Agenda, decisions and minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, Brympton Way, YEOVIL, Somerset BA20 2HT
Contact: Angela Cox 01935 462148 Email: angela.cox@southsomerset.gov.uk
No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Minutes of Previous Meeting To approve as a correct record the minutes of the District Executive meeting held on 5th January 2017. Minutes: The minutes of the District Executive meeting held on 5th January 2017, copes 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 Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Angie Singleton, Alex Parmley, Chief Executive, and Rina Singh, Deputy Chief Executive. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest 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. Minutes: Councillor Peter Seib declared a personal interest in Agenda item 14: Final Recommendation of the Community Governance Review of Brympton Parish Council, as a member of the Parish Council. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Public Question Time Minutes: The Chairman agreed that members of the public present could speak at the time their item of interest was discussed. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chairman's Announcements Minutes: The Chairman was pleased to announce the safe arrival of the Chief Executive and his wife’s new baby boy the previous day. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Somerset Waste Partnership - Draft Business Plan 2017-22 PDF 218 KB Additional documents:
Decision:
Minutes: The Portfolio Holder for Waste and Recycling, introduced the report and drew Members attention to the proposed 3 weekly refuse collections and the enhanced recycling service. She noted that although some residents were unhappy at the use of Dimmer as a Waste Transfer Station, the waste sent to Avonmouth would be converted into energy.
Mr M Roberts then spoke on behalf of Cary Moor Parish Council. He said Dimmer had a long and controversial history due to the poor access road. The Managing Director of the Somerset Waste Partnership had said the site was time limited and it would close in some years however this appeared to contradict what had been said by planning officers and Viridor representatives at a SCC Regulation Committee meeting. He expressed concern that information regarding the business case for siting a waste transfer station at Dimmer had not been made available and called for it to be provided.
The Managing Director, Somerset Waste Partnership confirmed that he would share as much information on the business case as was possible, however, some relating to alternative sites was commercially confidential. It had been important not to compromise the SWP’s negotiating position when looking at alternative sites. He also mentioned that the permit scheme for commercial vehicles and trailers at Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRC’s) appeared to have been successful in reducing the amount of material coming in from outside the county. The issue of charging residents to use the HWRC in Crewkerne would need to be revisited due to change of law and this would be part of a wider review of recycling sites. Further information on the Recycle More project would be issued in June 2017 and roll out in the SSDC area would commence in the autumn and conclude in 2018.
The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee said they had requested further information on refuse treatment and the Recycle More project, mentioned in the report. They had also received representations from the public on the use of Dimmer as a Waste Transfer Station and they would be forwarding their concerns to the Somerset Joint Waste Scrutiny Committee and also to SCC’s Scrutiny Committee. They were also pleased to note that the proposed new council for Taunton Deane BC and West Somerset Council was a low risk but required review of the inter-Authority agreement.
In response to questions from Members, the Managing Director of the Somerset Waste Partnership advised:- · There were no immediate plans to relocate the waste vehicles away from the Lufton Depot, however, it was an aspiration to consolidate them in one central location at a future date. · The former Secretary of State for the DCLG had issued an Order stating that Community Recycling Centres must operate within S51 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and should not charge for admission. · It was usual for local authorities to enter into long term contracts without break clauses for projects of this nature, in order to secure the best price. The Pennon Group were making a ... view the full minutes text for item 126. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loan to Somerset Waste Partnership for Waste Vehicles PDF 151 KB Decision:
Minutes: The Chairman advised that in loaning the money towards the purchase of the new recycling vehicles, SSDC would retain a charge on them in the event of any subsequent collapse of the contract to collect waste and recycling.
In response to a question, the Assistant Director (Finance and Corporate Services) confirmed that Somerset County Council would reclaim the VAT from HMRC on the purchased vehicles.
The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee confirmed their support for the recommendation as the interest received would be in excess of what was currently being received.
There was no debate and Members were content to propose the recommendations to Full Council for approval.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heart of the South West Devolution Update PDF 211 KB Decision:
Minutes: The Chairman advised that councils in the South West were no longer moving towards devolution however, they had worked well together and so it was proposed that they form a Joint Committee to produce a productivity plan in order to gain some influence over the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP).
The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee said they supported the recommendations but had concerns that they did not have enough sufficient information and so would be discussing this and the role of Scrutiny at their next meeting.
There was no debate and Members were content to propose the recommendations to Full Council.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Revenue Budget 2017/18 - Medium Term Financial Plan and Capital Programme PDF 343 KB Additional documents:
Decision:
Minutes: The Assistant Director (Finance and Corporate Services) introduced the report and drew Members attention to its main points. She noted that the capital projects would be presented in March 2017 along with the new Council Plan.
The Chairman reminded Members that a workshop was scheduled for 21st February to discuss future budget priorities.
In response to questions, it was noted that:-
· The current Car Parking Strategy was still valid and was being reviewed by the Senior Leadership Team. · Most of the Somerset Councils were raising their council tax by £5.00. · All the Somerset authorities were precepting for the Somerset Rivers Authority.
At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to endorse the 2017/18 Revenue Budget and Medium Term Financial Plan and propose them for confirmation by Full Council.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016/17 Revenue Budget Monitoring Report for the quarter ending 31st December 2016 PDF 266 KB Additional documents:
Decision:
Minutes: The Assistant Director (Finance and Corporate Services) confirmed that there should be a small budget underspend by the end of the financial year.
