Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Louise Clarke and Robin Pailthorpe.

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

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

The Chairman advised that following the death of HRH Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, the previous week, a two minute silence would be observed to recognise his life, service and in memory and honour of the Duke. 

A two minutes silence was observed by those present in the meeting.

Members considered the reports within the Special District Executive agenda for 15 April 2021 and raised comments as detailed below. Responses to most questions and comments were provided at Scrutiny Committee by the relevant officers or Portfolio Holder – except those marked by an asterisk:

Consultation on Local Government Reform – Response to One Somerset Proposal (Agenda item 6)

·        One member noted that many people were querying why this is happening now given the situation we are in with the pandemic. It would be useful if there was wide communication to provide clarity about the position we are in.

·        Some members felt there was subjective language within the report with use of ‘maybe’ and ‘perhaps’ and there also seemed to be an assumption that a primary base would be located in Taunton. Are we content that the content is as objective as it can be?

·        One member expressed concern about the economic profiling and lack of reference regarding unauthorised encampments and homelessness.

·        What dialogue has the Stronger Somerset and One Somerset teams had with the MHCLG regarding potential modifications or to whichever proposal is accepted.

·        Mixed opinions were expressed about the document – some felt it was comprehensive but another felt it was a negative report.

·        One member raised several specific queries including:

o   The PA consulting document does not appear to be responding the final version of the One Somerset proposal that was submitted to the Secretary of State.

o   SSDC report para 6.9 and A1c – Inaccurate assumption that One Somerset proposes a top-down, centralised authority based in Taunton, no reference to Local Area Networks.

o   SSDC report para 6.9 and A2 – Incorrect statement that One Somerset proposal overlooks local services in relation to housing and planning.

o   SSDC report para 6.11 – Local Area Networks and Children’s services are already established in many areas across the county.

o   SSDC report para 6.14 and Q3 – Misleading statement regarding difficulties around Police & Fire dealing with one unitary council.

o   SSDC report para 6.16 - Inaccurate information regarding the position of the SCC reserves.

o   SSDC report section 6.20 - Unfair assumption that a unitary authority would not be successful in a large rural county like Somerset. If this were true how do other large rural counties succeed under a unitary authority i.e Durham, Northumberland, Herefordshire.

o   Q6 A6b – Untrue statement Ipsos Mori survey used by the district councils was selective and leading. Evidence of this has been shared with the Secretary of State.

o   SSDC report page 14 section 7.6 – Inaccurate statement regarding the One Somerset residents survey not being published. It has been published and is an appx in the One Somerset Proposal.

Local Referendum on the Future of Local Government in Somerset (Agenda item 7)

Cllr Vijeh had submitted multiple questions to the Portfolio Holder and report author in advance of the meeting (but not in capacity as a Scrutiny member) – a response had been provided to Cllr Vijeh and the Leader  ...  view the full minutes text for item 263.

The Specialist (Scrutiny and Member Development) reminded members that a report about remote meetings after 7 May 2021 had been circulated for information which would be considered at Full Council on 15 May 2021. Members were asked if they wished to raise any questions about the report from a Scrutiny perspective.

During a brief discussion the Director (Service Delivery) and the Monitoring Officer responded to points of detail including:

·        The court case regarding online / remote meetings was due to be heard on 21 April however a potential date of the outcome was currently unknown.

·       It was for individual Town and Parish Councils to make their own decisions about meeting and decision making arrangements after the 7 May. Officers could notify the town and parish councils of how SSDC were looking to overcome the issue regarding remote meetings as a suggested way forward in the short term.

·       Since the report for the Council agenda had been published, MCHLG had confirmed their support to continue with virtual meetings.

No questions or comments were raised to be forwarded to Full Council.