Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the District Executive meeting held on 5^th February 2015.

The minutes of the District Executive meeting held on 5 February 2015, copies of which had been circulated, were taken as read and, having been approved as a correct record, were signed by the Chairman.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jo Roundell Greene and Angie Singleton.

In accordance with the Council's current Code of Conduct (adopted July 2012), 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. A DPI is defined in The Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1464) and Appendix 3 of the Council’s Code of Conduct. A personal interest is defined in paragraph 2.8 of the Code and a prejudicial interest is defined in paragraph 2.9.

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. As a result of the change made to the Code of Conduct by this Council at its meeting on 15th May 2014, 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.  If you have a prejudicial interest you must comply with paragraphs 2.9(b) and 2.9(c) of the Code.

Councillor Shane Pledger declared a personal and prejudicial interest for item 18, Huish Academy Artificial Grass Pitch Project, as he is an appointed member on the Huish Episcopi Leisure Centre Board.

Questions, statements or comments from members of the public are welcome at the

beginning of each meeting of the Executive.  The total period allowed for public participation shall not exceed 15 minutes except with the consent of the Chairman and each individual speaker shall be restricted to a total of three minutes.  Where there are a number of persons wishing to speak about the same matter, they should consider choosing one spokesperson to speak on their behalf where appropriate.  If a member of the public wishes to speak they should advise the committee administrator and complete one of the public participation slips setting out their name and the matter they wish to speak about.  The public will be invited to speak in the order determined by the Chairman.  Answers to questions may be provided at the meeting itself or a written reply will be sent subsequently, as appropriate.  Matters raised during the public question session will not be debated by the Councillors at that meeting.

Mr C Wall, addressed members regarding the item for the Huish Academy Artificial Grass Pitch Project. He raised concerns about the content of the award agreement with particular reference to the objective relating to ‘within the first two years of opening’ as detailed on page 120 of the agenda. Reference was also made to the amount of money being spent and the location of similar facilities.  

The Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Culture responded briefly to the comments made, and it was agreed by the Chairman that a written response be sent to Mr Wall.

The Chairman did not make any announcements.

The Chairman introduced the report and noted the dip and corresponding comment for PI 003, the percentage of planning appeal decisions allowed against the authority’s decision to refuse.  The Portfolio Holder for Regulatory and Democratic Services commented that it was a small number of applications involved.

The Chairman agreed with the comments of Scrutiny that:

·      it would be useful if the numbers as well percentages were reported for PI 003 to provide context.

·      It would be beneficial if future monitoring reports included data on the number of planning applications determined within timeframes and those which are not, as it would be a useful indicator of overall performance to members.

In response to comments made during discussion, officers clarified that:

·      the workshops referred to under PI 003 had now taken place, and the percentage stated covered 12 appeals.

·      the peak in figures for PI 008 related to the major flooding of last winter

·      whilst acknowledging there had been a slight decrease in the number of reported flytips it did not take us below the Somerset Waste Partnership threshold

At the conclusion of debate, members were content to note the quarterly performance and complaints monitoring report.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Spatial Planning introduced the report and highlighted recent events including the Inspector’s report of 8 January 2015 and his conclusion that the plan is considered to be sound.  He highlighted the modifications and minor changes, and noted that it was proposed to switch around recommendations 2 and 3 in the agenda report.  A revised risk matrix was presented for if the plan was adopted, and an alternative one for it was not adopted.

The Principal Spatial Planner, reminded members the reason for the revised Local Plan was due to modifications required by the Inspector to make the plan sound.  The delegated responsibility referred to in recommendation 5 was not for material changes but only to clarify some wording.  He explained the recommendations in detail, the implications of not adopting the plan, and noted that the revised policy maps should now be easier to understand.

The comments of Scrutiny were noted:

·      Members had considered the process undertaken to get to this point and noted the significant implications of not adopting the Plan.

·      Gratitude 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.

During discussion, several concerns were raised about the content and different interpretation of the risk matrices. In particular several members felt the impact would be greater than indicated if the plan was not adopted. The Chairman acknowledged the matter may be slightly subjective, and it was agreed that the risk matrices would be reconsidered before presentation to Council.

In response to other comments raised, officers clarified that the plan identified some needs and aspirations, and that these would be provided where possible, but it did not state who the provider would be.  The plan was there as a tool to influence industry and developers.

At the conclusion of debate, members were content to recommend the report, with the amended order of recommendations and risk matrix, to Full Council.

The Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Culture introduced the report and highlighted that for every £1 invested by SSDC in the Voluntary Sector, approximately £8 of external funding was secured.  She noted it was a changing financial culture and extremely challenging for organisations who had previously been dependent on public sector funding.  She further commented that the voluntary and community sector were valued and something that had to be supported as little would be delivered without them.

