Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the District Executive meeting held on 04 August 2022.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on Thursday 4^th August 2022 were approved as a correct record and were signed by the Chairman.

It was noted that Councillor Nicola Clark had joined the meeting remotely.

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.

Members are reminded that they need to declare the fact that they are also a member of a County, Town or Parish Council as a Personal Interest. Where you are also a member of Somerset County Council and/or a Town or Parish Council within South Somerset you must declare a prejudicial interest in any business on the agenda where there is a financial benefit or gain or advantage to Somerset County Council and/or a Town or Parish Council which would be at the cost or to the financial disadvantage of South Somerset District Council. 

Councillor John Clark declared a personal interest in Agenda item 10: Wincanton Regeneration Change of Scope, as a Trustee of the Board of Bath Opera who were a beneficiary of grants from the Wincanton Regeneration Board.

A resident asked a number of questions relating to the on-going phosphates issue and Councillor Tony Lock, as Portfolio Holder for Protecting Core Services responded as follows:

Q 1. Why has the council failed to meet the deadlines for the phosphates matter with numerous extensions

Since the issue of Natural England’s letter in August 2020 South Somerset has worked closely with the other councils in Somerset to develop an approach to assessing the likely phosphate impacts arising from new developments and identifying a range of small scale solutions that allow for “off mains” schemes to deliver private treatment works, upgrade existing private works and secure land use management solutions on an individual basis.

Where delays have occurred is in the delivery of a strategic scale land use management solution that would be agreed by Natural England (as the relevant technical adviser) and secured over an in perpetuity term. This is not surprising as the work involves engagement with 3rd party landowners, persuading them of the value of engaging in projects that will tie up their land for 80+ years and ensuring that any land use solutions deliver levels of mitigation and management that meet the requirements of Natural England. This is not a quick process, and in terms of the capacity of each local authority not something that can be readily project managed in the short term, particularly given the lack of detailed guidance from others regarding the types of mitigation that would be acceptable and the efficiencies they could achieve.

Furthermore, having presented numerous councils with what is effectively an embargo on development consent, Natural England, along with a number of relevant government bodies including Ofwat, Defra and DLUHC have struggled to provide meaningful guidance and support to the affected councils such that we are each individually trying to deal with what is a national issue.

From very early on in the process the Somerset Councils presented a view to central government that the real solutions to phosphate reduction lay in engineering upgrades at sewerage treatment works and not land use changes. As late as March this year however Defra remained committed to the delivery of phosphate reduction for new development by way of land use change.

It is welcome that in its further publications in July 2022 DEFRA and DLUHC both acknowledged that significant improvements were required at all affected sewerage treatment works to achieve the highest possible technical efficiencies, however this move has come very late in the day and will not (based upon current timetables) deliver until 2030.

Q 2. Why can’t we install Klarkgester units as a temporary measure when your consultant ( Royal Haskins) stated that they were an acceptable means of reducing Phosphates

The National Planning Policy Framework requires that in the first instance connections are made to public sewerage infrastructure rather than to private works. Had DLUHC wished to remove this barrier to the use of private solutions it could have re-drafted the NPPF but has not done so. As such the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

The Chairman advised that she was conscious of the great amount of work by staff towards Local Government Reform and she asked Councillors to be mindful of the extra work officers were carrying out over the next months prior to the new Council launch in April 2023.

The Portfolio Holder for Economic Development advised that as the Council was in its final year, a number of reports listing the Council’s achievements for residents and businesses would be presented to District Executive.

The Specialist for Economic Development introduced the report on the Council’s economic and business response to Covid 19.  He noted that although this was an economic development report they had been supported by many other council services and credit should be given to the whole council.

The presentation covered key projects (presentation slides in agenda papers):

-          Business Grants

-          Food and Drink Directory

-          Supporting high streets and town centres

-          Oscar Mayer redundancy support

-          Business Support Week: Recover, Restart and Grow

-          Broadband Directory

-          Employment Hubs

In response to questions from Members, the Specialist for Economic Development advised:

·         The number of people attending the Employment Hub open day who were referred by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) or via social media would be provided to Members.

