Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the District Executive meeting held on 5^th November 2020.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 5^th November 2020 were approved as correct records and would be signed by the Chairman.

There were no apologies for absence.

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. 

Councillors Val Keitch and John Clark both declared a personal interest in Agenda item 14 - Property Purchase of Yeovil Town Football Club Ground, as a season ticket holders.  They said they had spoken with the Council’s Monitoring Officer who confirmed that they could still speak and vote on the item.   

It was agreed that the public attending would speak at the time the item was discussed (agenda item 14).

The Chairman advised that the order of discussion of the reports on the Agenda would be varied.  Agenda item 14: Property Purchase of Yeovil Town Football Club Ground would be discussed first, and, Agenda item 10: Investment Assets Update Report would be discussed as the second report as the Portfolio Holder had to leave the meeting early. 

She also thanked Councillors and staff for their patience in working from home and the work they were carrying out in the difficult circumstances.

The Chairman noted that District Executive were asked to delegate authority to herself as Leader and the Chief Executive in consultation with the other Somerset District Leaders and Chief Executives, to make minor amendments to the Proposal as necessary and / or appropriate, ahead of its submission to the Secretary of State.  The other recommendations were to be commended to Council for approval.

The Chief Executive said the Council were at a significant milestone in the debate regarding local government in Somerset.  He outlined the history of the discussions which had taken place with all the Councils, the decision by Somerset County Council to pursue their one unitary authority bid and, the draft business plan for two unitary authorities by the District Councils which had been agreed at Council in September 2020.  Since then the official invitation from the Secretary of State to submit business proposals had been received and all the District Councils had engaged with many organisations across Somerset to take their views by on-line meetings, social media, the website and an Ipsos Mori poll.  This consultation had resulted in an updated business plan to reflect the feedback received.  He said there was broad support for the Stronger Somerset business case which would make a difference in the quality of life for residents.  The proposals would reform local government, give better outcomes for communities, invest in better services and have a greater financial benefit than a single unitary authority.  The business case had been drawn up by the best expertise from both within Somerset at nationally as this was a once in a generation opportunity to make a real change in Somerset. 

Councillor Peter Seib congratulated the team involved in compiling the business case and said he was pleased to see there was greater clarity around the delivery of childrens services and the structure of the organisation.  He also commended public consultation through the Ipsos Mori poll. 

The Chairman also thanked the officers for their work in compiling the business plan and she proposed the recommendations be confirmed by District Executive.  This was seconded by Councillor Adam Dance and unanimously confirmed by Members.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services introduced the report and said that the report did not mention the 2020 spending review speech by the Chancellor.   He noted that the Council Tax figure in the report was based upon a 1.99% increase but it explained there was a £5 increase as an alternative.  But the Chancellor had only mentioned the 2% cap and 3% social care precept for SCC.  The Chancellor had also mentioned reforming the Business Rate reset and the Business Rates multiplier had been frozen however, that would be a nil effect for SSDC.  He proposed that a briefing paper be circulated to Members when the provisional Local Government finance settlement was known.

In response to questions from the Scrutiny Committee, the Section 151 Officer responded:-

·         The Council did not normally budget for Collection Fund Deficits for Business Rates and Council Tax as the Council should be exactly on-budget.  In 2021/22 a deficit was forecast because of under recovery of Council Tax and Business Rates.

·         Table 1 on page 13 and table 2 on page 14 did not add up exactly due to rounding up of figures in a more detailed supporting spreadsheet. The table should have a disclaimer that it was subject to rounding. 

• The difference between the Council Tax figure in table 1 on page 13 for 2021/22 and in table 2 on page 14 for the same year was a conscious decision to work on a worse case scenario.  The Finance team were still working on this and the forecast was better than originally thought.
• Business Rates Retention was reducing because of Government policy. 

The Section 151 Officer said some detail was still to be received on the Government’s provisional settlement and spending review and she would circulate a briefing note to Members when the full implications were known.

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

The Portfolio Holder for Protecting Core Services drew Members attention to the Kickstart scheme at point 18 in the report which SSDC were participating in to help young people between 16 – 24 years on Universal Credit and at risk of long term unemployment.  He also noted that Government funding had enabled the recruitment of two Covid Compliance Wardens and an Enforcement Support Officer to remind the community and business of the ongoing requirements for complying with restrictions.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services advised that SSDC had committed to host 30 Kickstart placements within the council for 25 hours per week for 6 months and they would be helped to avoid long-term unemployment.  Funding of £75,640 from the Government had enabled the recruitment of two Covid Compliance Wardens and an Enforcement Support Officer and the County Council had helped to fund the test and trace support.  Payments to individuals required to self-isolate due to Covid-19 and so lost income as a result were being dealt with and 89 applications had been received.  A discretionary business grant scheme was being developed along with the other Somerset Councils for businesses which had not been required to close but were impacted by the latest lockdown period.  Hardship grants were also available for those who would not qualify under any other scheme

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

The Portfolio Holder for Protecting Core Services thanked the officers and Members who had participated  in the Planning Reimagined workshops.  He said there had been unanimous consensus during the cross-party working group and he looked forward to the implementation of the recommendations from the group.  He suggested that the group met in 6 months time to review progress and he noted that a recent Planning Agents forum meeting had been very well received.

