Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Neil Bloomfield, Hayward Burt, Martin Carnell, Louise Clarke, Nick Colbert, Henry Hobhouse, Ben Hodgson, Jenny Kenton, Kevin Messenger, Tricia O’Brien, Tiffany Osborne, David Recardo, Paul Rowsell, Dean Ruddle and William Wallace.

To approve and sign the minutes of the previous meeting held on Thursday, 15 December 2022.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on Thursday 15 December 2022 were approved as a correct record of the meeting and signed by the Chairman.

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 made by Members.

A resident of Yeovil said that he understood as part of the Yeovil Refresh Plan that a plaza was to be constructed on the site of the 'Triangle' complete with a large public screen.  He asked what the screen was to be used for to justify its cost and installation and he expressed concern that it may be used for non-stop advertising complete with intrusive sound.  He also asked who would 'own' the screen for repairs and maintenance and who would control the content? 

The Director for Place, Recovery Arts & Entertainment advised that the screen was intended to be used to deliver a programme of events.  This was still being developed and nothing was confirmed yet, but it was expected to include showcasing Yeovil and Somerset, its people and stories.  It may include advertising local events and activities, supporting public information campaigns and potentially advertising local businesses.   It was not expected that the screen’s use would always include sound.  The new Somerset Council would own the screen and would control its content either directly or through third party arrangements put in place.  Further details would be worked up over the coming months.

The resident further asked as the meeting was being held remotely, how decisions could be taken by Council? 

The Chief Executive confirmed that all Councillors had the opportunity to express their views during the meeting and vote, but, she would take the decisions as delegated to her after the meeting.

A business owner of Yeovil said she owned an independent sports shop within the town and had been trading for 50 years.  She asked if the Council intended to reduce their business rates to compensate for the ongoing works in the town which had been going for a long period of time and was discouraging shoppers from visiting the town.  She noted that a car park had been closed to accommodate construction plant during the works but this made the parking more difficult for shoppers.  She suggested a cut in car parking to attract shoppers back to the town centre as well as financial assistance for independent shops.

The Portfolio Holder for the Yeovil Refresh said there was no allocation in the Council’s budget for compensation to shop owners.  He felt the drop in visitors to the town may be due to other external factors.  He noted that there were issues currently in Westminster Street with the construction works and they had introduced night time working to reduce the impact to the public and work was progressing as fast as possible.  He asked that the business owner contact him to speak further on the issue.

The Commercial Property Land and Development Manager suggested that an application be submitted to the Valuation Office Agency for a temporary reduction in rateable value due to the construction works within the town.

The Chairman reminded Members that there would be an event ‘SSDC Celebrates!” on Thursday 23^rd March at 3.30pm and into the evening at Westlands Entertainment Venue. All members and officers were invited to attend.

He also noted that there would be a service in celebration of the five Somerset Councils on Sunday 12^th March at 3.00pm in Wells Cathedral.  All members and officers were invited to attend.

The list of Chairman’s engagements were NOTED.

The Portfolio Holder for Economic Development said the Council’s investment in battery storage had been high risk and was now a great success.  He credited Councillor Henry Hobhouse and the previous Director for Commercial Services and Income Generation for their original proposal to invest in the scheme.

Jason Dobson and David Owen, Directors of Opium Power Ltd, provided Council with a power point presentation (slides published) of the battery storage facilities at Taunton and Fareham.

In response to questions from Members, the Directors and Chief Executive responded:-

·         The batteries were warrantied for 5,000 cycles of charge and after year 6 there would be funds put aside to replace them on a cell by cell level.

·         Upgraded technology meant there was now an increase in cell density which meant they had more storage capacity. The newer site at Fareham had a greater mega watt hours capacity than the Taunton site.

·         The connections to the National Grid were owned by SSDC and Opium Power in perpetuity so whatever new power technology which could be delivered from the site would be taken advantage of.

·         All companies owned by SSDC and the other District Councils in Somerset would transfer to the new Unitary Council in April 2023 and it would be for the new authority to determine the next steps.

·         The 3 battery storage sites were valued annually by a professional valuation company.   

At the conclusion of the debate, the Chairman thanked the Directors of Opium Power Ltd for attending and providing an informative presentation.

The presentation was NOTED.

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

The Portfolio Holder for Environment said she was pleased to introduce the report to accept the National Lottery Heritage Funding.  She said the new visitors centre would be a gateway for the site and lever in additional funding whilst protecting the Iron Age fort and allowing people of all abilities to be involved. Local residents had expressed concern about increased traffic in the area but officers had taken time to speak to them and manage their concerns.  She thanked the small team of officers who had assisted with the grant bid and proposed that the recommendations be agreed.

