Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Martin Carnell, Nicola Clark, John Clark, Nick Colbert, Charlie Hull, Michael Lewis, Mike Lock, Pauline Lock, Kevin Messenger, Tiffany Osborne, Robin Pailthorpe, Crispin Raikes, Wes Read, Alan Smith and Martin Wale.

To approve and sign the minutes of the previous meeting held on Thursday, 16^th January 2020.

The minutes of the Council meeting held on 16^th January 2020, copies of which had been previously circulated, 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. 

At the time the item was discussed, Councillor Neil Bloomfield declared a personal interest in Agenda item 11: Future of Local Government in Somerset as a member of Somerset County Council.

The Monitoring Officer advised him that although the interest had been declared, it was still appropriate for him to vote on the item of business.

The Council were addressed by 2 members of the public regarding 5G mobile phone coverage.  Their comments included:-

·         The 5G technology was being rushed through by Government and industry before many people found out how dangerous and intrusive it was.

·         5G transmits higher frequencies to increase the transfer of data and the existing systems were already a major problem.  There was a great deal of scientific evidence from the major medical databases and over 400 reports indicating health effects.  The key interactions is with cells where too much calcium goes into the cells, causes disruption and causes oxidated stress which is a precursor to many illnesses including cancer.

·         The current guidelines date to 1998 and only list the heating effects and not the biological interaction  effects.  The World Health Organisation and Public Health England had no credible evidence to support the low radiation levels as being safe.

·         5G has 2 phases – the sub-6GHZ meant extra antennas on existing masts which used beams to transmit signals which increased the intensity of the signal.  Phase 2 was to place small cells on lampposts approx. every 200m which would send signals by beams to the end users.  It is a complex radiation regime and virtually nobody has a clue of the problem. 

·         It is a particular issue to wildlife as bees will absorb even more radiation. 

·         Industry say this is a live experiment

·         An alternative would be to install LIFI as they had done in the Orkney Islands which transmits by light and takes the bio-active ingredient out of the signal.

·         Wireless is an environmental toxin – at least a class 2B carcinogen and studies indicate that it does cause cancer through the oxidated stress mechanism but the official position is that this is either non-existent or wrong.

·         We urge the council to do whatever is in their powers to consider very carefully plans to extend mobile and wireless coverage within the district.

The Portfolio Holder for Environment thanked the presenters for bringing the matter to the Council’s attention and for the information provided and said the Council would take advice on the roll-out of 5G technology. 

The Portfolio Holder for Environment said she wished to recognise the work of the Environmental Services Team during the recent storms.  She said the arboricultural team had assisted with tree damage and the streetcleaning teams had responded to sand bag requests to protect homes at risk of flooding and they remained ready to assist in any other major incident.  She wished to formally record her thanks to the teams.

The Chairman advised that he had attended an event organised by the Ilminster Rotary Club called Youth Speaks which was for local primary school students to practice their public speaking.  He said that nearly all the students had spoken passionately about environmental matters, climate change, habitat loss and endangered species.  He said it had been a very interesting and useful event to attend.

The list of Chairman’s engagements was noted.

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

The Leader of Council thanked the staff involved in the compilation of the new Council Plan.  She commended the clear and simple layout and the list of realistic priority projects.  She noted that whilst SSDC had its own Climate Strategy, it was also part of the wider County Strategy and she thanked Members for their contributions to their Area Chapters.

There was no debate and Members unanimously agreed to endorse the new Council Plan 2020-2024and the annual action plan and key performance indicators for 2020-2021.

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

(Voting: 43 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention)

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services thanked the Interim Section 151 Officer, the Directors and the specialist officers for producing the budget report.  He also thanked the previous Section 151 Officer.  He drew Members attention to the 2.99% increase in Council Tax and noted that although the Business Rates Pooling had been reduced from 75% retention to 50% in the Local Government Settlement, it was proposed to put aside £1m of this towards the Council’s Regeneration Schemes.  If the Business Rate Pooling did not realise £1.5m then this would be reviewed.  He also noted the additional funding for the Capital Programme, the reduced budget shortfall, the New Homes Bonus funding not being drawn into the revenue budget and the business rates income.  He concluded that the budget was a tribute to how well the Council had progressed from its original predicted budget shortfall.

In response to questions from Members, the Portfolio Holders and the Interim Section 151 Officer replied:-

·         The increase in borrowing to be requested in the Capital, Investment and Treasury Strategies report would fund the various Regeneration Schemes across the district and the Council’s Commercial Strategy.

·         Finance staff were available to explain the detail within the budget or additional finance training could be arranged by the Member Development Specialist.

·         The Council’s Digital Strategy was still in draft form and following internal consultation, it would be presented to Scrutiny and District Executive Committees.

·         The funding for confidential schemes were commercially confidential. 

It was requested that due to the detail involved, the budget reports be published as soon as possible in future to allow Members to read and understand them.

At the conclusion of the debate a recorded vote was taken and all Members voted in favour of the recommendations with one abstention by Councillor Colin Winder. 

(Voting: 43 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention)

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services proposed the recommendations and they were seconded by Councillor Tony Capozzoli.

There was no debate and a named vote was taken where Members unanimously approved the Council Tax for 2020/21.

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

(Voting: 42 in favour, 0 against, 2 abstentions)

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services thanked the Finance Specialist for his work in combining what had previously been presented as 3 separate reports.  He confirmed that the combined reports met the legal requirements in a more coherent layout and he invited questions from Members.