In response to comments raised by Scrutiny, the Portfolio Holder clarified that:

·      unallocated monies in the Health and Wellbeing fund would be held in reserve and ring-fenced.

·      Acknowledged more detailed information regarding the SSVCA had been provided in the past but that had been when they were in financial difficulties.

·      There was no duplication of services between two similar voluntary organisation and SSDC Welfare advice and a note summarising the differences in the services provided by the CAB and SSVCA was circulated.

The Assistant Director (Communities) noted that in error the recommendations shown in the agenda referred to incorrect years and should have read 2014/15 and 2015/16 respectively.

Members were happy to note the overview report for district-wide voluntary sector grants for 2015/16.

The Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Culture noted there were approximately 350 voluntary organisations in South Somerset, many of which turned to the SSVCA for support or advice.  If the SSVCA did not exist much would fall back on SSDC.

The Chairman commented he was enormously proud of the SSVCA and their Mendip partners for their reaction to the major flooding incident last year.  The challenge had been huge and they had only recently exited the affected area.

Sam Best of the SSVCA, addressed members, noting achievements and highlighted that the organisation had undergone major restructuring over the past two years.  They predicted to making their first surplus in a number of years by the end of the current financial year.

In response to comments raised during discussion and at the Scrutiny meeting, SSDC and SSVCA officers noted that:

·         Furnicare had been restructured with the only main base being in Yeovil. 49% of the customer was from Yeovil and the remainder from across the district.

·         SSVCA was happy to make any financial reports available to Scrutiny Committee.

·         SSVCA were happy to look at issue of transporting young people to sporting events and activities if funding was available.

At the conclusion of debate, members were content to approve the recommendations of the report.

The Equalities Officer introduced the report and highlighted the achievements of the organisation over the last year.  She reminded members that SSDC commissioned Access for All to do work on SSDC’s behalf.  The organisation had changed its name in the past year following a restructure, and they were now also looking to expand their services across the district, and in some cases, further afield.

Stan Shayler and Cherry Cobb from Access For All addressed members explaining that they had cut their overheads by approximately 30%, some changes had still to be implemented following the name change, progressing the use of social media to promote their work, and highlighting the work of volunteers.

At the end of a brief discussion members and the Chairman thanked the volunteers for their work.  Members were content to approve the recommendation.

The Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Culture introduced the report and noted and remaining budget would be ringfenced. The Arts Development Officer briefly summarised the achievements of Actiontrack, Take Art, Somerset Works and Somerset Film over the past year.

There was no discussion and members were content to approve the funding to each organisation as indicated in table 1 on page 55 of the agenda.

The Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Culture introduced the report and noted the work undertaken by the organisation, highlighting the expansion of the youth club support programme.

The Senior Play and Youth Facilities Officer praised the knowledge, skills and resources the Somerset Rural Youth Project brought to the district.  He commented that for the amount of funding requested SSDC would not be able to provide the same service.

There was no discussion and members were content to approve both recommendations.

The Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Culture introduced the report and highlighted that the South Somerset Citizens Advice Bureau had been subject to reductions in funding, and had adapted accordingly.  The volunteers worked with our own in-house team to help people with complex issues.

Georgina Burton and Lin Cousin of SSCAB, addressed members highlighting the benefits to residents in the area either by direct receipt of financial benefit or by the minimising of debt.  It was noted that the SSDC funding allowed for open door access to the service.

The Scrutiny Chairman acknowledged that concerns raised by Scrutiny Committee regarding duplication had been addressed by the hand-out circulated at the time of the overview report.

During a short discussion members noted the excellent work of SSCAB, expressed their support for the funding, and noted the move back to Petters House made everything easier and more efficient for everyone concerned.

Members were content to approve the funding for 2015-16.

The Chairman reminded members the item had been withdrawn from the previous month’s agenda following a meeting with several parties in Wincanton. The matter had been considered carefully and the recommendation was to not grant access.

The Assistant Director (Finance and Corporate Services) updated members that since the agenda had been published, the applicant had requested that members consider a licence agreement if the easement request is refused. She explained that a licence agreement would be temporary and could be terminated by SSDC at short notice. As there had not been the opportunity to liaise with Wincanton Town Council regarding the licence request, and given the strength of feeling locally about this issue it was recommended to refuse a licence at this time and continue to close the unauthorised gap in the wall. The applicant would be able to reapply once any future plans were agreed.

In response to a query regarding the map, as raised by Scrutiny Committee, the Assistant Director (Finance and Corporate Services) clarified that the map in the agenda was a little out of date and noted that the access concerned was now part of the Dolphin Hotel and not the Quaker Meeting House.

