Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the District Executive meeting held on 3^rd March 2016.

The minutes of the District Executive meeting held on 3^rd March 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 Peter Seib.

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 Nick Weeks declared a personal interest in Agenda item 11, Asset Transfer of Castle Cary Market House, as a member of Castle Cary Town Council, as recipients of the asset. 

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 present.

There was no announcements from the Chairman.

Councillor Sue Steele, as the SSDC appointed representative to Musgrove Park Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, presented the report to Members.

The Chairman noted that it would to useful to have an executive summary of the key points of the Hospital Governors meetings in the future and Councillor Steele agreed to provide this.

At the conclusion of the debate, Members were pleased to note the report provided.

The Chairman advised that the Council Plan was still a working document and Members comments would be fed into it.  He noted that the Scrutiny Committee had raised pertinent points at their meeting earlier in the week which would be incorporated.  He further noted that targets listed in the Annual Action Plan should be delivered within that financial year and it would be presented at the same time as the Council budget in February each year to ensure the projects were fully funded. 

During discussion it was noted that:-

·         A small amendment to the Vision statement had been agreed to change the word ‘happy’ to ‘safe’ on the first page of the Council Plan.

·         The reference to some Licensing functions delivered by Town & Parish Councils should be removed from the Appendix 3: Core work of the Council. 

·         Some of the projects may overlap between the Regeneration Board and the Income Generation Board however it should be clear which Board should take the lead on a particular project. 

·         Appendix 2 – Snapshot Profile – a further breakdown of how the £9.98m savings were found should be added as a hyperlink to the document on the website to provide additional information to the public.

Comments from the Scrutiny Committee included:-

·         the ‘Economy’ element of the Plan should also make explicit reference to the importance of agriculture and the very rural nature of the district.

·         6 monthly updates on the progress of the actions within the Action Plan should be submitted to the Scrutiny Committee

At the conclusion of the debate, the Chairman confirmed that the minor amendments suggested would be made and there would be a further opportunity to debate the Plan at Full Council.   Members were content to recommend the Council Plan 2016 – 2021 to Full Council for adoption. 

The Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Culture noted that the Council had a statutory duty to provide transit pitches and there was a need to monitor the site arrangements and manage them in the best way possible.  Following the departure of the last Site Manager, 3 options had been considered for their future management and it was considered that Elim Housing were the best option for SSDC. 

The Housing and Welfare Manager confirmed that Elim Housing already managed a number of transit sites in Dorset and Somerset and they were very positive about the process.  Although there was an initial higher cost to appointing them, she was hopeful that savings would be generated in year 2 of the contract from improved management of the sites. 

In response to questions from Members, the Housing and Welfare Manager and the Assistant Director (Health and well-Being) advised that:-

·         The rents of the Park Homes were structured so that part of the money went into a sinking fund to replace them in around 30 years. 

·         The rents from the 3 sites generated around £100,000 p.a. and they broke even after the money set aside for the sinking fund.

·         All the Park Homes had their own key meters to pay for their electricity and Wessex Water were responsible for collecting the water rates. 

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee said they were reassured by the funding put aside to cover the cost of replacing the Park Homes and that SSDC would continue to make regular site inspections. 

At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to confirm the appointment of Elim Housing to manage the Council’s Gypsy sites. 

The Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Culture introduced the application for a maximum grant of £352,722 comprising of Section 106 contributions and a capital grant towards providing indoor swimming for both the Huish Episcopi Academy and the local community.  She noted the grant of £481,600 secured from Sport England towards the only swimming facility within that area of the district. 

The Assistant Director (Health & Wellbeing) said there had been a long standing strategy to provide a cover over the existing open air swimming pool.  The construction cost risk would be held by the Huish Episcopi Academy and he commended the positive business plan. 

In response to questions from Members, the Assistant Director (Health & Wellbeing) and the Assistant Director (Finance and Corporate Services) advised that:-

·         The project included the complete retiling of the pool, the overhead structure, spectator seating, one new changing room and the refit of the existing changing rooms. 

·         The Academy had charitable status but could only recover VAT in areas of education therefore, because the pool would also be used by the community an agreement had been reached with HMRC that 50% of the income was recoverable.

·         The capital grant of £200,038 was a one-off capital receipt.  

·         Sport England had worked with the Academy prior to offering their grant and they would have set grant conditions. 