·         The majority of funding for the projects listed in the report came from Central Government although SSDC had funded some of the business support events and the Market Town Investment Group (MTIG) fund contributed to re-opening high streets safely.  The DWP had contributed to the opening of the Employment Hubs.

During discussion, the following points were made:

·         Council staff had continued to assist residents during the pandemic and worked across services to deliver grants and food parcels.

·         Thank the economic development team for their assistance to the employees of Oscar Mayer in Chard to help them find alternative employment.  The employment hubs were also providing an excellent service.

·         The Government should also be mentioned for their swift roll out of grants to businesses affected by the pandemic.

·         The Government had recognised that local government were able to respond rapidly to deliver services to residents.

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee said they had raised a number of questions on the presentation and the following responses were provided after the meeting:

·         Had SSDC returned any of the unspent grant funding to the Government and if so, how much?

During the course of the pandemic South Somerset District Council received £84,854,810 from Government for the use of Covid 19 Business Grants and distributed £72,142,766 (85%) of this. This percentage is in line with the national average. We were required to return any underspend, meaning that £12,712,045 was returned to Government

It is important to note that:

• Government allocations were made on Valuation Office data which later transpired to be inaccurate and this was a contributing factor to underspend.
• We were required to follow strict Government guidance when administering the funding and could only award grants to eligible businesses.
• Government allocations did not account for ineligibility due to State Aid / Subsidy legislation which excluded a number of larger businesses.
• We are aware that some businesses did not want to apply for reasons they did not state.
• South Somerset were awarded £6.2m of discretionary funding all of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services introduced the report and advised there were a number of economic pressures and also preparation to hand the accounts to a new authority.  He drew attention to the budget pressures in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the report including the national pay award proposal which was not yet known, although the Council did have earmarked reserves to cover risks. 

In response to questions from the Scrutiny Committee the Portfolio Holder, and Chief Executive advised:-

·         Business rate collection was as expected and if a business were to fail then the business rate liability would transfer to a landlord or land owner.

·         A key risk at the current time was staffing and the recruitment to vacant posts.  The Council had agreed an LGR reserve which had been used to back-fill some posts.  Mutual aid between the Somerset Authorities was working well and had been used on a number of occasions. 

At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to note the report.

(Voting: 8 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention)

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services advised that the proposed increase in the disabled facilities grants was led by demand on what was expected to be needed.  Although the budget would be repaid by Central Government it would be paid to the new Somerset Council. 

In response to questions from the Scrutiny Committee, the Monitoring Officer and the Chief Finance Officer advised:-

·         A report had been presented to Council in July on the increased risk to the completion of the decarbonisation works and the risk that the PSDS grant would be less than expected.

·         The majority of the works at Yeovil Crematorium were already under contract and the contracts for the refurbishment work would be let very shortly.  When under contract there was more certainty the work would be completed.

At the conclusion of the debate, the Portfolio Holder proposed the recommendations, they were seconded and agreed by Members with one abstention (absent from the room during part of the debate).

(Voting: 8 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention)

The Chairman, as Portfolio Holder for Strategy, introduced the first quarterly monitoring report. She noted there were some areas of concern which was expected in the first quarter.

The Specialist for Strategic Planning advised that the monitoring information was now collected digitally which meant more detail could be included and less officer time was spent gathering the information.  Monthly reporting was now possible to monitor areas of concern and ensure solutions put in place were working.  There were 29 measures from the previous year and 21 new measures related to the objectives in the Corporate Plan

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee thanked the Specialist for Strategic Planning for attending their meeting to answer questions.   He particularly noted that the new performance monitoring format and performance indicators were not the same across all 5 Somerset Councils, and, a number of the performance indicators mentioned recruitment as an issue.  He also drew attention to LGR 11 (Council Tax support – new claims) where it took 68 days to process claims and LGR 9 (Housing Benefit – new claims) where the processing time had increased from 21 to 59 days.  He suggested inter-departmental aid could help to reduce the processing time.

