Agenda item

Members considered the reports within the District Executive agenda for
7 October 2021 (Informal Consultative Meeting) and raised comments as detailed below. Responses to most questions and comments were provided at Scrutiny Committee (Informal Meeting) by the relevant officers or Portfolio Holder – except those marked by an asterisk:

South Somerset Families Project - Budget Approval (Agenda item 6)

·        A member noted it would be useful to see a breakdown by ward of the number of families who are receiving support from the project, and also what members could do to help officers regarding any referrals. To what extent is this a part of the role of a district councillor?

·        A member asked for a definition of social mobility and queried whether the term was still fit for purpose?

·        A member sought reassurance that families from rural areas would also qualify for assistance under this programme

·        Clarification was sought regarding the £303k and whether it was an additional figure on top of the approved budget?

·        Para 14 - members sought clarification that the £50k payment made in advance was from the £303k rather than in addition to the £303k.

·        Page 14. Second bullet point - the sentence is incomplete.

·        Page 12. Last bullet point in the first section – the sentence is incomplete.

·        *Page 9 Summary of needs table: A member asked for more definition on the terms used within the list of identified needs.

·        A member asked if this project is aligned with other councils in Somerset, and how it links with Social Services.

·        Page 15. Summary table: Regarding school attendance. A member asked for clarification on these statistics, as these percentages seem to be unacceptably low.

·        A member questioned the continuity of this project as we move into the unitary authority following LGR. In addition to this, a member asked if SSDC was ahead of the other Somerset Councils on this project?

·        A member asked if this project has evolved from the ‘Troubled Families’ programme.

·        Regarding the duration of the programme - A member asked if the families that join the programme later in the third year will still receive the full support needed.

Future Chard Strategy (Agenda item 7)

·        Page 18, Para 15 - Financial Implications - a member noted the paragraph referred to no direct financial implications, but the recommendation was to conduct a consultation. How much would the consultation cost as there will be costs for staff time and resources? What form will the consultation take?

·        Within the strategy document there are references to active travel.  A member asked what the current position was regarding active travel in Chard?

·        A member noted it would be interesting to know what the costs of the whole exercise will be, and what the costs for the consultants are? Where is the funding going to come from to deliver the strategy?

·        A member sought more detail about the consultation such as how, when and where as the consultation period was due to commence in the next few days.

·        Within the strategy document there are multiple references to Chard Connect - a members sought clarity about where this would sit, what will its Terms of Reference be, and who will be on it? How would Chard Connect fit with the new authority in the future?

·        A member sought reassurance that all eligible CIL funding would be claimed.

·        A member asked if this strategy would impact on any future neighbourhood plan proposals.

·        Members acknowledged and were appreciative of the comprehensive report, but suggested a summary version might be useful for the public.

·        A member asked how this strategy is going to fit in with the new authority.

·        A number of members expressed their interests in the Future Chard ambition, and offered to assist officers with consultation, as a ‘critical friend’ or to support in any way.

·        Regarding the use of this ‘place based’ strategy, one member sought reassurance that more rural communities across the district are not forgotten.

Procurement Strategic Framework and Revised Standing Orders (Agenda item 8)

·        *It was noted that Scrutiny had recently undertaken a Task and Finish review regarding the energy contract, however due to the changes with local government in Somerset and timeframes of the energy contract, the recommendations of the Task and Finish Group were unable to be taken forward. It was asked if there were any other contracts that could fall through a similar gap?

Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) refresh 2021/22 - 2023/24 (Agenda item 9)

·        Para 45 - a member asked what Section 31 grants are, and what could they be used for?

·        Members noted the situation regarding inflationary pressures and specifically escalating energy costs, and it was asked if the impact upon our budgets was known?

·        Regarding Covid-19 grants, a member sought clarification if there was any funding due to be returned.

·        *Para 25, point K, a member referred to the increasing National Insurance contributions and the year referenced being 2023/24 - it was thought payments were due before then. An explanation / more information was requested.

Establishment of a Joint Committee in Somerset for the Implementation of Local Government Reorganisation (Agenda item 10)

·        Para 8 - a members asked if the Scrutiny Committee would be consulted about how the proposed LGR Joint Scrutiny Committee would be set up?

·        *Page 238 - Membership and Meetings - member asked if the meeting of the Advisory Board planned for the 30 September happened? If it did, was it publicised and could members have some feedback from the meeting? Some members expressed concern that this meeting had not been done publicly and suggested that this Advisory Board is not transparent.

·        *Page 234 - membership of the Joint Committee - a member noted the make-up of the committee with 5 members from SCC and 4 from the districts didn't seem very democratic.

·        Members asked if they could have a list of names of those on the Joint Committee, when available?

·        *A member asked about the other existing Joint Scrutiny Panels - for Waste and the Rivers Authority - and queried if they would continue or possibly be amalgamated?

Public Space Protection Orders: Yeovil (Agenda item 11)

·        *Pages 240-241 - both maps - a member queried the black line as the line on page 240 didn’t include the Yeo Leisure Park but on page 241 it did. Hence members queried if the red line was correct for the proposed extension to the restricted area?

(NOTE - The map on page 240 has since been corrected and the agenda re-published with the correct map)

·        *A member asked what the future of PSPOs would be within the new authority and whether there would be a levelling up across the county?

·        *A member queried if it was known how the Police see the effectiveness of such orders?

District Executive Forward Plan (Agenda item 12)

·        No comments.