Agenda item

Reports to be considered by District Executive on 3 March 2022


Members considered the reports within the District Executive agenda for 3 March 2022 (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:


Chard Shop Front Design Guide (Agenda item 6)


·        *Members asked how enforceable is this guide going to be?

·        A member queried if what’s being done in Chard could be replicated elsewhere and are there any intentions to do so?

·        A member asked if there would be any incentives offered to encourage shop owners to do this?

·        A member queried how successful the grant uptake had been to date for the High Street Heritage Action Zone (HSHAZ)?

·        Some members also asked if there were any lessons learned studies available regarding similar schemes elsewhere?


Planning Reimagined (Agenda item 7)


·        A member sought clarification on the latest situation regarding extensions of time for applications?

·        *A member asked if site visits were still being undertaken as various rumours were circulating about where some officers were based? They also sought clarification about whether the authority has a Landscape Officer?

·        Some general concerns were expressed that it was felt the team were under-resourced.

·        Some members requested that it would be useful to know if any planning applications are likely to go forward if the phosphate issue is mitigated for an application? It would be useful if a phosphates update had been provided in this agenda.

·        Page 81, Enforcement – a member expressed concern that there still seemed to be little communication with members to provide updates on enforcement cases.

·        Enforcement – one member asked for clarification on the 100% increase in enforcement notices issued. What are the figures behind this percentage increase?

·        A member sought reassurance that some of the extra resourcing that had been agreed at February Full Council would be assigned to enforcement.

·        Several members commented that it would be useful if communications could be improved to ward members and also to town and parish councils.


Investment Asset Update Report (Agenda item 8)


·        No questions raised.

·        *Members did make an observation that there seemed to be inconsistencies with the style of risk matrices in reports on the agenda. Members believed the risk matrix format was being revised to help make it easier to understand.


(Note: Members did not go into confidential session)


Review of SSDC Commercial Strategy (Agenda item 9)


·        Pages 104-105 – members sought clarification that the red text was suggested new or replacement text for the strategy document.

·        *Page 109, Table at para 1.1 (the area shaded red) – regarding embedding commercial thinking – out of interest a member asked how difficult had this been when going out to recruitment?

·        Page 119, para 4.3.16 – members asked if the wording in the paragraph was new as it some members had not noticed it before. Members were encouraged by the wording of the first sentence.


District Executive Forward Plan (Agenda item 10)


·        No comments.

Supporting documents: