Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Hayward Burt, Malcolm Cavill (dispensation granted), Ben Hodgson, Michael Lewis, Robin Pailthorpe, Crispin Raikes and Gina Seaton.

To approve and sign the minutes of the previous meeting held on Thursday, 21 January 2021.

The minutes of the Council meeting held on 21^st January 2021, copies of which had been previously circulated, were approved as a correct record of the meeting and would be 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.

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

The Chairman welcomed Jill Byron, the Council’s new Monitoring Officer, to the meeting and said he hoped she would enjoy her time at SSDC.

The Chairman invited Councillor Martin Carnell to speak regarding his new position within the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service.

Councillor Martin Carnell spoke in his role of Group Commander for the Yeovil Response Group which covered all the fire stations in the South Somerset and Mendip areas.    He said that he would like to engage with any local community safety initiatives which were targeted to work with vulnerable people or groups and he was Councillors first point of contact for the service. 

The Chairman also paid tribute to director, Netta Meadows, who was leaving to take up the position of Chief Executive of the Scottish Borders Council.  He said she had been invaluable in implementing the Transformation Programme, modernising communications, civil contingencies and emergency planning within the Council.  She had also moved the planning service forward, ensured business grants were paid swiftly during the pandemic and co-ordinated support for the vaccine programme.  He wished her well in her new role.

The Leader of Council and the Leader of the Conservative group also thanked the Director on behalf of the Liberal Democrat group and the Conservative group.

The Chairman advised that although official engagements were currently paused due to the pandemic, he was hopeful they would re-commence shortly.

(Voting: 47 in favour, 0 against, 3 abstentions)

The Leader of Council, as Portfolio Holder for Strategy and Housing, introduced the report and thanked the officers involved for their work in updating the Annual Action Plan and the Area Priorities.  She drew Members attention to the proposed five Priority Projects for 2021-2022 at point 10 in the report and the key projects listed within the Area Chapters.

In response to questions from Members, the Leader of Council and the Portfolio Holder for Economic Development advised:

·         Whatever the outcome of the consultation on future of Local Government in Somerset, SSDC would exist as a council until 2023 and as such it had to continue to operate for its residents and businesses during that time.

·         One of the Priority Projects was to work with commercial providers and public sector programmes to increase the broadband speed and availability plus mobile connectivity throughout the district. There was a Member briefing on 10^th March on this issue.

·         Agriculture was mentioned as a key sector in the Action Plan under Economy.

At the conclusion of the debate, the recommendations were proposed and seconded and a named vote was taken.  The recommendations were carried by 47 in favour, 0 against, 3 abstentions.

(Voting: 47 in favour, 0 against, 3 abstentions)

(Voting: 49 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention)

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services introduced the report and noted that several of the Council’s income streams had reduced during the Covid pandemic, but, due to good financial planning, a balanced budget was proposed with services protected.  He said the Council was also investing in regenerating town centres across the district and had a strong Climate Change Action Plan.  He thanked the Council’s staff who had helped with food parcels for those residents who were shielding, the distribution of business grants and assisted at vaccination centres.  He also thanked the officers who had contributed to the budget process, particularly the Section 151 Officer.  He noted that the precept for the Avon and Somerset Police and Crime Commissioner was now agreed so the figures in the report were final.  He concluded by commending the recommendations to Council and they were seconded by Councillor Peter Gubbins.

In response to a question, the Section 151 Officer advised:

·         The Government guidance that local authorities must not borrow more than or in advance of their needs had been in the prudential code for a number of years and it was originally added to discourage Councils from borrowing cheaply and investing the money to make a return which was seen at the time as gambling This had now changed to borrowing for core services.  Borrowing from the PWLB was not the cheapest way of borrowing and the Council’s commercial investments were now protecting the Council’s core services.  This was lawful and officer were mindful of the prudential code whilst being regulated by other laws relating to borrowing. 

At the conclusion of the debate, the recommendations were proposed and seconded and a recorded vote was taken.  The recommendations were agreed by 49 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention.