The Chief Executive said the cost of living crisis was impacting on many residents and the performance indicators LGR11 and LGR9 were a priority area.  She also advised that some areas of the Council were very difficult to recruit to and it could be that some posts would not be filled prior to vesting day. Where possible, the Council was using mutual aid from the other Somerset Councils to fill key posts.

At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to note the report.

(Voting: 8 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention)

The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Area East advised the Regeneration Board were now working together and the report requested to significantly alter the scope of the project within its approved budget.  She said the new focus would bring better regeneration outcomes for the town as it sought to bring a key vacant building back into use.  The building repair grants would continue although new applications had closed to allow those projects which had come forward to be completed by March 2023.  The public realm works would not commence but the highway safety works would be completed.  She noted there were some risks to the change of scope as a compulsory purchase of a property was involved, but the board were committed to the change. She concluded by thanking the officers for their work in supporting the projects. 

The Regeneration Programme Manager advised that although the focus would be on the empty property workstream, the building repair grants and the events and activities grant applications already received would be assessed and taken forward.

During discussion, the following points were made:-

·         The report requested the retention of the £260,000 previously allocated for public realm but the cost of the change of scope was estimated at less than £200,000.

·         The compulsory purchase process was very lengthy process and it could be binding to the future Somerset Authority.

In response to questions, the Director for Place and Recovery confirmed that the Chairman of Wincanton Town Council was a member of the Regeneration Board and had agreed with the change of scope of the project.  She also noted that the owner of the building may be willing to discuss the sale of the building.

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee said they felt the programme had been well adapted and there appeared to be a will to take the project forward for the benefit of the residents of Wincanton.

It was then proposed and seconded that the Committee discuss the remainder of the report in confidential session and this was agreed without dissent.  The report was discussed in confidence for 25 minutes.

At the conclusion of the confidential debate, it was proposed that the final recommendation be removed and that the sum of £260,000 allocated to Wincanton Public Realm works on 7^th July 2022, from the Corporate Capital Contingency Budget be removed and officers be authorised to make the necessary adjustments to the figures presented in the report, prior to Council. 

This proposal was agreed by the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Area East and when put to the vote, was carried by 8 votes in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention.  Councillor Peter Gubbins abstained from voting as he had not been present for the whole of the debate.

The Portfolio Holder for Economic Development advised that Abbey Manor Developments Ltd had made an offer to buy the Council’s interest in the Lufton 2000 Joint Venture.  He said the Commercial Property, Land and Development Manager had advised that the proposal would not change the Council’s capital balance sheet but would convert the interest into a capital sum.  In his opinion, the offer was a fair price and the site would continue to be commercially developed.

In response to questions from Members, the Monitoring Officer confirmed:-

·         Land area phases 4 and 5 were acquired in 2006 and were subject to overage with the original vendor

·         The parcels of land acquired were linked to further educational purposes and there were no concerning covenants in any of the documents seen.

It was then proposed and seconded that the Committee discuss the remainder of the report in confidential session and this was agreed without dissent.  The report was discussed in confidence for 10 minutes.

At the conclusion of the confidential debate, it was proposed that recommendation d be amended to remove the wording “subject to the price being no worse than the minimum identified in the confidential appendix to this report” and this was seconded and unanimously agreed by Members.

There were no additional reports added to the Forward Plan. 

Members noted that the next scheduled meeting of the District Executive would take place on Thursday 6^th October 2022 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Brympton Way, Yeovil commencing at 9.30 a.m.

The Chairman asked Members to agree that the press and public be excluded from the following item and this was agreed without dissent.

The Chief Executive provided members with a brief verbal update on the progress of Local Government Reorganisation in Somerset and answered their questions on points of clarification.

The report was NOTED.

The Chief Executive provided members with a brief verbal update on the progress of Local Government Reorganisation in Somerset and answered their questions on points of clarification.

The report was NOTED.