Agenda item

Members considered the reports within the District Executive agenda for 6 April 2017 and made the following comments:

Approval of Local Development Scheme (2017-2020) (Agenda item 6)

·      With regard to the Boundary Commission and the current review of the ward boundaries - they need a lot of information will this be manageable with the current resources of the Planning Policy team?

·      Scrutiny considered the Risk Matrix and asked what the main threats are, how they would be mitigated and if resources would be required.

·      Para 9 on page 5 – What happens if we do not meet the March 2018 target for a review?

·      Page 12 table – How are we going to manage the Community Infrastructure Levy until 2018? 

·      Para 5.4 on Page 16 – How will it be monitored?

·      Some members sought clarification that the Inspector’s comment about a review for Wincanton was effectively a recommendation rather than a requirement?

·      Members also noted that equalities analysis work also needs to be undertaken and have regard to this when contracting consultants to do work also.

Proposal to Establish a Commercial Income Generation Fund (Agenda item 7)

·      Query if there is a need to do this now. Some background information would be useful to justify the required amount.

·      Why agree this now before the Council Plan and Capital Programme have been agreed? Is there the capital available to be ring-fenced?

·      If going into the commercial world then the democracy factor is likely to be a cause of delay. Concerns that we won’t be in a position to move swiftly enough.

·      Understanding that there will be a need to look at internal processes and officer delegations, Scrutiny Committee would like to help support the work to identify the most effective and efficient process to do this.

·      Is there a need to separate out the two funds? Scrutiny Committee recommend District Executive consider the removal of this separation to prevent inflexibility in the future.

·      Committee feel that the report is lacking information and it was only because of being able to ask  the Portfolio Holder and Leader several questions that the committee have reached a position where they are able to support this recommendation, the content of reports should be understandable for the public!

Business Rates Relief – Spring Budget 2017 Measures (Agenda item 8)

·      Scrutiny made no comments and supported the recommendations.

Capital Programme 2017/18 to 2021/22 (Agenda item 9)

·      Members noted this item would now be considered at the District Executive meeting on 18 April 2017.

Implementing Charges for Pre-Application Development Control Advice (Agenda item 10)

·      Members asked which category residential development on farms would be in, for example, an agricultural worker dwelling?

·      Scrutiny sought clarification that the fees indicated are cost-covering rather than profit making. It was suggested that the fees should be reviewed regularly.

·      Page 44 – Exemptions – members sought clarity about what was meant by ‘community uses’ and what it would cover.

·      Committee members recommend that this arrangement is reviewed in a years’ time in terms of recouping costs and the revaluation of the fees

Community Right to Bid Half Year Report – October 2016 to March 2017 (Agenda item 11)

·      Scrutiny made no comments.

District Executive Forward Plan (Agenda item 12)

·      Members noted some officer contact names needed to be updated.