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee thanked officers for securing the grant funding and said they had been assured that any over-contract spend would be the responsibility of the Academy.

At the conclusion of the debate, Members were pleased to confirm the grant to Huish Episcopi Academy towards the enclosure of the existing outdoor pool.

The Chairman advised this was an unbudgeted item due to the reduction in P4A funding by the County Council.  There was a need to retain the accommodation base at Newton Road for the foreseeable future until a county wide resolution could be found.  It was also hoped to retain the current staffing at the hostel to ensure continuity.   

The Corporate Strategic Housing Manager outlined the 3 options proposed in the report to continue the direct access hostel accommodation from 1^st May 2016 to 30^th April 2017.  He hoped that during this period another solution could be found.

The Assistant Director (Finance and Corporate Services) confirmed that the Housing Benefit element of the proposal was currently being checked. 

In response to a question, the Housing and Welfare Manager confirmed that homeless people needed to have a local connection to the area in order to receive housing assistance.  If they had no local connection then they would be assisted in the short-term then helped to return to the area they came from. 

At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to confirm the funding to continue the homeless accommodation base at Newton Road until April 2017.

The Assistant Director (Communities) advised that SSDC had acquired the building 25 years ago when it was at risk.  A modest refurbishment scheme had been completed in partnership with the Town Council with funding from SCC and the building was now well used.  It was now proposed to return the building to the Town Council with a capital sum towards the outstanding programme of refurbishment that was required.

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee confirmed that they supported the proposals.

The Ward Member, Councillor Nick Weeks, welcomed the proposal.  He said there were a huge number of volunteers who would care for the building in the future.  He queried the report which said there should be no future expectation / request for funding from SSDC, in case an unforeseen issue arose in the future and it was confirmed that this was part of the Asset Transfer Policy which was due to be reviewed shortly.

Following a short debate in which Members expressed their support for the recommendations, Members were pleased to agree the transfer of Castle Cary Market House to Castle Cary Town Council.

The Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning noted that the Council had a statutory duty to consider the formal designation of the Martock Parish Neighbourhood Area and it met all the requirements necessary for designation.  Since the scheme first started the Government funding had changed and the initial £5,000 grant was now only payable to the first 5 designations.  As SSDC already had more than 5 designations, the only Government funding would now be at the referendum stage.  There was a cost in officer time to support the process and if this became an issue it would be reported to District Executive.  She further confirmed that the cost of any referendum and plan examination would be met by SSDC.

The Policy Planner confirmed that they were coping with the workload created by present number of Neighbourhood Plans and whilst it was difficult to be precise, if the current number were to double, it would become an issue.    

The Assistant Director (Economy) advised that the Neighbourhood Plan process had been communicated to Parish Councils.  The high officer time in the early stages ensured that communities were on track to accord with the Local Plan. 

The Chairman acknowledged that the process was not fit for purpose for small communities and he would be raising the issue at the District Councils Network.      

During discussion it was noted that some communities were compiling local housing needs assessments and community plans rather than embarking on the Neighbourhood Plan process.

At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to agree to designate the Civil Parish of Martock as a Neighbourhood Area for the purposes of preparing a Neighbourhood Plan.

The Third Sector and Partnership Co-ordinator advised that since the last report, one new asset had been added to the register of Assets of Community Value and 3 had been removed with one other to be reviewed with a view to removing it.  The recent DCLG survey results were still being assessed and had not yet been published.  

During discussion, Members mentioned several instances of communities listing assets which had subsequently created issues for the owners when the moratorium period had been engaged.

The Assistant Director (Legal and Corporate Services) confirmed that the Government’s intention of the Community Right to Bid regulations were to help communities to take control of locally important land and buildings however, no registration had yet resulted in a successful community bid.  There was a compensation scheme for property owners who could demonstrate they had suffered loss as a result of the listing and subsequent moratorium period however, they had to provide evidence of actual loss.  They could also apply to the Lands Tribunal to have the property de-listed. 

At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to note the report.

Members were content to note the monthly news snapshot information.

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

·         Somerset Waste Partnership New Waste Collection Model – date TBA

·         Community Governance Review request – Brympton Parish Council – May 2016

Members noted that the next scheduled meeting of the District Executive would take place on Thursday, 12^th May 2016 (one week later than usual due to the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections) in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Brympton Way, Yeovil commencing at 9.30 a.m.