Agenda item

Members considered the reports within the District Executive agenda for 5 March 2020 and raised comments as detailed below. Responses to most questions and comments were provided at Scrutiny Committee by the relevant officers, except those marked by an asterisk.

Adoption of the Yeovil Public Realm Design Guide as a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (Agenda Item 6)

·         *Some members felt Area South should have had opportunity to comment ahead of District Executive being asked to endorse the public realm design guide and shopfront guide for adoption by council.

·         The document refers to a consultation which has been undertaken. The results gave an indication of why some people may not wish to visit Yeovil, including concern about the level of anti-social behaviour and fear of crime. What is being done to address those concerns?

·         Have the proposed works been costed yet?

·         Was there any indication of what the expected increased footfall might as a result of the regeneration projects?

SSDC Transformation Programme – Progress Report (Agenda Item 7)

·         *A member commented they were pleased that work has progressed around reporting a planning breach.  Some members felt that more resource was required to enforce planning breaches.

·         *The Committee raised again that they would like to know if the target of reducing staff by 22% had been achieved through transformation. The Committee feel it is important to understand where we are to ensure savings are being achieved and if the staffing level differs from the original agreed business case. Members asked for not only details about full time equivalent (FTE) figures, but also a breakdown regarding permanent and temporary staff etc.

·         Regarding some planning applications being outsourced to Capita – how would the performance of Capita be measured?

·         Para 31 – what is the impact to services when then are losing some staff that are temporarily being redeployed to increase capacity in another service?

·         *A member asked if some of the performance measures for Transformation should be included in the corporate performance report.

·         Para 34 – refers to reviewing of some planning procedures – is there a timescale for the work and when details will be circulated to members? What is the scope and process for the reviews?

·         Para 3 - Some members sought clarity about the figures regarding recurring net annual savings from the investment figure and the duration of the ‘pay-back’ period.

·         Regarding flexible and agile working, is it necessary to hold monthly full council meetings as many other authorities of a similar size meet quarterly or bi-monthly?

Corporate Performance Report 2020-21 Key Performance Indicators (Agenda Item 8)

Members considered this item in full as an item on the Scrutiny agenda.

·         *Some of the terminology for the measures needs to be revised to be more meaningful to the public, for example PCS4

·         *It would be helpful if measure E1 gave the amount spent – how will the spend be established?

·         *Is there a need to keep measure E5 - Residual Waste sent to landfill - when all residual waste will be going to Avonmouth from April?

·         *EN1 – Number of trees planted, members suggested a better target/ indicator would be percentage growth of tree canopy cover

·         *One member suggested an additional target should be included for Environment for improvement in the provision of public or shared transport.

Business Rates Relief (Agenda Item 9)

·         Was there a view of what the changes to the Business Rates Relief would have on the income to the authority?

District Executive Forward Plan (Agenda Item 10)

·         No comments.