Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the informal District Executive meeting held on Thursday 2^nd September 2021.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 2^nd September 2021 were approved as a correct record and would be signed by the Chairman.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor John Clark.

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.

There were no members of the public present at the meeting.

The Chairman had no announcements, but advised members that the next meeting of full Council on 21 October would probably be a socially distanced in-person meeting at Westlands Entertainment Venue.

The Portfolio Holder (Health & Wellbeing) presented the report which provided an update on the programme and the important work of this group, He advised that budget approval was also being sought for the 2021/22 financial year.

It was clarified by the Director (Service Delivery) that it had always been envisaged that the South Somerset Families Project was a three year programme. This report was seeking approval of funding for year two, and also proposed how to approach the third year of funding via the budget setting process. She noted the group had met targets across the district and there had been very positive progress of the programme.

The Chairman of Scrutiny Committee thanked the Director for attending their meeting and answering questions. He referred to comments raised at the Scrutiny meeting, in particular, concerns regarding continuity of the project as we transition to a new unitary authority.

During a short discussion, the Director and Portfolio Holder responded to some points of detail regarding school attendance statistics. They also acknowledged concerns about continuity of the programme and that there was a need to encourage such a programme county wide.

At the conclusion of discussion, members unanimously agreed the recommendations be confirmed by the Chief Executive.

The Portfolio Holder (Area West) presented the report which provided a draft of the Future Draft Strategy and sought approval to progress to public consultation. He noted consultants had been appointed to develop the strategy and he highlighted key points. Officers and a representative for the consultants were also present at the meeting to answer any questions from members.

During a brief discussion and in response to a concern raised about timeframes, the Director (Place & Recovery) provided more detail regarding plans for the consultation including, type, timings, events and group events etc. She acknowledged the consultation period would be quite intensive but should be achievable.

The Chairman of Scrutiny Committee noted the item had been considered in depth at their meeting and referred to some of the comments made including information about Chard Connect and if there was confidence that relevant CIL funding can be drawn in. A suggestion had been made that a two-page summary of the document might be well received and helpful for engagement during the consultation.

In response, the Portfolio Holder provided an explanation of Chard Connect and its purpose. The Director (Place & Recovery) advised that they had acted upon the Scrutiny suggestion and a summary document was produced.

At the conclusion of debate, members unanimously agreed the recommendations be confirmed by the Chief Executive.

The Portfolio Holder (Legal & Democratic Services) introduced the report which presented a draft suite of procurement documents to members for adoption. He noted it was an opportunity to update four documents at the same time in order to bring up to date with the latest legislation and government initiatives.

The Chairman of Scrutiny Committee referred to comments raised at their meeting, and that some caution would be needed with procuring at this stage with the transition to a new authority, as there may be instances where projects or tasks may be unable to be implemented.

During a very brief discussion, the Lead Specialist (People, Performance & Change) referred to the Social Value Policy and noted that social value intervention was a major move forward for authority.  At the conclusion of debate, members unanimously agreed that the recommendations be forwarded to Full Council for approval.

The Portfolio Holder (Finance & Legal Services) presented the report which provided an indicative financial forecast for future years. He noted that the diagram at paragraph 7 of the report gave an overview of the pressures and issues to be considered for this version of the MTFP. Overall, the picture showed the authority was in a very sound position.

He highlighted key elements of the report and noted there was a lot of work to do by a specified date in readiness for the new unitary authority in 2023. There was also a need to move to the position of zero base budgeting in preparation for handover to the new authority. One matter that was not included within the report was financing of the work to transition to the new authority. This would be addressed in a future report as not enough information was known at the current time in order to formulate an estimated budget.

The Chairman of Scrutiny Committee thanked the Section 151 Officer for attending their meeting and answering questions. He referred to the comments raised at their meeting regarding Section 31 grants, Covid-19 grants, inflationary pressures due to energy costs, and the additional National Insurance contributions. In response, the Portfolio Holder and Section 151 Officer briefly summarised the answers provided at Scrutiny Committee.

