Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the District Executive meeting held on 01 December 2022.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on Thursday 1^st December 2022 were approved as a correct record and were signed by the Chairman.

There were no apologies for absence.

It was noted that Councillors John Clark, Nicola Clark and Adam Dance had joined the meeting remotely on-line (non-voting).

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. 

There were no declarations of interest made by Members.

There were no questions from members of the public.

The Chairman noted that it was now the last 3 months of South Somerset District Council and the setting up of the new Unitary Council was gathering pace.

The Portfolio Holder for Area South and the Yeovil Refresh advised that officers had faced a number of challenges during the programme which had meant additional work and he asked that the Committee support the recommendations as proposed.

The Regeneration Programme Manager advised that the report detailed the issues which had arisen which were both national issues and local issues such as contaminated land and collapsed cellars.  She noted that the Yeovil Refresh Project Manager had been working with the design team to reduce costs where possible and she thanked the Portfolio Holder for his support.

In response to questions from Members and the Scrutiny Committee, the Regeneration Programme Manager and Chief Finance Officer advised:-

·         The existing tree pits in Middle Street would remain, however, the proposed tree pits in the High Street would be constructed above ground to avoid a weak gas main.

·         Advice would be sought from the Horticultural Team to select the most appropriate tree varieties considering their tree canopy and hardiness.

·         There were currently 3 compensation claims being sought from utility companies totalling around £200,000.

·         At the current time, the Yeovil Refresh was funded using internal borrowing but at some point the new Unitary Council would decide the future borrowing requirements which could be over 25 or 50 years.

·         There was one final tender due for cycleways, however, there were Active Travel funding opportunities available and a bid would be submitted for this funding. 

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services clarified that there was no link between borrowing to fund the Yeovil Refresh and its business case.  The benchmark for borrowing was the Public Works Loans Board over 50 years but SSDC had used internal borrowing and that may continue but it was unclear what the Unitary Council would decide in the future.

At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to propose the recommendations to Full Council.

The Portfolio Holder for Protecting Core Services advised that he agreed with the Scrutiny Committee proposal that the report be circulated to the Area Chairmen to check if any schemes with Section 106 contributions had been missed from either of the appendices or required deleting.

The Director for Service Delivery advised that officers had worked hard to draw information together from 3 separate sources and it would be published on the SSDC website and the new Unitary Council website in due course.

In response to questions from Members, the Director for Service Delivery confirmed that officers closely monitored the funding to ensure it was spent before any 5 or 10 year deadlines were reached.

During discussion Members were very supportive of the report being circulated to all Members for them to check the individual schemes in their areas.  It was also agreed that, at the discretion of the individual Area Chairman, the report may be presented to their Area Committee for a collated response.

At the conclusion of the debate, Members unanimously supported the proposal.

The Portfolio Holder for Commercial Property and Income Generation reminded Members of the need to generate an income to cover the cuts in Government grants.  He said the programme had been hugely successful in South Somerset thanks to the diligence of officers.  He drew attention to several schemes within the report and noted that all the money borrowed was backed by assets which would be wholly owned when the capital had been repaid. 

In response to questions from the Scrutiny Committee, the Commercial Property, Land and Development Manager and the Chief Finance Officer advised:-

·         Although the Marlborough property investment had not gone as expected, £4.3m had been realised from sales and £1.1m of un-sold property in flats remained to be sold.  The target income had been £5.2m.

·         The battery storage facility was performing higher than anticipated.

·         SSDC had used a blend of its own money and short term borrowing at very low interest rates to fund the various investments. The report listed the worst case situation which was the business case for making the investments.

·         The battery storage units did degrade over time and there was a programme of progressive replacement built into the business plan.

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

The Commercial Property, Land and Development Manager advised that as the Council’s investment programme was concluding, the change in the Council’s Financial Procedure Rules meant that the scope of delegated decision making had narrowed and so it required an Executive decision.  He explained the ending of the existing lease at the property and the opportunity to enter into a new lease with the existing tenant as the best option to pursue.  

There was no debate and Members unanimously agreed the recommendations of the report.

The Chief Executive advised that subject to final confirmation from the Director, the presentation from Opium Power may be presented to Council in January.  At the current time, no reports were scheduled for February so there may be no requirement to hold a District Executive meeting or Council unless an unforeseen item arose.  The presentation of the Kickstart Scheme would now be presented to Council in March 2023.

In response to a question, the Chief Executive and Chief Finance officer confirmed that the External Audit and Value for Money report was hoped to be presented to Full Council in March 2023.

Members noted that the next scheduled meeting of the District Executive would take place if there was any urgent business to transact on Thursday 02 February 2023 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Brympton Way, Yeovil commencing at 9.30 a.m. 

Otherwise, the next scheduled meeting of the District Executive would take place on Thursday 02 March 2023 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 items and this was agreed without dissent.

The report was discussed in confidence and Members agreed unanimously to propose the recommendations of the report to Full Council. 

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