(Voting: 49 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention)

(Voting: 49 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention)

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services introduced the report and advised that this was the formal Council Tax resolution to be agreed.  Recommendation C had now been confirmed as the Avon and Somerset Police and Crime Commissioner had now set their precept.

Councillor Martin Wale, as the SSDC representative on the Avon and Somerset Police and Crime Panel, said they had rejected the first budget proposed by the Police Commissioner but had agreed the revised budget which had been lower.

At the conclusion of the debate, the recommendations were proposed and seconded and a recorded vote was taken.  The recommendations were agreed by 49 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention.

(Voting: 49 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention)

(Voting: 48 in favour, 1 against, 1 abstention)

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services introduced the report and advised that table 3 in the report had been corrected since presentation at District Executive. He thanked the Members who had assisted in reviewing the detail of the strategies.

In response to a question, the Section 151 Officer advised that Table 3 listed funding for capital expenditure and CIL could only be used to fund very specific projects.

At the conclusion of the debate, the recommendations were proposed and seconded and a recorded vote was taken.  The recommendations were agreed by 48 in favour, 1 against, 1 abstention.

(Voting: 48 in favour, 1 against, 1 abstention)

(Voting: 50 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention)

The Portfolio Holder for Protecting Core Services introduced the report and thanked the Members who had participated in the Planning Reimagined workshops.  He said they had worked closely with officers and had reached a unanimous decision on how to move the planning service forward.  He said the working group would be re-convened in June to review how the changes were working and this should be an ongoing review process going forward. 

In response to questions from Members, the Portfolio Holder for Protecting Core Services and the Director for Service Delivery advised:-

·         there was no change for members of the public to be able to support or object to planning applications, but, not every planning application would be determined by an Area Committee.  This was similar to many other Local Authorities.  The cross-party working group had worked very well together and had reached a unanimous agreement on the proposed changes.

·         a report on the outcomes from the Planning Reimagined workshops had been presented to District Executive in December 2020.

·         the Regulation Committee would meet in the local area for a planning application which they were due to determine.  However, if there was more than one application to be determined from two different areas, then the meeting would be held in the Brympton Way offices.  This was a procedural change rather than a policy change.

·         the decision to determine planning applications at an Area Committee meeting was still at the discretion of the Area Chairman.

At the conclusion of the debate, the recommendation was proposed and seconded and a recorded vote was taken.  The recommendation was agreed by 50 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention.

(Voting: 50 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention)

(Voting: 51 in favour, 0 against, 0 abstentions)

The Portfolio Holder for Protecting Core Services introduced the report and noted that there had been a number of member briefings on the phosphates subject which was largely out of their control.  He thanked the officers, who had been working with the officers from the other Somerset Councils to present a solution and a way forward.  Adopting the proposed calculator would allow planning applications to be determined once again.

During discussion, the following points were made-

·         Natural England had not yet completed their scientific assessment therefore it was not yet clear what level phosphates must be reduced to.

·         The Government should instruct Wessex Water to deal with the issue and invest money to take phosphates out of the water system. 

·         This was a disaster for the housing economy of South Somerset.

·         This was caused by privatising a public utility, which had failed to invest in regulating the environment.

·         This was not only an issue in Somerset.  It was also happening in Cambridgeshire and Poole harbour.

·         Wessex Water, the Environment Agency and Natural England had known about this issue for some time and they should be obliged by the Government to install phosphate extraction plants now.

In response to questions from Members, the Lead Specialist for Planning advised

·         There were a large number of planning applications which the Council were unable to determine because of the phosphates issue and they would be dealt with equally in due course.

·         The calculator was a tool for developers and officers to assess the phosphate impact of the development and to work out what mitigation would work to achieve neutral phosphate impact.  It had been submitted to Natural England for endorsement but developers could use their own calculations.

The Leader of Council said that she would raise this issue with both of the South Somerset MP’s, who she was meeting shortly.

