Agenda item

The Vice Chairman of Yeovil Without Parish Council (YWPC), partner in the Yeovil Crematorium, addressed the Committee.  He said that YWPC had always been treated as an equal partner at board meetings although their holding was only 11% and they had always taken difficult funding decisions together, however, it appeared that the decision to defer the project had been taken without reference to them.  He noted that approximately £650,000 of funding from YWPC was held by SSDC for the project and he asked that be returned to the Parish Council reserve fund until such time as the new business case was made and then funding from them would be returned to the project.  He concluded that the area needed a more modern facility to say goodbye with dignity.

The Commercial Property, Land and Development Manager noted there would be a meeting of the Crematorium Board on 21 February and there would need to be future discussions on how to progress the project so it would not be a final meeting.  He also clarified that as a separate company to SSDC, VAT was payable on the project.

The Portfolio Holder for Area South and the Yeovil Crematorium agreed that Crematorium Board Meetings had been cancelled recently as there had been no business to discuss and he was very disappointed that the project was to be deferred for one year.  He said the decision had been taken and that SSDC could only note this but there would need to be future discussions between SSDC and YWPC on issues such as the car park extension and Garden of Remembrance.  He also noted that the new Somerset Council should be aware of the partnership arrangement with YWPC.

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee said they understood that not every project could go forward but this was a profitable business and costs may rise if the project were delayed.  He said SCC councillors should challenge the decision and there should be careful consideration on the publicity around the delay and the reputation of SSDC.

During discussion, points were raised regarding the delay, the new business case, the continuity of officers with knowledge of the project, and the financial situation which had caused SCC to defer the project.  Councillors who were also Unitary Councillors said they would continue to press for the scheme to be reinstated. 

At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to note the recommendations of the report.