Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the District Executive meeting held on Thursday 6^th October 2016.

The minutes of the District Executive meeting held on 6^th October 2016, copes of which had been circulated, were taken as read and, having been approved as a correct record, were signed by the Chairman.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Henry Hobhouse.

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.

There were no declarations of interest made.

Questions, statements or comments from members of the public are welcome at the beginning of each meeting of the Council. The total period allowed for public participation shall not exceed 15 minutes except with the consent of the Council 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 Council at that meeting.

Mr Ross Aitken of the Coker Rope and Sail Trust thanked the committee for their initial support as he said they had now secured their final grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund to complete refurbishment of the Dawes Works.  Without the initial support from SSDC to pay for scaffolding around the building, the project may never have been realised. 

The Chairman and Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Culture both responded that local people had risen to the challenge of saving the historic building and congratulated Mr Aitken for his enthusiasm and energy in seeing the project to completion. 

There were no announcements from the Chairman.

The Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning (Place Making) thanked the spatial policy officers for their work in bringing the CIL Charging Schedule forward, particularly as it was endorsed without changes by the Examiner.  She proposed that to add clarity to the recommendations, the words “and agree the implementation date of the 3rd April 2017” be added to recommendation ii.

The Principal Spatial Planner also thanked his team of staff and the corporate effort of the legal, finance and economic development teams in producing the CIL Charging Schedule.  The period between approval at Council on 17^th November and implementation on 3^rd April would be used to implement new IT systems and some staff training but also, to liaise with legal services for any existing planning permissions with outstanding S106 Agreements to be completed so they were not part of CIL.  Also the Local Development Scheme Board needed to agree the options for the collection, management and expenditure of the sums received from the levy.    

In response to questions, the Principal Spatial Planner advised:-

·         He did not anticipate a ‘rush’ of planning applications to be submitted ahead of the implementation date of CIL.

·         Self-builders would be exempt from CIL but would have to submit evidence demonstrating they were a self-build. 

·         Town & Parish Councils would receive 15% of CIL levy and this would rise to 25% where they had an adopted neighbourhood plan.  They would be expected to use the CIL money to mitigate the impacts of development in their area. 

·         The proposed Urban Extensions were exempt from CIL but they would have specific S106 Agreements.

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee thanked the Planning Policy Team for their work in bringing the CIL scheme forward and sought assurance that the implementation date of 3^rd April 2017 was achievable bearing in mind the potential impact of the Transformation programme.  She thanked the Principal Spatial Planner for confirming that self-builders were still exempt from CIL.

The Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning assured Members that there was capacity within the team to implement CIL by 3^rd April 2017 and the risks of also implementing Transformation were manageable. 

At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to recommend the Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule for approval by Council.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services introduced the report and drew Members attention to the delay in the introduction of the automatic number plate recognition for car parking enforcement, due to contract negotiations with the supplier, the General Fund Balances and the current key risks identified in paragraph 12.

In response to questions from the Scrutiny Committee, the Assistant Director (Finance and Corporate Services) advised:-

·         The vacant staff posts had originally been included in the Transformation programme, however, a new blueprint had been produced which removed them.

·         SSDC would be withdrawing from the Somerset Business Rate pooling arrangement in the next year and she would provide Members with further information on this. 

·         EDM savings within the Housing service were being transferred to the Transformation programme. 

·         The Procurement service held the IT replacement budget and the proposed carry forward of the underspend to the Transformation project would ensure it was fully funded.  Also, the currently used thin client devices were coming to the end of their useful life and would need replacing shortly. 

The Chairman asked that a short explanatory note on the delay of the automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) scheme for car parking enforcement be circulated to all Members.

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

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services introduced the report and drew Members attention to the housing schemes funding expected to spent during 2016/17 and the small balance on the Reckleford gyratory scheme. 

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee asked whether the Mortgage Rescue Contingency Fund and the Bought not Built allocation were still required.  They had also questioned why the MTIG reserve remained unspent.

The Chairman said that he would speak to officers and check whether the Mortgage Rescue Contingency Fund and the Bought not Built allocation were still required. 

The Portfolio Holder for Spatial Planning advised that several community plans were being refreshed which should result in schemes coming forward which would be funded from the MTIG reserve. 

At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to confirm the schemes that were approved prior to 2012 should remain in the programme as a number of them were linked to S106 Agreements which required sign off and they agreed the recommendations of the report.

The Portfolio Holder for Democratic Services advised that this was the final stage of the process to confirm the increase in the number of parish councillors on Yeovilton Parish Council.

The Chairman advised that he had again written to the DCLG to express the authority’s concerns that the current consultation process was overly bureaucratic, for minor Parish Council changes. 

There was no discussion and Members were content to recommend the report for confirmation at Full Council. 

The Portfolio Holder for Democratic Services introduced the report, which she said was part way through the Community Governance Review process. 

There was no debate and Members were content to propose the recommendations for confirmation at Full Council.

The following additions and amendments to the Forward Plan were noted:

·         Management of Information Requests – moved to January 2017

·         Update on the Medium Term Financial Strategy – December 2016 and January 2017

·         Somerset Waste Partnership – Recycle More Project – Steve Read, CEO of the Waste Partnership to attend to answer Members questions – December 2016

Councillor Nick Weeks drew Members attention to the spread of ash die-back disease across the county.  He asked if the Council could encourage communities to plant other species of trees to replace the dead ash trees. 

The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Economic Development agreed to discuss this at her next Portfolio Holder meeting with officers.

Members noted that the next scheduled meeting of the District Executive would take place on Thursday 1^st December 2016 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Brympton Way, Yeovil commencing at 9.30 a.m.