Agenda item

Members considered the reports outlined in the District Executive agenda for
7 August 2014. It was agreed that the following comments would be taken forward to District Executive for consideration:

Wincanton Car Parks – Income Compensation Scheme – item 6

·         Members sought clarification as to why the town council wished to terminate the agreement, and whether it was possible for the town council to implement a charging system themselves.

Commercial Property Disposal – Winsham Allotments and Band Hut – item 7

·         Concern about the many detailed restrictions and conditions regarding use of the site / on the parish council – was there a risk that the facility might be lost.

·         It was noted that the map shown in the agenda was incorrect – the arrow should be pointing to the area shown in green.

Enhancement of Yeovil CCTV – item 8

·         Members were content with the recommendations in principal but did raise concern about which budget the SSDC funding would come from. It was queried if funding could come from the Local Delivery Vehicle (LDV) budget in the Area South Portfolio (page 59 – capital budget monitoring) – as this mentioned that the remaining budget for the LDV will be allocated to Yeovil Vision projects.

Somerset Intelligence Partnership – Data Sharing – item 9

·         Members raised a number of concerns regarding privacy and requested clarification as to what postcode level would be used – the first part of the postcode or the whole postcode e.g. TA20 or BA20 2HT.

·         Members queried the implications of releasing information that was, or might, be incorrect.

·         Scrutiny asked if there were likely to be any equalities implications as there was no mention of any in the report.

·         Paragraph 3 (page 33) refers to SSDC joining the partnership in December 2014, should this read 2013?

·         Paragraph 3 (page 33) refers to an annual fee of £4,600 but page 37 indicates that the other district councils fee is £2,675 – Scrutiny requested an explanation for the differing figures.

·         Members noted that some of the sources of information, such as the Census 2011, may now be out of date as people will have moved. Members asked that some checks were in place to ensure information was up to date before release otherwise the information would skew data.

SSDC Partnerships – Annual Update – item 10

·         Members were content with the recommendations.

2014/15 Capital Budget Monitoring for Quarter 1 to 30^th June 2014 – item 11

·         It was queried if funding from the Local Delivery Vehicle (LDV) budget in the Area South Portfolio (page 59) could be moved to fund the Yeovil CCTV (agenda item 8)

·         Page 68 – Scrutiny asked for an explanation of ‘drawdown’.

·         Members sought clarification that deadlines were monitored for when S.106 money would need to be returned to the developer and if local ward members were informed. It was also asked what happens to the interest on the deposits..

·         Deposits by developers – members commented that legalities often seemed to slow progress, and sometimes there were long delays with highway schemes coming forward.

2014/15 – Revenue Budget Monitoring for Quarter 1 to 30^th June 2014 – item 12

·         Page 83 – Building Control – members asked for an explanation of the variance.

·         Scrutiny queried if Area South having no reserve remaining was a concern.

·         It was queried why the revenue reserves seemed to be decreasing.

·         Page 107 – Summary of useable reserves – members asked if the ‘Eco-Town Reserve’ could be renamed as we didn’t have one anymore, or if the funding could be re-allocated.

Constitution Update – HR Management Rules – item 13

·         Page 109 – financial implications – members did not understand the term ‘strain charge’ and asked for explanation.

Reports from Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust – item 14

·         No comments

Update on the Family Focus Programme –item 15

·         Page 144 – regarding the options, members wished to check that there was no disadvantage to SSDC by not getting into the getset service quicker.

·         Scrutiny also sought confirmation that SSDC were receiving the financial resources required for the work.

District Executive Forward Plan – item 16

·         No comments

Addendum – Further Main Modifications to the South Somerset Local Plan (2006 – 2028)

·         Members asked about the current position of policy SS2, as the Inspector didn’t appear to have made reference to it in his letters.

·         Page 18 – Regarding the review for Wincanton, members sought clarification as to whether there would be parameters upon which to draw a conclusion, and whether any new conclusions could conflict with policies currently in the emerging Local Plan – i.e. could our position for Wincanton change?

·         Being mindful of the elections in 2015, members expressed concern about the timetable for adopting the Local Plan and that there might become a time when the current Council would not be in a position to adopt the plan prior to May 2015. Reassurance was sought about timing of the next steps.

·         Members noted that although the report indicated ‘no financial implications arising from the report’, there would be financial implications to the next steps. Scrutiny requested that a financial update be provided.

·         Members considered that the wording of recommendation 1 should read ‘….by full council for approval for consultation.’