Agenda item

Members considered the reports within the District Executive agenda for 10 February 2022 (Informal Consultative Meeting) and raised comments as detailed below. Responses to many questions and comments were provided at Scrutiny Committee (Informal Meeting) by the relevant officers or Portfolio Holder – except those marked by an asterisk:

Somerset Waste Partnership Annual Report and Business Plan Update (Agenda item 6)

·        *Para 18 on page 9 – refers to an increase in cost of £505,219 but it doesn’t explain what the costs are for. Some members sought clarity about if the additional costs would be charged for in the current financial year

·        *Page 9 – members noted that paragraphs 23 and 24 are duplicates and queried if a para for Legal Implications was missing? (this has been corrected since Scrutiny Committee).

·        *Point 7.2 on page 23 – a member expressed some concern regarding the chatbot facility as their experiences elsewhere had been poor

·        *A member raised concern regarding waste collection for residential units situated above commercial premises. Often bags / boxes would be placed on a pavement together and it must be difficult for collectors to differentiate between commercial and domestic waste. At times this has led to waste not being collected (rejected) and left to mount up until the following collection. In some circumstances the mounting rubbish can block pavements making it difficult for pedestrians to pass. What can be done to ensure the waste is collected and not left?

·        *Point 9.3 on page 26 – a member referred to the potential takeover of SUEZ and asked if elected members would continue to have a direct contact where there have been missed collections?

·        *Page 27, point 3 under financial risks – a member asked if we knew what the implications will be for SWP yet, as the report mentions ‘likely to have major operational and financial implications’.?

·        Members welcomed the regular communications from SWP, which are very helpful.

Adoption of Future Chard Strategy (Agenda item 7)

·        Para 15 – A member expressed their surprise at the number of people who had attended, they had hoped for more.

·        A member asked if the strategy had been done earlier or first if it might have helped in attracting more grant funding for the Chard regeneration projects?

·        Members queried the next 12 months and if there were enough staff resources to deliver and support the strategy?

·        The situation with the contractor Midas – was this likely to impact on any Chard Regeneration projects?

·        A member noted that as we are in a transition phase to a new authority, was the document lining up as something the new authority could take forward? Is the whole report at risk if the new authority does not take this up?

Council Tax Policies (Agenda item 8)

·        *Para 11 - a member asked what happens if a landlord has a property where a tenant has left and so the property is empty, and it remains empty for a number of months despite active marketing – are there exceptions or would they be eligible for any discount?

·        *Another member queried if there was any appeals process?

Business Rate Reliefs (Agenda item 9)

·        *Members asked how the reliefs would be publicised and whether there was an appeals process? Members sought reassurance that efforts would be made to ensure that those who might be eligible were made aware of the reliefs available.

·        *Para 49 – a member sought reassurance that charitable organisations would not be affected by the change?

·        *A member referred to the rural settlement threshold (3000 properties) and asked if the threshold was likely to be reviewed in the future (due to housebuilding)?

Corporate Performance Report 2021-22: 3^rd Quarter (Agenda item 10)

·        PCS3 - Members noted there were many concerns about phone calls and the wait times experienced by customers.

·        *PCS 6 and PCS 7 - Some members queried if there was a progress report regarding benefits?

·        *A member referred to the Civica system and queried since it had been implemented how much had been spent on fixes and patches to the system, as it didn’t seem to be delivering what was hoped. Was it leaving us at reputational risk?

·        *PCS12 and PCS14 on page 242 – a member noted that the supporting comments referred to a lack of conservation resource. It was asked if there were intentions to remedy this and provide any improvements?

·        Members noted the disturbing amount of ‘reds’ showing in the performance against target and direction of travel for planning, benefits and customer calls.

·        *PCS18 – sickness – members noted the rate of absence had increased – was this due to Covid related illness or other reasons? Concerns were raised if the increase was relating to mental health.

·        *A member asked how many officers or how much officer time was being diverted to work regarding the transition to unitary? Is the resource factored into the allocated expense for transition or is it additional?

2021/22 Revenue Budget Monitoring Report for the period Ending 30 December 2021 (Agenda item 11)

·        No comments.

2021/22 Capital Budget Monitoring Report for the period Ending 30 December 2021 (Agenda item 12)

·        *Page 274, table 3 – regarding the loans to Opium and SWP – members queried what percentage was for each project. Was the loan to SWP for the vehicles?

·        Page 280 – Wincanton Regeneration – referring to the commentary, a member noted December 2022 was not far away, and they felt little seemed to have happened regarding Wincanton Regeneration.

·        *Page 275, CIL – A member queried what is likely to happen to CIL funds after April 2023, and how could other places / projects put in a bid for funding?  It was also asked how allocations are decided and if the criteria is publicised?

·        Page 285, Appx C:

o   Noting the number of deferrals to the new authority, a member asked if in future it would be possible to collate the deferred schemes into a separate group or table for ease of reading?

o   *A member asked if the risks or likelihood were known about whether the deferred projects were likely to be dropped or continued by the new authority?

o   *A member queried why certain schemes had been deferred as there was no explanation provided? Was it for financial or other reasons?

o   *Gypsy & Traveller Acquisition Fund – a member queried what the budget had originally been for and why was it being removed?

·        Page 286, Investment in Commercial Property – Trelleborg, Bridgwater – members sought clarity about what it was that we would be pulling away from as it was understood we had already purchased the site, or part of.

District Executive Forward Plan (Agenda item 13)

·        No comments.