Agenda, decisions and minutes

To elect a Chairman for the ensuing year. (Following the election the formal Declaration of Acceptance of Office will be read and signed.)

Councillor Peter Gubbins, seconded by Councillor Tony Lock, nominated Councillor Mike Best as Chairman of the Council.

There being no other nominations it was:

Following his appointment Councillor Best read and signed the formal declaration of acceptance of office, and thanked Members for their support.

To appoint a Vice-Chairman for the ensuing year. (Following the appointment the Vice-Chairman will read and sign the formal Declaration of Acceptance of Office.)

Councillor Dean Ruddle, seconded by Councillor Jo Roundell Greene, nominated Councillor Tony Capozzoli as Vice Chairman of the Council.

There being no other nominations it was:

Following his appointment Councillor Capozzoli read and signed the formal declaration of acceptance of office.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Adam Dance, Graham Middleton, David Recardo, Gina Seaton, Alan Smith, William Wallace and Vega Sturgess (Strategic Director).

To approve and sign the minutes of the previous meeting held on Thursday, 21^st April 2016.

The minutes of the meeting held on the 21^st April 2016, copies of which had been previously circulated, were approved as a correct record of the meeting and signed by the Chairman.

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.

Councillors Dean Ruddle, Linda Vijeh, Anna Groskop, Tony Lock, Mike Lewis and Derek Yeomans declared a personal interest in Agenda item 11: Superfast Broadband Extension Programme, as members of Somerset County Council who were also part of the programme.

Mr Tony Cavalier, Vice Chairman of Mudford Parish Council, read out a letter which had been sent on behalf of the Parish Council to the Legal Manager of SSDC regarding the Councils adoption of Community Infrastructure Levy (Agenda Item 10).  He said they contended that the appraisal summary which was published after the public consultation period had closed constituted an additional piece of evidence which the public had not had the opportunity to comment on.  He asked that Councillors defer their decision on the Community Infrastructure Levy and re-run the public consultation, or, support the Parish Council’s request to speak at the Examination.

Councillor Angie Singleton, Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning (Place Making) responded that the supporting evidence was prepared in response to questions raised during the public consultation.  She said it was a normal part of the process and it had not resulted in a material change to the charging schedule.  Mudford Parish Council had not specifically requested to be heard at the Examination hearing but they could take this up with the appointed Examiner at the time. 

Mrs L Whitsun-Jones, a resident of East Coker, spoke regarding Agenda item 10, Community Infrastructure Levy – Draft Charging Schedule.  Said she had raised concerns at the District Executive meeting the previous week and she referred to several parts of the report relating to the proposed zero rating of the two Yeovil sustainable urban extensions.  She asked why the Yeovil urban extension typology was not used by the council for a more accurate test of viability before the public consultation period.  She further asked why the same amount of infrastructure was required for 800 dwellings as had had previously proposed for 1,600 dwellings.  She also asked for the location of the Yeovil sustainable transport interchange mentioned in the draft Regulation 123 list.  She said if the Keyford site was zero rated then there would be no benefit to East Coker Parish Council when CIL levy receipts could provide the parish with funds to maintain a community facility.   

Councillor Angie Singleton, Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning (Place Making), said the Council would provide a written response to her questions.

Councillor Stephen Page expressed his regret at the recent and unexpected death of David Rendell who had been the prospective parliamentary candidate for the Liberal Democrats in the Somerton and Frome Constituency at the 2015 General Election.  He said that he had given 110% effort during the election campaign and his death was a great loss.

The list of Chairman’s Engagements was noted.

Recommendation (1) – to note the appointment of Leader of the Council

Recommendation (2) – to note the appointment of Deputy Leader of the Council

Recommendation (3) - Appointment of Membership and establishment of District Executive Committee

Recommendation (4) – Re-establishment of member level bodies for 2016/17

Recommendation (5) - Appoint Members to Member-Level Bodies

The Chairman asked for Members to consider each recommendation individually and it was resolved that:-

Recommendation (1) – to note the appointment of Leader of the Council

Recommendation (2) – to note the appointment of Deputy Leader of the Council

Recommendation (3) - Appointment of Membership and establishment of District Executive Committee

Recommendation (4) – Re-establishment of member level bodies for 2016/17

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

Recommendation (5) - Appoint Members to Member-Level Bodies

(Voting: 50 in favour, 2 against, 2 abstentions)

The Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning (Place Making) advised that there had been 34 responses made during the public consultation period and 6 of those had indicated that they wished to comment at the Examination.  She said there were two main modifications proposed and the next stage was to put the proposals to an independent examiner.

