Agenda item

(Voting: 31 in favour, 4 against, 7 abstentions)

The Portfolio Holder for the Yeovil Refresh introduced the report and stressed the importance of supporting it to its conclusion.  He said the town must now be promoted to encourage visitors and new businesses to start.  He proposed that the recommendations by agreed by Council.

In response to a proposal to reduce Business Rates for shops in the town and offer free car parking, the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services noted that Business Rates were changed by Central Government and were only collected on their behalf by SSDC. The proportion of Business Rates which SSDC was allowed to retain went towards repairs and the Business Rates charged on the car parks.  He seconded the recommendations.

In response to questions, the Regeneration Programme Manager advised:-

·         Issues had arisen due to unmapped utility services underground and additional contaminated land in parts of the town.  They had been aware of the location of the Victorian underground toilets.

·         Negotiations were ongoing with the DLUHC regarding the possible re-allocation of part of the Future High Street Funding, however, the former cattle market site had suffered a number of viability issues and it’s redevelopment was unlikely to go ahead.

·         Some of the issues which the project had suffered could not have been anticipated but lessons had been learnt and mitigation measures were in place.

·         The budget for the Yeovil Refresh was £24m. The budget was funded by significant grants including £9.75m from the Future High Street Fund, developer contributions through C.I.L and Section 106 payments, and through SSDC funds. So far £5m of the budget had been spent. The officer time included the Refresh Project Manager working 3 days per week, the Regeneration Programme Manager working 1 day a week on the project and the Programme Accountant spent on average 0.5 days a week but this could vary.

·         The building at 47 Middle Street was in private ownership and SSDC were working with the owner`s agent to deliver a long term solution for the building. The building was structurally unsafe.  Demolition contractors had been appointed and demolition would occur subject to agreement on party wall issues with adjacent property owners.  The owner of 47 Middle Street had appointed architects to develop a scheme which would be shared via the normal consultation routes for planning applications in due course.

At the conclusion of the debate, the majority of Members were content to proposed that the recommendations be confirmed by the Chief Executive.

(Voting: 31 in favour, 4 against, 7 abstentions)