Agenda, decisions and minutes
Venue: Virtual Meeting using Zoom meeting software. View directions
Contact: Angela Cox, Democratic Services Specialist - 01935 462148 Email: angela.cox@southsomerset.gov.uk
No. | Item | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Minutes of Previous Meeting To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Special District Executive meeting held on 16th July 2020 and the District Executive meeting held on 6th August 2020. Minutes: The minutes of the previous meetings held on 16 July 2020 and 6 August 2020 were approved as correct records and would be signed by the Chairman. |
|||||||||
Apologies for Absence Minutes: All members were present at the meeting. |
|||||||||
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: There were no declarations of interest. |
|||||||||
Public Question Time Minutes: The Chairman noted a member of the public was present who wished to address members regarding the Queen Camel Neighbourhood Plan, She advised that she would invite the gentleman to speak at the time the item was to be considered. |
|||||||||
Chairman's Announcements Minutes: The Chairman reminded members that the draft Business Case for Stronger Somerset had been published which would be considered at special meetings of Scrutiny Committee and District Executive the following week before being going forward to Full Council on 10 September. A microsite was available where documents relating to the business case could be viewed and also information provided as FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions). She also noted that consultation had begun with town and parish councils, and advised that the Project Board was meeting frequently. It was acknowledged that much work had been done in a relatively short timeframe and a lot of work was still ongoing. She conveyed her thanks to the officers involved. |
|||||||||
The Queen Camel Neighbourhood Plan Referendum PDF 188 KB Additional documents:
Decision:
(Voting: Unanimous in favour) Minutes: The Clerk of Queen Camel Parish Council addressed members regarding the Neighbourhood Plan. He appreciated that this was a difficult decision for the district council and he thanked the authority for allowing the time to work with the parish council to find an acceptable compromise. On the basis that the Examiners modifications would be accepted, including removal of the settlement boundary in order to make the Neighbourhood Plan in conformity with the existing and emerging Local Plan, then provided the changes to the text as set out in the agenda report were made, then that would enable significant weight to be given to the Neighbourhood Plan prior to the Referendum.
The Leader introduced the report which asked members to agree the Independent Examiner’s report and recommendations for Proposed Modifications, and to set out the process for making the plan should there be a favourable outcome to the local referendum. She highlighted the specific recommendations and wording that members were being asked to agree. She congratulated the parish for the quality of work that had been undertaken. It was noted it would be very difficult to not accept the examiners modifications as there was no legal basis to do so. She reminded members that a referendum was unable to be take place until at least May 2021 due to Coronavirus restrictions.
The Specialist (Strategic Planning) acknowledged the comments and concerns of the parish, particularly regarding the settlement boundary, and noted the parish and officers had worked productively to reach the compromise. She felt the form of wording as detailed in the agenda report, had been taken as far as it was possible and external and internal legal advice had been taken.
During a short discussion members praised the parish for reaching the current stage of the Neighbourhood Plan, and one member provided a brief history as to how this particular plan had come forward.
Ward member, Councillor Mike Lewis, acknowledged there was local disappointment regarding the settlement boundary issue, and was fearful that when this Neighbourhood Plan goes to referendum that the local community may not be supportive.
There being no further discussion, it was proposed to approve recommendations A to D, and on being put to the vote, was carried unanimously.
|
|||||||||
Disposal of Churchfields Office, Wincanton PDF 394 KB Additional documents:
Decision:
(Voting: Unanimous) Minutes: The Portfolio Holder (Protecting Core Services) presented the report which asked member to consider the disposal of this surplus operational property asset, and noted the disposal had also been previously discussed by Area East Committee.
The Portfolio Holder (Area East) noted that at Area East Committee there had been discussion about splitting the red line so that an annexe could be sold separately, and he asked what had happened regarding the suggestion. He confirmed that Area East Committee supported disposal of the property, In response, the Commercial Property, Land and Development Manager explained that the property had been marketed for bids for either part or the whole site, but offers had only been received for the entire site.
Following a very brief discussion, it proposed to approve the two recommendations as detailed in the agenda report, which was carried unanimously when put to the vote.
|
|||||||||
Investment Assets Quarterly Update Report PDF 144 KB Additional documents:
Decision:
Minutes: The Portfolio Holder (Economic Development) presented the report which provided an update on progress with implementing the commercial investment component of the SSDC Commercial Strategy. He highlighted some key elements of the report, and reminded members of the targets set within the Commercial Strategy. It was noted this was the first of quarterly reports as due to the pandemic more frequent reporting had been requested. It was noted since the last report the purchase had been completed for a battery storage facility at Fareham which was slightly larger than the facility at Taunton.
The Commercial Property, Land and Development Manager, and the Director (Commercial Services and Income Generation) explained further some aspects of the report and responded to points of detail raised during a short discussion. Some of their points included information regarding: · Speculation on the future of the office market in general · An update on the rent collection which had progressed to about 90%,and it was hoped to reach 95-98%. · Information about engagement with tenants. · An overview of the Fareham Battery Project including timescales and when trading was hoped to commence. · The prices of properties at the Marlborough development had been revised during the pandemic and the authority would strive to get the best price. · The Innovation Centre was not part of the investment portfolio.
