Agenda item

Members considered the reports within the District Executive agenda for 4 March 2021 and raised comments as detailed below. Responses to questions and comments were provided at Scrutiny Committee by the relevant officers or Portfolio Holders.

District-wide Strategic Grants - funding arrangements with CASS and SPARK 2021/2022 (Agenda item 6)

·         A member questioned how this report links up with the agreed review of the Voluntary sector commissioning model as agreed at scrutiny committee Jan 2020. How can Scrutiny assist with the development of the core commissioning model going forward?

·         Members commended the work of CASS and SPARK and noted the increased demand for these organisations due to Covid-19 pandemic.

·         A member asked if there were any contingency plans in place, should CASS and or SPARK needed further funding as a result of the increase in complexity of cases due to Covid-19.

·         Page 19 Infographic page – 77% image section has a minor typo

·         Page 19 Infographic age - A member questioned the percentage figures for feelings of Confidence/Optimism from the voluntary sector. 42% confident for the future, 48% feeling about the same - what about the other 10%? Are these charities feeling less confident/optimistic about the future? Is there a risk these charities will be lost?

·          Members endorsed the recommendations.

The Martock Parish Neighbourhood Plan Referendum (Agenda item 7)

·         Members asked for indication of the date for the planned Neighbourhood Plan referendum. It was confirmed that this will be held on the 6^th May 2021.

·         Members questioned to what extent the unitary/re-organisation plans would impact the neighbourhood plan. Will the plan be automatically adopted by the shadow authority and new authority?

·          Similarly, to what extent will the proposed central government regulatory changes to the planning policy framework impact the neighbourhood plan?

Private Sector Housing Grant Policy (Agenda item 8)

·          A member expressed concern around the recommendations for discretionary decision making by officers. What protocols and safeguarding procedures are in place to protect officers when decisions are faced with criticisms in the event of refusals?

Investment Assets Quarterly Update Report (Agenda item 9)

·         Members commended officers for the good progress of the Investment Strategy to date, and the 95% rental collection rate for the portfolio during the Covid-19 pandemic which is very impressive.

·         One member expressed their disappointed at the Marlborough housing development project. Why did we agree to undertake a project with a projected profit margin of only 10%. This is very low for a development of this type. Have we considered marketing properties at a later date when property market could return to pre-pandemic levels to enable us to claw back some of the profit lost? Another member asked what valuable lessons we had learned from this and how will we rectify this going forward? Members agreed they would like to see more detail around this and asked for a briefing note.

·         One member asked how the issue of permitted development rights fitted into this strategy?

·         Members questioned why there was no mention of maintenance costs for the properties in the investment report?

·         A member questioned why there was no mention of depreciation of the value of the properties in the report?

·         A member asked if the property portfolio is included in our annual audit of fixed assets. How often do we undertake a property valuation for the entire portfolio?

·         A member asked whether the 95% rate for rent collections included any concessionary rent payments for tenants that may have been struggling to pay their rents. Can we predict when rental cash flow will be back to pre-pandemic levels?

·          Para 33  A member asked for clarity on the meaning of New Dynamic containment market, and how much we expect to see that generating over and above conventional markets?

Octagon Theatre Development (Agenda item 10)

·         Members were generally supportive of the recommendations and agreed this would be a great  improvement to the Octagon, and the wider economy for South Somerset and the surrounding areas. 

·         A member questioned the plans for parking at the Octagon. These proposals suggest a max footfall of circa 1000 people during busy periods, however the 357 parking spaces in Petters Way and Goldenstones are not going to meet this demand.

·         A member expressed their strong support of the proposals in regards to the plans for disability access.

·         A member asked to what extent the unitary/re-organisation plans will impact the completion of the project.

·         A number of members expressed some concerns around the ripple effect of this project on smaller venues in South Somerset. In particular, will the proposed Arts Council funding allocation result in fewer funding opportunities for other smaller venues in the area?

·         How can SSDC support smaller venues in South Somerset?

·         A member asked how the project board will be communicating progress back to members.

·          A member, although supportive of the project, questioned whether this was the right time to be undertaking such a significant project?

District Executive Forward Plan (Agenda item 11)

·          There were no comments or questions on the District Executive forward plan.

(Note – Scrutiny Committee did not go into confidential session)