The Ward Member, Councillor Mike Hewitson, also thanked the officers involved and the Chairman of the volunteer group, Friends of Ham Hill, for their support for the site.  He seconded the recommendations.

In response to a question, the Director for Support Services confirmed that the project was fully funded and there was no risk that it would not proceed after it transferred to the new Unitary Authority.

At the conclusion of the debate, Members unanimously proposed that the Chief Executive agree the recommendations of the report.

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

(Voting: 31 in favour, 4 against, 7 abstentions)

The Portfolio Holder for the Yeovil Refresh introduced the report and stressed the importance of supporting it to its conclusion.  He said the town must now be promoted to encourage visitors and new businesses to start.  He proposed that the recommendations by agreed by Council.

In response to a proposal to reduce Business Rates for shops in the town and offer free car parking, the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services noted that Business Rates were changed by Central Government and were only collected on their behalf by SSDC. The proportion of Business Rates which SSDC was allowed to retain went towards repairs and the Business Rates charged on the car parks.  He seconded the recommendations.

In response to questions, the Regeneration Programme Manager advised:-

·         Issues had arisen due to unmapped utility services underground and additional contaminated land in parts of the town.  They had been aware of the location of the Victorian underground toilets.

·         Negotiations were ongoing with the DLUHC regarding the possible re-allocation of part of the Future High Street Funding, however, the former cattle market site had suffered a number of viability issues and it’s redevelopment was unlikely to go ahead.

·         Some of the issues which the project had suffered could not have been anticipated but lessons had been learnt and mitigation measures were in place.

·         The budget for the Yeovil Refresh was £24m. The budget was funded by significant grants including £9.75m from the Future High Street Fund, developer contributions through C.I.L and Section 106 payments, and through SSDC funds. So far £5m of the budget had been spent. The officer time included the Refresh Project Manager working 3 days per week, the Regeneration Programme Manager working 1 day a week on the project and the Programme Accountant spent on average 0.5 days a week but this could vary.

·         The building at 47 Middle Street was in private ownership and SSDC were working with the owner`s agent to deliver a long term solution for the building. The building was structurally unsafe.  Demolition contractors had been appointed and demolition would occur subject to agreement on party wall issues with adjacent property owners.  The owner of 47 Middle Street had appointed architects to develop a scheme which would be shared via the normal consultation routes for planning applications in due course.

At the conclusion of the debate, the majority of Members were content to proposed that the recommendations be confirmed by the Chief Executive.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal introduced the report which proposed the Director of Strategy, Support Services and Environmental Services act as Section 151 Officer from 4th February 2023 until 31^st March 2023 which he asked that Members note.  He paid tribute to the Chief Finance Officer for her dedication during a period of change in financial guidance and regulations as well as preparing for the new Somerset Council

The Chief Finance Officer thanked the Portfolio Holder for his comments and said that she had greatly enjoyed her time working for South Somerset DC.

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

The Leader of Council introduced the report and invited questions.

There were no questions and the report of executive decisions was NOTED.

The Chairman of the Audit Committee advised that the 2020/21 Statement of Accounts had now been signed and the next meeting of the Audit Committee would be held on 26 January 2023.

The report of the Audit Committee was NOTED.

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee advised that the report on Section 106 contributions was to be circulated to all Members and he asked that they check it for accuracy and respond to officers with any comments.

The report of the Scrutiny Committee was NOTED.

There were no Motions submitted by Members.

There were no Motions submitted by Members.

There were no questions submitted under Procedure Rule 10.

There were no questions submitted under Procedure Rule 10.

The Chairman noted that the next scheduled meeting of Full Council was a reserve date and would only take place if there was business to transact on Thursday 16^th February 2023 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Brympton Way, Yeovil commencing at 7.30 p.m.

The Chairman asked Members to agree that the press and public be excluded from the following items and this was agreed without dissent.

 (Voting: 33 in favour, 0 against, 4 abstentions)

The report was discussed in confidence and the majority of Members agreed to propose that the Chief Executive confirm the recommendations of the report. 

(Voting: 33 in favour, 0 against, 4 abstentions)

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

The report was discussed in confidence and Members unanimously agreed to propose that the Chief Executive confirm the recommendations of the report. 

(Voting: unanimous in favour)