Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on 3 January 2017.

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 January 2017 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jason Baker, Amanda Broom, Tony Lock, Garry Shortland and Martin Wale.

In accordance with the Council's current Code of Conduct (as amended 26 February 2015), 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.

Councillor Val Keitch declared a personal interest for Agenda item 7 - Somerset Waste Partnership Response to Call-In, as she is also on the Joint Waste Scrutiny Panel.

Councillor Linda Vijeh declared a personal interest for Agenda item 7 - Somerset Waste Partnership Response to Call-In, as she is also Somerset County Councillor.

There were no questions from members of the public at this item. The Chairman explained that public representation for Agenda item 7 would be heard when that item was considered.

This is an opportunity for Members to question the progress on issues arising from previous meetings.  However, this does not allow for the re-opening of a debate on any item not forming part of this agenda.

There were no issues raised from previous meetings.

The Chairman did not make any announcements.

The Chairman introduced the item which was regarding a call-in request of the decision taken on 16 December 2016 by the Somerset Waste Board – item 9 – New Waste Treatment Facility Task and Finish Group Update.

She explained that Mr Steve Read, Managing Director of Somerset Waste Partnership (SWP), would have the opportunity to speak first and explain the process the Somerset Waste Board (SWB) had been through to make the decisions that had been made, and then he would take questions.

Mr Read was welcomed to the meeting and invited to speak about the waste transfer station at Dimmer. He opened his address by apologising to the public who had submitted questions to the Somerset Waste Board (SWB) meeting on 16 December 2016, where he had said a written response would be provided. Unfortunately, due to a mis-understanding, the response had only been circulated today.

Mr Read provided an outline to the history, over the last few years, of seeking an alternative to landfill, and that in the future Somerset was likely to only have a single landfill site, Walpole. He explained the process to date to look at options for the future of waste disposal in Somerset, and landfill had been found to be the most cost-effective way of dealing with waste in the immediate future. It had been concluded to continue with landfill but to keep a watching brief regarding new technology, noting that Avonmouth might provide a solution in the future.

The Board had looked closely at alternative solutions and rejected some proposals. Soft market testing in 2015 indicated there was interest for dealing with Somerset’s waste, most interest was for turning waste into fuel but much of it wasoverseas. Looking at the options and bids it was concluded that transfer stations would be required, with two sites believed necessary, one each broadly in the east and west of the county at Dimmer and Walpole, with Dimmer already having planning permission. The Board had looked at creating their own site rather than using Viridor, however the Viridor site was favoured as some structures were already in place. The economics of using Dimmer with its existing set-up had been assessed, and would provide savings of around £2.5 million over the duration of the project.

Mr Read noted the public understandably were asking why Dimmer was not considered to be a strategic site. He referred to the County Waste Core Strategy and acknowledged the definition of a strategic facility wasn’t clear, but in his own opinion Avonmouth is the strategic facility by the definition. He recognised there were implications for local residents, but also acknowledged Dimmer was a site that had less impact for finances.

It was noted the public had also raised questions about the long length of the contract, and Mr Read explained the term was required due to capital investment. He also noted that exporting waste had looked favourable a few years ago, but given the drop in the value of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

The Chairman noted that the Scrutiny comments had been considered and were included in the District Executive minutes which had been circulated.

Members considered the reports contained in the District Executive Agenda for 1 February 2017 and made the following comments:

Somerset Waste Partnership – Draft Business Plan 2017-22 (Agenda item 6)

·         Scrutiny Committee request to have information with regard to timelines or the reports referred to on page 14 and 15 for the Refuse Treatment and Recycle More projects.

·         Members of the committee requested it recorded that Scrutiny Committee had representations from the public with regard to the Dimmer Waster Transfer Station - part of the Refuse Treatment project.   The outcome of this is Scrutiny will be passing the questions and concerns from the public to County Council Scrutiny and the Somerset Waste Board Joint Scrutiny Committee. Two members wished it noted that they have reservations about whether Dimmer is an appropriate transfer site as they had seen no evidence.

·         Members were pleased to note that review of the inter Authority agreement between Taunton and West Somerset will be of low risk as the breakdown of costs is based on the number of collections per area.

Loan to Somerset Waste Partnership for Waste Vehicles (Agenda item 7)

·         Members support the recommendation noting that the £29,255 interest is in addition to what is currently being received in terms of interest.

Heart of the South West Devolution Update (Agenda item 8)

·         Members were happy to support the recommendations but had concerns that they didn’t have enough knowledge yet to make formal decisions.

·         Scrutiny Committee will be discussing Devolution and the role of Scrutiny at its next meeting.

Revenue Budget 2017/18 Medium Term Financial Plan and Capital Programme (Agenda item 9)

·         Para 37 page 50 refers to exploring fees and charges and specifically mentions car parking fees.  Where are we with the Car Parking Strategy?

·         Scrutiny Committee could consider a Task and Finish group with regard to Fees and Charges if this would be helpful.

2016/17 Revenue Budget monitoring report for the quarter ending 31^st December 2016 (Agenda item10)

·         Para 10.1 on page 81 - Members were concerned of the number of outstanding applications  for Discretionary Housing Payments(32),p articularly given the financial vulnerability of some of the applicants.

2016/17 Capital Budget monitoring report for the quarter ending 31 December 2016 (Agenda item 11)

·         A member sought clarification regarding the Market Towns Vision (page 119) – with the changes that Transformation will bring will the Market Towns Investment Group continue and is the funding secure?

·         Page 119 – New Car Parks - Some members queried the reason for delays regarding the progressing of the Millers Garage site in Crewkerne.

Public Space Protection Order for dog fouling, dogs on leads and dog exclusion (Agenda item 12)

·         Some members queried if in general such Orders for dog exclusion could only be made for  SSDC owned land or whether they could be made for any land used generally by the public e.g. recreation grounds owned by trusts or parish councils.

Allowenshay Private Water Supply (Agenda item 13)

·         Based on the report included within the agenda, members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

Members noted the updates provided by the Scrutiny Manager on each of the Task and Finish Groups currently in progress:

Consent for Disposal of Properties – the properties of a rural nature are ongoing, and this has been passed to the Corporate Strategic Housing Manager to do with the Rural Lettings Policy.

Discretionary Housing Payments – the report was nearly finalised and is due to Scrutiny in March and the District Executive.

Street Trading – this has been left with the Licensing Manager and he will be writing the final report. Task and Finish Group members are satisfied their views have been considered and taken forward.

National Non Domestic Rates Discretionary Relief – Group are awaiting a response from the Portfolio Holder, but has indicated he is probably supportive that the charity sector is funded.

Right to Buy Clawback – the group has finished their work and a letter had been sent to Yarlington but there had been no response to date.

The Scrutiny Manager reminded members that Devolution was going to be considered under matters of interest, but much had been covered when the item was discussed under the District Executive item on the agenda.

Councillor Clark’s presentation had been circulated to members prior to the meeting and after a short discussion it was agreed that Scrutiny should consider the matter in more detail at a future meeting.

The Scrutiny Manager provided members with some updates to the Work Programme:

·         The Rural Lettings Policy item would now be at the 28 February meeting.

·         The TEN system was likely to be replaced in the future as it didn’t integrate with other systems. Members were asked raise any items they may wish to see more performance information on.

She also reminded members of the Task and Finish Group regarding the Community Council, which had stalled due to more information being required regarding data sharing. In response the Chairman noted that the group had thought a presentation from the Yeovil One team with be useful, and other members agreed.

Members noted the next meeting of the Scrutiny Committee would be held on 28 February 2017, in the Main Committee Room, Brympton Way.