The Spatial Planning Manager said that the independent examiner would focus on the charging schedule but they would also look at the draft Regulation 123 list which were infrastructure projects it was envisaged that CIL money would be spent on.  He cautioned against adding further infrastructure projects to the Regulation 123 list without good evidence as it would immediately preclude that project from any further Section 106 funding.

In response to questions, the Spatial Planning Manager advised:-

·         That a recent legal ruling made it clear the Government wished Councils to step away from seeking affordable housing contributions from small development sites and so paragraphs 7.7 and 7.8 of the Draft Charging Schedule should be removed.

·         They were required to look at a range of typologies and viability assessments before proposing any site should be zero rated, as to impose a levy would make them unviable.

·         The £50,000 cap of CIL funds to Town and Parish Councils was set in the regulations and it was an annual cap to ensure that large sums were not being paid to small councils.

At the conclusion of the discussion, Members agreed to remove the references in paragraphs 7.7 and 7.8 of the Draft Charging Schedule relating to affordable housing contributions and with this amendment, the majority of Members were content to confirm the amended recommendations.

(Voting: 50 in favour, 2 against, 2 abstentions)

(Voting: 39 in favour, 13 against, 2 abstentions)

The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Economic Development reminded Members that improving Broadband was a priority within the Council Plan.  Although SSDC had committed £640,000 in principle, this was subject to conditions and at the current time there was no assurance of the areas where the improved Broadband speed would be.

The Economic Development Officer of Somerset County Council advised that the other District Councils within Somerset had committed to the scheme and the programme would proceed regardless of whether SSDC chose to invest or not.  The £640,000 investment by SSDC would be invested solely in the SSDC area and would provide coverage over and above that which would be provided by the overall scheme.  She said it would not be possible to introduce SSDC money at a later stage into this procurement, due to the risk this would present for the procurement process. She provided Members with a short power point presentation on the progress of the Superfast Broadband programme.

In response to questions from Members, the Economic Development Officer advised:-

·         By putting the whole area into bidding lots, it was hoped each area would be attractive to Broadband providers.

·         The LEP funding was intended to improve Broadband for business.

·         Part of the tender process was to ensure communities were not isolated by having no or low Broadband speed.

·         Devon Procurement would be overseeing the procurement process and they would weigh all the bids against the criteria to ascertain which bidders were above the baseline. 

·         A mix of Broadband technologies could be selected.

·         The programme was to provide Broadband speeds of 24MB and above.

·         There could be technical and engineering challenges to providing Broadband to remote rural areas.

During discussion, some Members felt that their communities needed Superfast Broadband and the scheme should be supported whilst others expressed concern that there was no guarantee where cover would be improved, particularly in business parks across the district.  The Leader of Council proposed that in view of the uncertainty around where the additional coverage would be provided, together with references made in the Queen’s speech to Parliament earlier that week, and, the report of £258m BT profit that was being returned to the programme, that SSDC should not commit their funding at the current time.  This proposal was seconded and on being put to the vote, was carried (voting: 39 in favour, 13 against, 2 abstentions).

(Voting: 50 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention)

The Leader of Council advised that there had been a number of officer and Member meeting during the previous months and a joint HR recruitment policy had been agreed.  He said where there were income generation opportunities it may be sensible to do some together and some separately.  They were looking a housing development and joint procurement opportunities but SSDC would not exclusively work with Sedgemoor on such projects.

During a short discussion, Members agreed that it was worthwhile to pursue the strategic alliance and it was noted that any joint developments would first be considered by either the Regeneration or Income Generation Boards.

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

(Voting: 50 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention)

The report of Executive Decisions was noted.

Councillor Tony Lock, Vice-Chairman of the Audit Committee, introduced the report and asked if Members had any questions.  There were no questions and the report of the Audit Committee was noted.

Councillor Sue Steele, Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, expressed her concern that a number of significant reports were being presented to Council with no opportunity for prior consideration by Scrutiny Committee.  She also noted that Councillor Cathy Bakewell had agreed to Chair the Discretionary Housing Payments Task and Finish Group and she called for more volunteers to help with this work. 

The Leader of Council said there were occasions when urgent reports were presented to Council but he would be happy if there was an opportunity for Scrutiny Committee to consider them beforehand

The report of the Scrutiny Committee was noted.

There were no Motions submitted.

No Motions had been submitted by Members.

There were no questions submitted under Procedure Rule 10.

There were no questions submitted under Procedure Rule 10.

Members noted that the next meeting of the Full Council would take place on Thursday, 21^st July 2016 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Brympton Way, Yeovil commencing at 7.30 p.m.