In response to questions from Members, the Portfolio Holder for Environment, the Lead Specialist for Finance and the Director for Commercial Services & Income Generation provided the following responses:-

·         The Opium Power project had proven to be challenging but the grid connection had now taken place and it was hoped the cable eneregisation would take place on 29 February.  This would be when Western Power Distribution took control of the site.  A press release would announce when it was fully operational.

·         The joint operations loans also included financing the Council’s landscaping and horticultural trading company, Elleston, and the figure in the report was the level of authorisation to spend and not the commitment..

·         The SSDC loan to Opium Power was lent at 5% return.

·         Although the Chief Executive was no longer a Director, an independent Director with industry expertise had recently been appointed to Opium Power and the Director for Commercial Services & Income Generation was the Chair of the Board.

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

(Voting: 42 in favour, 0 against, 2 abstentions)

(Voting: 31 in favour, 5 against, 7 abstentions)

The Leader of Council advised that all of the Somerset authorities had worked very closely on the proposals for the future of local government in Somerset and it was disappointing that the County Council had chosen to follow a Unitary Authority approach rather than the collaboration and integration option preferred by all the District Councils.  She said that she would invite the Leader of Somerset County Council to a future Council meeting to discuss his proposals for Somerset.  She said the Chief Executive would be working closely with the Chief Executive of Mendip DC while she would be working with the Leader of Sedgemoor DC and they would be seeking a meeting with the Secretary of State to discuss their proposals shortly.  She also advised that she had written to all of the Town and Parish Councils in the district to offer to meet with them to discuss the proposals as part of the community engagement.

During discussion, the following points were made:-

·         Pleased to hear that consultation with Parish Councils was taking place

·         Although there was a need for a business case on the preferred option, all of the other options considered by the 5 Somerset Councils should still be looked at too.

·         Other Unitary Authorities had not yet paid back the costs of joining together and were not yet achieving their projected savings.

·         Children’s Services should be the same throughout the county and should not change at the county boundary. It was possible that this level of service should be part of a combined authority.

·         There was a desire to pass down the responsibility for more services to Town and Parish Councils to give them more autonomy but there was concern that this should be financed.

·         Joining services like procurement would help towards getting the best service for the people of Somerset.

Councillor Neil Bloomfield declared a personal interest as a member of Somerset County Council although the Monitoring Officer confirmed that it was still appropriate for him to vote on the item of business.

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

(Voting: 31 in favour, 5 against, 7 abstentions)

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

The Leader of Council proposed that Councillor Jeny Snell be appointed to the Licensing Committee.  She said that Councillor Snell had already attended the required training for the committee.  This was seconded and unanimously agreed by Members.

The Chairman of the Licensing Committee regretted that he had not been made aware of the resignation by the retiring Councillor.

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

The report of Executive Decisions was NOTED.

The report of the Audit Committee was NOTED.

The report of the Scrutiny Committee was NOTED.

There were no Motions submitted by Members.

There were no Motions submitted by Members.

Councillor Colin Winder submitted the following questions under Procedure Rule 10:-

Councillor Colin Winder submitted the following questions under Procedure Rule 10:-

The SSDC Local Plan 2006/2028 was found to be unsound by the planning inspector in 2010. A principle modification required by the inspector was a revised policy to deal with the front loading in Wincanton of housing.  The inspector required a policy to balance the employment and housing provision to be set in place within 3 years. In 2014 SSDC submitted a revised local plan which proposed a major modification (District Executive agreed proposal attached) to the inspector which was agreed and allowed the local plan to go forward. Since that time no consultation has taken place, no policy has been proposed, and the legal requirement with regards housing has not been complied with.  The SSDC local plan would seem to be nullified by the failure of the council to comply with the major modifications agreed by the inspector to make the plan sound.  We now have difficult legal problem, as we have an application for 210 dwellings, which are not in the direction of growth set out in the 2015 local plan, and which are in an area specifically excluded for development in the Wincanton Neighbourhood Plan (a plan which was extensively consulted on with the residents, and was approved with a public vote). Where do the residents of Wincanton stand in this planning problem, when they have set out their clear wishes and intentions, but could be frustrated by the failure of SSDC to carry out the legal provisions they had agreed with the inspector. This raises a number of legal questions which have to be resolved now.

The Leader of Council provided the following responses to the questions:-

Q.     With a deficiency of housing numbers in SSDC how do the council propose to defend the approved housing levels in Wincanton against developers use of district wide figures?

A.     The five-year housing land supply is calculated on a District-wide basis. The Council monitors planning applications for housing development and relevant data regarding housing completions and commitments can be used to inform the decision-making process. Wincanton is defined as a Primary Market Town development should be of a scale that fits with the settlement hierarchy.

Q.   With the slow decline in local businesses how do you propose to provide economic growth in Wincanton as opposed to the investment in economic venture outside the district?

A.    The Local Plan Review proposes to allocate land for economic development at Wincanton and 4.38ha are required under the adopted Local Plan.

The Council is committed to the Wincanton Town Centre Strategy, which aims to boost footfall and help create a more vibrant town centre. The strategy includes public realm improvements such as widening footways, introducing different surface dressings, better delineation of on street parking and planting schemes, proposals are tailored to individual locations. This complements working with property owners and landlords to increase the appeal of existing properties and incentivizing occupancy with higher grant interventions. The strategy is primary action point 5.3  ...  view the full minutes text for item 118.

Members noted that the next scheduled meeting of the Full Council would take place on Thursday, 19^th March 2020 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Brympton Way, Yeovil commencing at 7.30 p.m.