Executive Forward Plan:

Additions:

·         Draft Charging Schedule – Community Infrastructure Levy (May)

·         Strategic Housing Market Assessment (June)

·         Five-Year Housing Land Supply / Authorities Monitoring report (July)

·         Rural Broadband (April/May)

Amendments:

·         Somerset Waste Partnership New Waste Collection Model – may be in April or possibly May

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