Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Cllr Kathryn Pearce, Cllr Andy Kendall, with Cllr Stanton as substitute, Cllr Edric Hobbs, Cllr Pauline Ham, Cllr Andy Dingwall, and Cllr Lance Duddridge.

To approve the minutes from the previous meeting.

Resolved that the minutes of the Scrutiny Committee – Communities held on 11^th October 2023 be confirmed as a correct record.

Resolved that the minutes of the Scrutiny Committee – Communities held on 11^th October 2023 be confirmed as a correct record.

To receive and note any declarations of interests in respect of any matters included on the agenda for consideration at this meeting.

(The other registrable interests of Councillors of Somerset Council, arising from membership of City, Town or Parish Councils and other Local Authorities will automatically be recorded in the minutes: City, Town & Parish Twin Hatters - Somerset Councillors 2023 )

There were no declarations of interest.

The Chair to advise the Committee of any items on which members of the public have requested to speak and advise those members of the public present of the details of the Council’s public participation scheme.

For those members of the public who have submitted any questions or statements, please note, a three minute time limit applies to each speaker and you will be asked to speak before Councillors debate the issue.

We are now live webcasting most of our committee meetings and you are welcome to view and listen to the discussion. The link to each webcast will be available on the meeting webpage, please see details under ‘click here to join online meeting’.

Public questions were received from two members of the public.

Carolyn Griffiths:

1. There are clear cases of planning approval breaches in my community; and there is evidence of inconsistent standards being applied . In one case it was so called reviewed but not with the level of internal independence as is required by your own procedures. In another I was told that a breach that was detrimental to a neighbor would not be followed up because it only affects one other property. If this is the standard applied by the Council then theoretically it means we can all do whatever we want provided it only affects one other household . Clearly this would utterly  undermine any planning controls

Evidence suggests the Ombudsman  is inadequately resourced to engage properly to understand referrals. And to pursue further would likely require litigation. 

The whole point of planning is that there are rules that should be complied with and we expect the Council to require compliance. This is clearly not happening 
I ask the Council to carry out an independently led review of its planning compliance activity to  include evaluation of  consistent application of its enforcement criteria, adequacy of its own standards and  criteria for enforcement ,  its adherence  (and oversight of adherence)  to its own standards and whether allocation of resources  are reasonable to maintain the communities' compliance. This should include but clearly not be limited to the case histories which I will willingly provide. Can the Council confirm this undertaking to a review please or if not what other measure it intends to take to rectify this unsatisfactory situation?

2. I note that the Council has reported changes in the noise management of Glastonbury Festival. However despite this, yet again during the 2023 festival there was unacceptable noise in the so called curfew period experienced in the community. 

Please can the Council help us how this will be prevented by your monitoring and enforcement during 2024?

3. During the 2023 festival there was unacceptable amounts of traffic through the heart of the village going to the so-called village car park. The reality is that this car park is not a village car park. If it was, its usage would be far more modest.The car park's capacity ( estimated between 1200 and 1800) is far in excess of that required even if every village household drove to the festival. The license management plan is clearly not controlling the nuisance of traffic in the community. 

Why is the management plan not mandating that all vehicles  ( except for those of  Pilton residents whose parking is displaced by the freeways and Pilton villagers who can ot reasonably walk to the feastival) park in locations that do not require access through the village?   

4. We have also been given to believe that households are denied the possibility of parking outside their own homes for the duration of the festival because of access for emergency vehicles. Yet emergency vehicles are expected to navigate the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

To consider the report.

The committee received a presentation from Chris Hall, Executive Director of Community Services, and Paul Matravers, Lead Specialist – Finance, on the current budget position, the overspend in the overall council budget and the particular challenges of bringing the previous councils into one unitary budget. A discussion followed.

The committee thanked the officers for the report and noted it.

A presentation was given by Chris Hall, Executive Director of Community Services, and Paul Matravers, Lead Specialist – Finance, on the current budget position, the overspend in the overall council budget and the particular challenges of bringing the previous councils into one unitary budget.