The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee said they had expressed concern at the number of outstanding applications for Discretionary Housing Payments listed in the report. The Chairman agreed they were concerning and said he had briefed David Warburton MP on this issue. He said it may also be necessary to use discretionary funding to cover this and if so, a report would be presented to District Executive.
In response to a question, the Assistant Director (Finance and Corporate Services) confirmed that when the senior leadership structure was confirmed by Full Council, it was agreed it should financially break even and the report confirmed this had been met.
At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to confirm the recommendations of the report.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016/17 Capital Budget Monitoring Report for the quarter ending 31st December 2016 PDF 250 KB Additional documents:
Decision:
Minutes: The Assistant Director asked if Members were minded to confirm whether the capital schemes approved prior to 2012 should remain in the programme.
In response to questions from the Scrutiny Committee, the Chairman confirmed that:
· the Market Towns Investment Group would continue and its funding was originally Government funding specifically for the project so it was not appropriate to use for other schemes. · the new car parking in Crewkerne was progressing but it was now part of a larger project to maximise the opportunities in that area. There was no further debate and Members were content to confirm the recommendations of the report.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Public Space Protection Order for dog fouling, dogs on leads and dog exclusion area PDF 173 KB Additional documents:
Decision:
Minutes: The Portfolio Holder for Environmental Health and Democratic Services introduced the report which she said was due to a change in legislation.
The Principal Environmental Protection Officer advised that the existing Dog Control Orders were now superseded by Public Space Protection Orders. Public consultation had taken place and all responses were in support of the introduction of PSPO’s. She then outlined the two proposed orders covering dog fouling and dogs on leads on public land across the district and one for dog exclusion at the fenced area at Yeovil Country Park.
In response to questions from Members, the Principal Environmental Protection Officer confirmed that:- · Only the District Council could introduce Public Space Protection Orders and any new PSPO must be evidence based for a particular location. · It would be impossible to provide signage of the Orders on every piece of public land across the district. · Although the Council had not issued any fixed penalty notices within the previous 12 months, the Orders did act as a deterrent.
At the conclusion of the debate, it was agreed that the change in legislation be notified to all Town & Parish Councils detailing the requirements should they wish to request a PSPO in their locality. With this additional recommendation, Members were content to confirm the introduction of the proposed Public Space Protection Orders and the associated level of fixed penalty notices.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Allowenshay Private Water Supply PDF 180 KB Additional documents: Decision:
Minutes: The Committee were addressed by Gillian Brierley, Chris Baranowski, Susan Gibson, Paul Tomlin and David Gordon, residents of Allowenshay, regarding their water supply. Their comments included:- · Neither of the two water supplies in operation worked properly. · The Rutter family had not supplied any quotes or given any indication of ongoing maintenance if connected to the Allowenshay Water Company. · It was the Council’s duty to enforce a wholesome water supply. · Only Rutter Brothers should be accountable. · The community would prefer a mains water connection.
The Committee was also addressed by Mr Robert Wood, on behalf of the Rutter family. He said that in 2013, a cost of connecting the village to mains water through Wessex Water was obtained but was rejected due to the cost (over £250,000). He outlined the works carried out by the Rutter family to the water supply and their offer to include the profit from a building plot if the residents agreed to share the cost of connecting to the Allowenshay Water Company. He said the proposed recommended option in the report would fulfil all the requirements of the S80 Notice.
The Legal Services Manager said that under the relevant legislation, the Council had a discretion to take action, however, if the water was unwholesome then they had a duty to act. The Section 80 Notice under the Water Industry Act 1981 was issued to the Rutter Bros (as they had maintained the water supply) under an insufficiency of supply and carried no criminal proceedings so there was no power to prosecute. Should SSDC decide to facilitate a water connection for the village, it would involve considerable expense and could involve court action to recoup costs if residents did not contribute.
The Principal Environmental Protection Officer outlined the history of the Council’s involvement in the water supply in Allowenshay which led to the serving of a Section 80 Notice under the Water Industry Act 1981. She confirmed that where a private water supply was provided, the Council had regulatory powers to ensure it was wholesome and sufficient, but, there was no duty to insist it was supplied.
During a lengthy discussion, Members concluded that the Council should not be drawn into what was a civil matter. The original recommendation to offer the residents the option to apply for a low cost loan to assist with connection to a water supply was proposed and seconded, however, when put to the vote, this was lost (voting, 3 in favour, 5 against). The Chairman then proposed that the Council take no further action on the Allowenshay Private Water Supply after considering that all reasonable efforts to resolve the matter had been made. This was seconded and unanimously agreed by Members.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Final Recommendation of the Community Governance Review of Brympton Parish Council PDF 173 KB Decision:
Minutes: There was no debate on this item and Members were content to propose the recommendations to Full Council for confirmation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District Executive Forward Plan PDF 78 KB Additional documents: Decision:
Minutes: Members noted the following amendments and additions to the Executive Forward Plan and Consultation Database:-
· Revisions to the Discretionary Rate Relief Policy for 2017/18 – March 2017 · Building our Industrial Strategy Consultation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date of Next Meeting PDF 17 KB Minutes: Members noted that the next scheduled meeting of the District Executive would take place on Thursday 2nd March 2017 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Brympton Way, Yeovil commencing at 9.30 a.m.
|