Councillor Mike Lewis noted that Scrutiny Committee had asked that the proposal to produce a clear procedure for the call-in of planning applications to Area Committees include the council policies under which the call-in was being made for consistency.   

The Director for Strategy and Commissioning said that the workshops had discussed this and had suggested that support and training be offered to community groups, Town and Parish Councils and Members to ensure decisions were based on planning policy.

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

The Portfolio Holder for Economic Development including the Commercial Strategy said the Council’s property investment portfolio had performed well during the pandemic which was reflected by the work of the investment team.  He reminded Members that the investment in commercial property brought an income to preserve vital front line services and a conservative approach to risk was taken.  All investment opportunities were fully investigated by the Investment Asset Group, requiring the group’s unanimous agreement before being proposed to the Leader and Chief Executive for final approval.   He said the risk during the pandemic was low and there was a risk reserve of £6m.

The Commercial Property, Land and Development Manager advised that the Council had allocated £150m to invest by March 2022.  He said there had been a small impact on rental income and he paid tribute to the Property Investment Project Manager who had engaged and supported tenants throughout the pandemic which had been very helpful.  He noted that the Council had purchased a large number of small investments and they all had to represent proper value or they would not be viable in the long term.

There was no debate and Members were content to note the report.

(At this point, it was noted that the meeting had exceeded 3 hours in length and it was proposed under Council Procedure Rule 8 – Duration of Meeting – that the meeting continue.  This was seconded and agreed by all Members present).

The Portfolio Holder for Health and Wellbeing said he was pleased to present the first update report of the South Somerset Families Programme.  He said it supported families and improved life chances which had been identified as a concern and was Priority Project 7 within the Council Plan. He thanked the Lead Specialist for Communities for the work he had carried out in the programme. 

The Lead Specialist for Communities said they had been working very closely with Yeovil for Families to roll the programme across the district in the next months.

There was no debate and Members were content to note the report. 

The Portfolio Holder for Health and Wellbeing said that it had not been a good time to negotiate a new leisure contract during a pandemic.  Leisure facilities had been closed during the first and second lockdown periods.  The current contract would end in March 2021 and he paid tribute to the officers for keeping the process to appoint a new operator going during the difficult period.  It was hoped to appoint a new operator before the current contract expired. 

The recommendations were proposed and seconded and were unanimously agreed by Members.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services said the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) powers were required to be reviewed by Members each year.  He noted that the powers of investigation had not been used by SSDC since 2013 and the Social Media Policy had been upgraded as recommended by the RIPA inspector.  He asked that Members note the report.

There was no debate and Members were content to note the report.

The Chairman noted that there was a confidential financial appendix to the report and if Members wished to ask any questions then the press and public would be excluded from the meeting.

The Portfolio Holder for Commercial Services including Income Generation advised that although the proposal was complex and technical, the essential points for Members consideration were quite simple.  He made the following points:

·       The Council had been asked by YTFC to help them financially through the Covid-19 crisis.  The club was a valuable asset to the public and the area and the proposal was of mutual benefit.

·       The proposal was for a sale and lease-back arrangement which was not unusual for businesses who wished to release cash or capital.

·       There would be no SSDC control over the management of YTFC.

·       The deal would allow the club to buy back the land and buildings when they were in a position to do so.

·       The investment met the Council’s criteria of 7% gross return on investment.

·       The analysis of risk had identified 4 scenarios which were detailed in the report.  If the club became insolvent, then the land and buildings would all revert to SSDC.

He concluded by recommending that the Executive supported the proposal.

A representative of the Glovers Trust Board said they were committed to achieving the best outcome for the football club.  The board was an interested party in the Asset of Community Value and they had to decide by 7^th January 2021 whether to invoke the 6 month period to submit a counter bid or to allow the present proposal to continue.  He asked if the Council would consider checks and balances as part of the agreement to ensure all monies were used in the best interests of the football club.  He also asked if it was contrary to the Council’s purchasing policy to buy a freehold property which was encumbered with a land charge, and, if so, who would be obliged to discharge the land charge?  He asked if council officers would conduct due diligence before any agreement to purchase was made? 

The Commercial Property Land and Development Manager and Chairman advised that due diligence would be done.  The Council would only proceed with the purchase of the land and property if it was free from a charge so that SSDC held the clean freehold title.  It was the intention that this was to be done before the purchase was completed.

The owner of Yeovil Town Football Club thanked the Council for considering the proposal and the supporters groups with whom he had discussed the proposals.  He said that he wished to be open and transparent in his communication with all groups.  He said that running a football club in the current Covid-19 crisis was very difficult and the proposal was in the best interests of the football club.  He said the finance would help the club to survive and thrive in the future to retain football league status and have a club which the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 234.

Members were content to confirm the Executive Forward Plan for publication and to note the list of current consultations documents.

Members noted that the next scheduled meeting of the District Executive would take place on Thursday 7^th January 2021 as a virtual meeting using Zoom meeting software commencing at 9.30 a.m.