There was no debate and members unanimously agreed the recommendations be confirmed by the Chief Executive.

(Voting: 8 in favour, 1 abstention)

The Chairman introduced the item and highlighted the purpose of the report. She noted we were the first constituent council of the five councils to consider the report, and an identical report was being taken each Executive Committee or Cabinet.

The Chief Executive Officer clarified that the Joint Committee would provide strategic oversight and political leadership for the implementation of the Secretary of State's (SoS) decision to form one unitary authority. Several matters were outlined in detail in the report, and she provided a brief overview, including proposals for a Joint Scrutiny Committee.

It was noted that joint committees for implementation of Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) were well established, and had been used successfully in other authorities nationally that had gone through the same situation and process. There was plenty of precedent, and that precedent also dictated that the council who put forward the proposal that was the successful bid approved by the SoS, was the council that would have overall control of the Joint Committee.

The report laid out that the Joint Committee would consist of five members from Somerset County Council (SCC) and four members for the district councils (one from each authority). There had been discussion about the number of members but it had been agreed that the recommendation for 5+4 members would be taken forward. It was proposed that the Joint Committee would meet monthly. The Joint Committee would fall away once the Implementation Executive or alternative Shadow Authority (depending on what's decided) was stood up, following the Structural Change Order and the elections in May 2022.

During a lengthy debate, some councillors expressed their disappointment about the proposed make up of the Joint Committee, and suggested that 4+4 members would be more democratic. There were also queries raised about points of detail regarding the Terms of Reference for the Joint Committee and what the consequences might be if the recommendations were not agreed, or a proposal made to amend and reduce the membership of the Joint Committee.

The Chairman of Scrutiny Committee noted that had been a good discussion at their meeting and members spoke with passion about the item. The overall view was that transparency was needed. He also referred to other comments made by Scrutiny members including about whether the existing Joint Scrutiny Panels for Waste and Rivers would be amalgamated into any proposed joint scrutiny for the LGR.

In response to comments made during discussion and at Scrutiny Committee, the Chairman, Chief Executive and the Monitoring Officer noted that:

·         All five Leaders had met and had originally discussed a membership of 9+8 for Joint Committee, however it was felt smaller numbers would be more manageable. Substitutes would be allowed.

·         If the proposal for the Joint Committee was agreed by all constituent councils, then the previously agreed councillor working group at SSDC would be stood up.

·         A membership of 4+4 members, with the Chairman being an SCC member and having a casting vote, was likely to have the same result as a 5+4  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

The Chairman introduced the item, and the Specialist (Compliance & Enforcement) provided an overview of the existing Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) and the reasons for seeking an extension to the area to address street drinking. He clarified that evidence figures in the report referred to alleged incidents reported to Police.

During discussion members noted the perception of anti-social behaviour was not good, and indicated their support for the proposal. In response to points of detail raised, the Specialist (Compliance & Enforcement) explained that:

·         The boundaries or areas covered by a PSPO had to be informed by an evidence base. If there was no evidence to support the PSPO the Order could be appealed.

·         He was liaising with officers regarding the County Park at Ninesprings to see if there was any evidence for a PSPO in specified areas of the park

·         The Police were very supportive of the proposal to extend the area of the PSPO, and had been involved in the process since the beginning.

The Chairman of Scrutiny referred to comments made at their meeting, and noted members had raised about the future of PSPOs within the new authority going forward, as districts had led at this stage. It was acknowledged this was probably unknown at the current time.

At the conclusion of debate, members unanimously agreed the recommendation be confirmed by the Chief Executive.

The Portfolio Holder (Finance & Legal Services) noted the Capital and Revenue Monitoring reports were a little late, and this was due solely to workloads within the Finance Team.

There were no further comments, and members were content that the Forward Plan be approved.

Members noted that the next scheduled meeting of the District Executive would take place on Thursday 4^th November 2021 as a virtual meeting using Zoom meeting software commencing at 9.30 a.m.

The Chief Executive provided members with a brief verbal update on the Local Government Reorganisation in Somerset.

There was no discussion or comments raised by members.