Agenda item

Members considered the reports outlined in the District Executive agenda for 5 March 2015. It was agreed that the following comments would be taken forward to District Executive for consideration.

Quarterly Performance and Complaints Monitoring Report – 3^rd Quarter 2014/15 (item 6)

·      Members were pleased to note that whilst PI003 is still showing as an exception, performance is improving. Scrutiny members suggest that it would be helpful if the numbers as well as percentages were reported to provide greater context.

·      Members also suggest that it would be beneficial if future monitoring reports could include data on the number of planning applications determined within time frames and those which are not. Whilst this is no longer a statutory indicator, it would be a useful indicator of overall performance for members. The Strategic Director has informed members that this information can be made easily available.

Adoption of the South Somerset Local Plan (item 7)

·      Members considered the process undertaken to get to this point and noted the significant implications of not adopting the Plan . Scrutiny comments related to the process undertaken to develop the Plan with members noting that Full Council would be an opportunity for wider debate.

·      Members were grateful to Principal Spatial Planner for clarifying that planning policies HG3 and HG4 were more likely than SS2 to be impacted by recent government announcement on the levels at which affordable housing contributions are triggered. Scrutiny sought clarification on how the plan will react to any national policy changes and the results of legal challenges being mounted by other local authorities?

·      Clarification was also sought on the potential for developers to notice that during the life of the plan, the 5 year housing supply could become outdated and were informed that fluctuations will happen and that an effective monitoring process should help manage this situation.

District Wide Voluntary Sector Grants (items 8 to 13)

·      Members sought clarification that the unallocated monies within the Health and Wellbeing fund would be held in reserve for future similar bids and not removed from the budget or used in other areas.

·      Members were pleased note the positive financial position of the SSVCA but requested that more detailed financial information, similar to that which has been provided in the past, is made available to keep members fully up to date.

·      A question was asked about the issue of duplication – SSDC are funding very similar organisations, as well as providing Welfare advice ourselves and Scrutiny seek assurance that every effort is made to avoid duplication.

Access from Memorial Hall Car park to land at the rear of the Dolphin Hotel, Wincanton (item 14)

·      Members asked for clarification on the map – the arrow appears to show the entrance being on the Quaker Meeting House land rather than the Dolphin hotel?

Establishment of the Somerset Growth Board (item 15)

·      Whilst members were supportive of the principle of ensuring the Somerset case is well made to the LEP, there were some concerns expressed as to how the Growth Board would fit in with the current LEP structures and how what steps would be taken to ensure the proposed board remained outcome focused and did not become a ‘talking shop’.

·      There was some discussion about seeking to ensure formal representation of the Growth Board on the LEP and Leader agreed to take this point forward with the other Somerset leaders and Chief Executives.

·      Scrutiny members requested that a further report is brought forward in 12 months to monitor progress.

Retail Relief from Business Rates (item 16)

·      Scrutiny suggest that the recommendations make it more explicit that a further report on the policy relating to business rate relief for childcare provider will be brought forward as part of the budget setting process next year.

Loan to Somerset Waste Partnership for Waste Vehicles (item17)

·      Members supported the recommendations.

Huish Academy Artificial Grass Pitch Project (item 18)

·      Members noted that this has been extensively discussed at Area North Committee. They sought reassurance that the school are aware of risks associated with the funds identified via s106 trigger clauses not being reached.

Community Right to Bid - Assets of Community Value (item 19)

·      Scrutiny sought clarification as to what would happen in a building was in the hands of receivers at the time of sale and were informed that the building would be except from the Community Right to Buy process for the first sale.

Somerset Armed Forces Community Covenant Partnership Update (item 20)

·      Scrutiny members were pleased to note that the majority of funds allocated in Somerset had been allocated to South Somerset and felt that this reflected the efforts of the officers and members involved.

·      Members asked what would happen in April at the end of the initial period and what would happen to any remaining funds unallocated at that time?

Disposal of the workshop in Helliers Road, Chard (Confidential) (item 25)

·      Members supported the recommendations.