During discussion, there was some debate as to what exactly was meant by ‘closure of the gap’, and whether it would be short or long term, and by what means. It was noted locally there was a wish to see the stone wall reinstated as it is a listed building.

The Assistant Director (Legal and Corporate Services) commented it was clear what members wanted to see the access stopped up which would be done by legal and physical means.

The Chairman noted that members clearly wished the gap to be stopped up as soon as possible, and commented the short term means for doing so may differ from the long term.

At the end of the debate, it was proposed and subsequently agreed, to amend the recommendation to include refusing entry by a licence and that the gap been stopped up as soon as practicable after appropriate notice has been served.

The Assistant Director (Economy) introduced the item and referred to the adopted growth plan. He explained that the concept of a Growth Board was a key to people across Somerset being involved.  He clarified that the Board would not have any delegated authority over the Council.

The Chairman of Scrutiny Committee noted that members were supportive of the principle but there needed to be clarity of how the Board would fit in with the LEP structure and what steps would be taken to ensure the Board remained outcome focussed. Scrutiny members also requested that a progress report be made in 12 months.

During discussion it was commented that it was important to make sure Somerset had the right level of influence at the LEP.  Some members shared the concerns of Scrutiny, but were willing to see how the Board performed for a year.  It was proposed to amend recommendation two to including the word notional and the funding contribution being subject to annual review.

At the end of discussion, members were content to approve the recommendations, as amended.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Spatial Planning introduced the report and referred to the number of businesses currently receiving relief.

In response to comments raised by Scrutiny Committee, the Portfolio Holder agreed that policy relating to business rate relief for childcare providers would be included in the budget setting process for next year.

Following a very brief discussion, members were content to recommend the report to Council.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Spatial Planning presented the report and referred to when the loan had been previously considered by District Executive and Council in late 2014.  He explained that less money was required now and the interest rate of one percent above the Public Works Loan Board rate would be a bonus for SSDC.

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee confirmed members supported the recommendations.

There was little discussion and members were content to note the report and approve the interest rate.

The Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Culture introduced the report and referred to the public representation mad at the start of the meeting.  She clarified that the wording in the award agreement (page 120 of the agenda) referred to assessing the potential and applying if feasible to extend the hours of operation.  She noted that there would have to be a new planning application submitted if there was a wish, or need, to extend the hours of operation.  Such an application would go out for public consultation in the usual way.

The Assistant Director (Health and Wellbeing) noted there had much consideration of the operating hours when the planning application had been discussed at Area North Committee.  Restrictions were placed regarding the hours of operation, and hence in the first two years of use the Academy would access the usage.

It was explained there were two considerations.  Firstly the awarding of banked Section 106 monies, the second was for those Section 106 monies not yet received but expected as a result of the granting of planning permission.  The Assistant Director noted the offer paperwork clearly stated the risks of starting the project without an indication of when the unbanked Section 106 monies would be available.

The Chairman of Scrutiny Committee noted the project had been extensively discussed at Area North Committee.  Members sought reassurance that the school were aware of the risks associated with funding if trigger points were not met.

During a brief discussion, the Assistant Director responded to comments and explained the pitch would be marked out for hockey as well as football.  The pitch met requirements of the Football Foundation for youth provision, but not adult football, due to constraints on the site.

At the conclusion of debate members were content to approve the recommendations.

There was no debate and members were content to note the report of the Register of Assets of Community Value.

The SSDC Councillor appointed to the Somerset Armed Forces Community Covenant Partnership (SAFCCP) presented the report which provided an update on outcomes of the partnership.  He noted much had been achieved in conjunction with officers and South Somerset had benefitted extremely well.

The Chairman of Scrutiny Committee noted members were pleased to note the success for South Somerset as already mentioned.

In response to comments made during discussion, the Assistant Director (Communities) noted that:-

·         mental health had been discussed at a recent meeting and a plan was being drawn up.

·         bids from community groups in the east of the district were in the pipeline but were not fitting in with the current timeframes.

Members were pleased to note the report and successes for South Somerset.

Members were pleased to note the monthly performance snapshot data.

Members noted the following addition to the Executive Forward Plan:

·         South Petherton Neighbourhood Area – April

Members noted that the next scheduled meeting of the District Executive would take place on Thursday 2 April 2015 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Brympton Way, Yeovil commencing at 9.30am.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Spatial Planning introduced the report as detailed in the agenda.  He highlighted that the report itself mentioned an overage clause but this was not specifically mentioned in a recommendation, and suggested that it be added to end of recommendation 1.  He noted the shortfall in net income in effect was balanced by any maintenance required.

The Chairman of Scrutiny Committee noted that members supported the recommendations.

During discussion the Assistant Director (Legal and Corporate Services) advised what the average overage would be. At the conclusion of a short debate, members were content to approve all the recommendations as amended.