Agenda item

The Scrutiny Committee considered the reports contained in the District Executive Agenda for the 7 July 2016 and made the following comments:

Five-year Housing Land Supply Update (agenda item 7)

The Principal Spatial Planner and Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning (Place Making) introduced the report and raised the following points during discussion and in response to member questions:

·      SSDC can currently demonstrate 4 years and two months housing land supply.

·      SSDC is not unique in facing this challenge, a recent Savills report highlights approximately 50% of other Councils across the country are also not able to deliver a 5 year housing supply.

·      There are implications to not having a five-year housing land supply, but it does not mean that the Council has to give an “automatic” approval to  all schemes, the Council’s starting point is still the Local Plan, and it the scheme is a poor scheme that creates unacceptable impacts then it can still  be refused.

·      Ultimately the issue is affected by poor delivery against targets over the last 10/11 years, since 2006, which includes a period of major recession and lack of activity in the construction sector.

·      The Council’s ability to set out a future supply of sites for housing remains healthy and has been fairly consistent – it is the fact that delivery figures (number of homes built each year) is falling behind target and makes the overall calculation more difficult..

·      The delivery is not coming forward on some of the larger sites as quickly as expected.

·      There are some complicated sites (mixed use, both housing and employment land and requiring substantial infrastructure) which are taking longer to deliver than had been expected.

·      The solution is unlikely to be reached by reducing the number of homes that are required to be built in South Somerset, as population is growing, and so the housing requirement is likely to stay similar to what it is now. The forthcoming Strategic Housing Market Assessment will be publicised soon, and is likely to show a similar housing requirements figure.

·      It’s not just about giving the permissions, developers will only build where they are confident they can sell, and so there is an issue about market capacity. .

·      To help larger sites come forward SSDC may need to consider underwriting some of the risks or infrastructure costs.

·      CIL is unlikely to have an impact on sites coming forward.

·      A planning Case Officer will always consider the policies relating to housing and the local plan, the context and circumstances of the site, the locality and the housing delivery in the local area.  Although you cannot ignore SSDC has less than five years supply.In looking at future housing requirement figures there may be the opportunity to factor in issues such as the local wage economy.

Approval of the Somerset District Authorities Regulatory Services Enforcement Policy 2015-2020 and the environmental Protection Enforcement Policy 2015-2020 (Agenda item 8)

Members supported the recommendations.

2015/16 Revenue Budget Outturn Report (Agenda item 9)

The Assistant Director (Finance and Corporate Services) introduced the report. She raised the following points:

·      An additional £1.9 million Council Tax collected this year compared to the previous year and £1.476 million collected of previous year’s arrears.

·      An additional £0.7 million Business Rates collected this year compared to the previous year and £2.56 million collected of previous year’s arrears.

·      The successful appeals for Yeovilton and the Doctors Surgeries have had an impact on business rates but there is money in reserves in readiness for this.

Members were concerned regarding the areas shown in the report where income was less than expected.  Donna Parham explained the shortfall against the Crematorium was due to spending on improvements.  She confirmed a report will be coming forward with regard to advertising on the web and the Brympton Way canteen for members to make a decision.

2015/16 Capital Budget Outturn Report (Agenda item 10)

Members supported the recommendations

Key4Life – At Risk Preventative Programme in Somerset (Agenda item 11)

During discussion members raised the following points:

·      Is funding also being sought from the Police and Crime commissioner for this project?

·      There are many organisations (estimated over 30) who work in a similar role to this organisation helping offenders in this area.

·      There is estimated to only be 1 organisation who works to support victims of crime in this area.

·      It may be beneficial for additional research to be undertaken with regard to this project.

Annual Review of SSDC Partnerships (Agenda item 12)

Members discussed the report and requested:

·         A brief update in terms of review and performance of the Market Towns Investment Group and the Safer Somerset Partnership.

·         Clarification of what the removal of the register could mean in real terms?  Members were specifically concerned re the potential removal of the Strategic Partnership against Hate Crime, given the current reports of the increase of this behaviour.

Community Right to Bid Quarterly Update Report (Agenda item 13)

Scrutiny Committee considered the report and commented (based on experiences in their wards) that some communities are not giving appropriate consideration to the impact and implications of registering an asset on the list.