The Scrutiny Chairman acknowledged the explanations provided by officers at the Scrutiny Committee meeting, including addressing concerns about: · Reduction in income and how that would effect the income targets. · Whether should invest less in offices in the future · The new battery scheme and how it would operate
During a short discussion members congratulated the team for their work and achievements. The Leader noted it was worth taking a moment to consider where the authority might have been had the investments not been made and the income achieved.
Members were content to note the report and the progress made.
|
|||||||||
Reconstruction & Adoption of roadway, Chard Business Park, Chard PDF 3 MB Decision:
(Voting: Unanimous) Minutes: The Portfolio Holder (Economic Development) presented the report which detailed an emerging issue with a section of roadway at Chard Business Park, and outlined the potential implications and costs involved of the issue. He highlighted the background and history of the situation and clarified the funding requested was to fully scope and cost out the full extent of the works for the SSDC obligation.
The Chairman of Scrutiny Committee advised that members had sought some reassurances that there was no ransom strip, and also if there were to be any significant costs would that effect the Chard Regeneration Scheme, but had been informed by the officer that this would not be the case.
There being no discussion, it was proposed to approve the recommendation for preliminary investigation works up to a cost of £7,000. On being put to the vote, the proposal was agreed unanimously.
|
|||||||||
Shared Building Control and Somerset Independence Plus Service PDF 114 KB Decision:
(Voting: Unanimous) Minutes: The Portfolio Holder (Protecting Core Services) presented the report which asked members to consider expanding the existing Somerset Building Control Partnership and the existing Somerset Independence Plus agreement to include SSDC. He provided a brief overview, and highlighted the paragraphs under financial implications.
There were no questions raised by the Chairman of Scrutiny Committee. There was no discussion, and it was proposed to approve the recommendations as detailed in the agenda report, which were carried unanimously on being put to the vote.
|
|||||||||
Shared Legal Services PDF 118 KB Decision:
(Voting: Unanimous) Minutes: The Portfolio Holder (Finance & Legal Services) presented the report which seeked approval to explore the establishment of sharing legal services between SSDC, Mendip District Council, Sedgemoor District Council, and Somerset West & Taunton Council. He explained that the proposal was regarding the operational side of legal services such as casework. He also noted that each authority would retain strategic oversight including the statutory role of the Monitoring Officer.
There were no questions raised by the Chairman of Scrutiny Committee and he noted that members had supported the recommendations. There was no discussion, and it was proposed to approve the five recommendations as detailed in the agenda report, which were carried unanimously on being put to the vote.
(Note – One member was not present for the vote as they briefly lost their internet connection).
|
|||||||||
Urgent Decision - Support for Leisure Provider PDF 111 KB Additional documents:
Decision:
Minutes: The Portfolio Holder (Health & Well-Being) presented the report which notified members of an urgent decision made by the Chief Executive in consultation with the Council Leader, Section 151 Officer and the Portfolio Holder for Health & Well-Being), to offer a letter of support with agreement in principle to provide funding to mitigate the losses incurred by LED Leisure Management Ltd due to the pandemic restrictions. He noted the issues regarding re-opening of leisure facilities during the Coronavirus restrictions was an issue being faced by most authorities across the country.
During a short discussion, one member noted he had considered the details in depth and felt the level of funding was sensible. He was of the opinion without the support there was a risk of losing such facilities.
The Chairman of Scrutiny Committee noted members had queried if it was known what future funding may be available from MHCLG (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government), and had been informed by officers that it was unknown. Members had also sought reassurance that funding would not be paid in advance and then the facility possibly closed again, and officers had confirmed that any funds would be released in arrears.
There being no further discussion, members were content to note the urgent decision taken.
|
|||||||||
District Executive Forward Plan PDF 86 KB Additional documents:
Decision:
Minutes: The following addition to the Forward Plan was noted:
· Government Devolution Paper (for discussion)
|
|||||||||
Date of Next Meeting PDF 41 KB Minutes: Members noted that the next meeting of the District Executive would be the special meeting on the 10 September, and the next scheduled ordinary meeting would take place at 9.30am on Thursday 1st October 2020, as virtual meetings using Zoom meeting software. |
|||||||||
Exclusion of Press and Public PDF 78 KB Minutes:
|
|||||||||
Yeovil Refresh Ring-fenced Assets and Development Opportunities (Confidential) Decision:
(Voting: Unanimous) Minutes: The Portfolio Holder (Yeovil Refresh) presented the confidential report as detailed in the agenda, and reminded members that a similar report had been considered previously for the Chard Regeneration Scheme.
During the short discussion, the Director (Place) and Director (Commercial Services and Income Generation) answered questions on points of detail, and, at the conclusion of the debate, members were content to approve the recommendations of the report.
|