At the conclusion of the debate, the recommendations were proposed and seconded and a recorded vote was taken.  The recommendations were agreed by 51 in favour, 0 against, 0 abstentions.

(Voting: 51 in favour, 0 against, 0 abstentions)

(Voting: 49 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention)

The Leader of Council introduced the report and said the proposed new structure retained 4 Directors but she said it was vital to have a Director dedicated to the economic recovery of the district.  If agreed, there would be a recruitment process for the Director of Place & Recovery and the Director of Strategy and Support Services.  If the Director of Place & Recovery was shared with another neighbouring authority then a joint recruitment process would take place. 

There was no debate and the recommendation was proposed and seconded and a recorded vote was taken.  The recommendation was agreed by 49 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention.

(Voting: 49 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention)

(Voting: 49 in favour, 1 against, 0 abstentions)

The Leader of Council introduced the report and advised that this was an annual report which must be agreed and published on the Council’s website. 

The Director for Strategy and Commissioning clarified that the figures in the report were from the previous financial year and so included the arrangement with Eastleigh BC for the Monitoring Officer role.

At the conclusion of the debate, the recommendation was proposed and seconded and a recorded vote was taken.  The recommendation was agreed by 49 in favour, 1 against, 0 abstentions.

(Voting: 49 in favour, 1 against, 0 abstentions)

The report of Executive Decisions were noted.

The Audit Committee has not met since the last Council meeting.

It was noted that the Audit Committee has not met since the last Council meeting and therefore there was no report.

One of the Vice Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee said she hoped to take their presentation on the Scrutiny Committee work to the Area Committees very shortly.  She thanked the new Scrutiny Specialist for her work and enthusiasm.

The other Vice Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee said he was pleased their meetings had continued to be held when other had been cancelled as staff supported the vaccination programme and he also thanked the new Scrutiny Specialist for her work in supporting the Committee.

(Voting: 50 in favour, 0 against, 0 abstentions)

Phosphates Requirement by Natural England

Councillor Mike Stanton proposed his Motion to Council.  He said that both Members, officers and developers were exasperated by the phosphates situation.  The phosphates passing through the water treatment system caused algal bloom in the water on the Levels and so Wessex Water, developers and the Government needed to act.  Wessex Water could install chemical separators and chemical treatment works in all their Somerset sewage farms more quickly.  The developers could build phosphate removal into their sites or put some phosphate mitigation in place.  The Government should support and adopt Phillip Dunne MP’s private members bill onThe Sewage (Inland Waters) with a requirement for phosphate removal to be added to it. 

The Motion was seconded by Councillor Oliver Patrick.

During discussion, the following points were made:-

·         Rebecca Pow, MP for Taunton Deane, wasParliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and was currently investigating the overspill of raw sewage from flooded sewage treatment works in Somerset.  A letter requesting her support should be written.

·         There was a huge amount of phosphate in household items like toothpaste and dishwasher tablets and detergents.  It could be chemically removed at sewage treatment works.

·         The phosphate issue had been known about for some time and the Government had not acted on it. They should pressure the Water Authorities to act. 

·         Neil Parish, MP for Tiverton and Honiton, was the Chair of theEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee and he could be supportive in this issue.

·         Wessex Water had a five-year infrastructure plan but were not proposing to change it to address the phosphate issue sooner.

·         Wessex Water had a statutory obligation to supply water services but they should also ensure raw sewage was treated so it did not damage the environment.

·         Two thirds of river phosphates came from human waste. Washing and dishwashing detergents made 16%.  Toothpaste was only 1%.  So people and sewage treatment were the most important factors.

Councillor Mike Stanton concluded by thanking Members for their support on what was a very serious issue for the district.

At the conclusion of the debate, a recorded vote was taken and the Motion was agreed by 50 in favour, 0 against, 0 abstentions.

There were no questions submitted under Procedure Rule 10.

There were no questions submitted under Procedure Rule 10.

Members noted that the next meeting of the Full Council would be held on Thursday, 25^th March 2021 as a virtual meeting using Zoom meeting software commencing at 6.30 p.m.