Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the District Executive meeting held on Thursday 1^st September 2016.

The minutes of the District Executive meeting held on 1^st September 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 Henry Hobhouse.

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.

There were no questions from members of the public.

The Chairman advised that Mrs Joyce Terry, receptionist, was retiring from SSDC after 47 years service to the District Council.  Members joined him in congratulating Mrs Terry on her retirement.

The Chairman also welcomed Alex Parmley, Chief Executive, to his first District Executive meeting. 

Councillor Sue Steele introduced the report and noted that at a recent board meeting of Musgrove Park Hospital, the issue of bed blocking had been raised. 

The Portfolio Holder for Health & Well-Being advised that the Health and Well-Being board had discussed the need for links between Occupational Therapists, access to Disabled Facilities Grants and other services to help with bed-blocking in local hospitals. 

The Assistant Director (Communities) advised that a conference to discuss supporting loneliness in the community was due to be held the following week at Haselbury Mill.  The focus was to draw in community groups to look at practical ways to identify and help isolated groups and individuals.   

During discussion, Members voiced their support for the Symphony Project across the county and at the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to note the briefing papers provided.

The Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning (Place Making) advised that since the last report, two assets had been removed from the register and the ownership of one other was being investigated prior to its removal.  She recommended that the reports be presented to District Executive on a six-monthly basis in the future.

The Assistant Director (Communities) advised that the results of the DCLG consultation on the scheme had yet to be published and in the meantime, the Register of Community Assets continued to grow.  One request for compensation under the scheme was still being evaluated.  

The Third Sector and Partnerships Co-ordinator clarified the details of the compensation claim

The Chairman reported that he had written to the Government Minister to register the Council’s concerns on the shortcomings of the scheme, however, the response was that they were still listening to stakeholders.

During discussion, several Members expressed their concern that parishes were nominating assets with no real thought or ability to raise the funds to purchase them and the consequential effect this had on both the seller and any subsequent purchaser.  It was requested that the Leader write to the Government Minister again to express the Council’s concerns on the shortcomings of the scheme.

At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to agree that the reports be presented to District Executive on a six-monthly basis in the future and to note the contents of the report.

The Third Sector and Partnerships Co-ordinator outlined the work being done at a national level between the Government, the MOD and Local Authorities.  He also mentioned the SSDC Working Group which was working on an action plan to address any deficiencies locally.  There was also a Covenant Fund which SSDC had joined with other authorities to bid for funding under the priority: Strengthening local government delivery of the covenant. 

Councillor Carol Goodall, the appointed representative to the Somerset Armed Forces Covenant, advised that there was a general lack of information on armed forces personnel. particularly those who had just left the service.  She noted that the British Legion were campaigning to have two questions added to the National Census relating to Armed Forces personnel.  There was also now information on the SSDC website which was aimed at Armed Forces personnel however, this did need expanding.

During discussion, it was noted that:-

·         The MOD did not provide any information to the British Legion on personnel leaving the service.

·         An officer from Yeovilton now attended the Equalities Group.

·         The liaison officers from Yeovilton were involved in several local groups.

·         The Commonwealth War Graves Commission were responsible for maintaining all war graves.

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

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services advised that from December 2015, under certain circumstances, Local Authorities could use capital receipts for revenue expenditure.  Agreeing the recommendation would allow SSDC to use its capital more flexibly and possibly for Transformation costs.

The Assistant Director (Finance and Corporate Services) confirmed that any capital expenditure would be reported as part of the budget monitoring process.  Any capital used had to be for specific projects and any amendments to that must be reported to  Council.

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee confirmed that they agreed with the recommendations of the report.

There was no debate and Members were content to propose the recommendations to full Council for approval.

(Voting: 7 in favour, 2 against, 0 abstentions)

The Assistant Director (Finance and Corporate Services) advised that there had been discussions with the DCLG and the Government Minister regarding the Government’s proposed 4-year grant settlement.  She said that although she did not agree with the negative rate support grant proposal in 2019, the offer did provide certainty over the next 3 years.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services advised that the offer was grossly unfair to the electorate in the final year (2019) as it amounted to spending SSDC ratepayers money outside the area.  He said the proposal would put SSDC into a referendum situation which he did not feel the public would accept.  He asked that the Government Minister be challenged to explain how they had arrived at the proposal for SSDC and that a communication plan be drawn up to prepare local residents for the proposal.

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee said they had acknowledged the differing points of view expressed by the Assistant Director and the Portfolio Holder and noted that neither option was particularly favourable. The Committee had also noted that DCLG had reiterated that no authority would be better off if they did not accept the deal.  Consideration was also given to the reputational risks of informing the public that the council had willingly accepting a negative RSG position versus informing them they had not accepted three years of certainty in defence of a principle.  They had also considered the example of Wokingham where the period of certainty offered within the deal was accepted but the negative RSG was not. 

During discussion, Members expressed concern at the offer but hoped that in accepting it and continuing dialogue with the Government Minister then an improved offer could be realised by 2019. 

At the conclusion of the debate, the majority of Members agreed to propose to Council that the offer be accepted but, also, a letter be sent to the Government Minister to ask for an explanation of the proposal settlement and SSDC’s ability to raise council tax.  A vote was taken and 7 were in favour with 2 against. 

(Voting: 7 in favour, 2 against, 0 abstentions)

The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Economic Development advised that now the Regeneration Board and Area Regeneration Boards were established there was a need for some flexibility to progress stalled infrastructure projects without requesting funding from District Executive on each occasion. 

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee asked that any executive decisions be delegated to the Portfolio Holder in consultation with the Strategic Regeneration Board (rather than to the Regeneration Board itself) and that those decisions be published and subject to the usual call-in procedures.  This was confirmed by the Chairman.

During discussion, minor amendments were suggested to the criteria specific questions in the application form and it was agreed to delegate the final approval of the form to the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Economic Development in consultation with the Strategic Regeneration Board.

At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to confirm the amended recommendations of the report. 

Members were content to note the monthly news snapshot information.

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

• Review of Private Sector Housing Grants and Loans Policy – moved to February 2016
• Somerset Waste Partnership – Recycle More Project – moved to December 2016
• Employment Monitoring Report – December 2016

·         Community Governance Reviews of Yeovilton & Brympton – November 2016

·         Homes and Communities equality objectives 2016 to 2020 consultation

·         Call for Evidence - Review of England Local Authority Environmental Regulation Fees and Charges

·         Business rates Revaluation 2017 - consultation

Members noted that the next scheduled meeting of the District Executive would take place on Thursday 3^rd November 2016 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Brympton Way, Yeovil commencing at 9.30 a.m.