During the discussion, the following points were raised and responded to:

• Are the variances in this budget an unusual situation when councils are brought together under unitary? No. The variance is made up of overspending and bringing in less money than anticipated, due to issues with the budgets of the previous authorities.
• Where are the decisions around cuts, or does the data still need further cleaning? When will that process be completed and a final figure available? The anticipated income that was included in budgets from previous councils needs to be financed with cuts to expenditure in other areas. There was also expenditure that wasn’t factored into previous councils budgets that now needs to be funded. These are budget anomalies, that will only be a problem for this financial year for the unitary authority.
• Where there is a clear mistake such as this in the budget setting process, what are the options for resolving it? Because budgets were set on the expectation of those incomes and expenditures, they have to be balanced in order to cover the anomalies found. Bringing 5 budgets together requires understanding the decision making by legacy councils. It becomes easier after 12 months, and this is an issue across the council, not just in Communities. They will be corrected by the 24/25 financial year.
• What kind of time scale is there to bring savings to Scrutiny? The overspend in adults means that we need to not just balance the budget but underspend. The financial control boards put in place as part of the financial emergency are working on reducing the expenditure. There won’t be specific proposals on reducing expenditure for this budget. For next year, specific proposals will go to Corporate and Resources Scrutiny in February, then Executive, then Full Council.
• Would savings made through not recruiting show in the data we have been given? Yes, but the goal is simply to get balanced at this point.
• It would be useful to committee members to be kept aware of areas of underspending in Communities, as we will notice the impact of that on our constituents and it will be useful to have awareness of that in our conversations with them. The Month 9 report which will come to the committee in February we will see the results of the financial emergency spending boards and we are hoping at that point we will see a reduction in variance.
• How are the decisions that the spending board makes shown in the budget? Will the committee get information on decisions rejected by the board? We will look at how that can be reported. Eventually the figures will be reflected in the budget sheet. The spending board also leads to self-policing, as there are fewer requests  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

To consider the report.

The committee received a report that covered the statutory functions the council operates at Glastonbury Festival: Licensing, Food Safety, Structural Safety, Nuisance Prevention. They explained the fee of £32,350 that was charged to Glastonbury Festival for operating these services, and broke down some of the costs involved. Public Health, Civil Contigencies, Highways and Environmental Health are also involved. Overall the festival in 2023 was well run and majority of recommendations made were implemented. The recommendations are for continuous improvement and there were two particular areas: developing further measures to address noise, and crowd distribution and communication for crowd flows.

The chair summed up the key points of the discussion around the cost to the council and how much of it can be recouped, and requested further feedback from discussions with the festival. As 2024 will be the first year the festival is handled entirely by the Unitary Authority, it’s important that this report returns next year.

Dave Coles, Head of Regulatory Services, gave a report that covered the statutory functions the council operates at Glastonbury Festival: Licensing, Food Safety, Structural Safety, Nuisance Prevention. They explained the fee of £32,350 that was charged to Glastonbury Festival for operating these services, and broke down some of the costs involved. Public Health, Civil Contigencies, Highways and Environmental Health are also involved. Overall the festival in 2023 was well run and majority of recommendations made were implemented. The recommendations are for continuous improvement and there were two particular areas: developing further measures to address noise, and crowd distribution and communication for crowd flows.

During the discussion, the following points were raised and responded to.

• Given that this was previously managed by Mendip District Council, it is a testament to a small council dealing with a global event and having relatively few problems.
• Is there an overall command group that meets to liaise, so teams such as highways and environmental health are not working in isolation? All the teams are talking to each other, there is a multi-agency group that meets monthly and gets fed back to the Executive Directors and Executive Leadership Team. Since unitary, it is slicker to have one point of contact from the council to the festival.
• Per attendee, the fee that is charged is very low, only pennies, when there is a huge amount of work involved from all of the services. Why aren’t those costs acknowledged and dealt with? The fee is statutory and cannot be amended.
• Is it rated low because it takes place on farmland? The licensing fee was set in 2003 and applies to all licenses, regardless of size. They have not changed since 2005, but we have been lobbying the government to have those fees raised. The licensing act provides a table of values. The average for a pub would be £180 a year. The fee is set by number of attendees, and over 90,000 is the £32,350 figure that is the maximum we can charge for a license. Other services such as Police, Ambulance, and Fire Service will have their own negotiations with Glastonbury.
• Can we identify how much it costs us? Later this week there is a conversation about our costs and whether the festival should pay us for the resources that we have on site. SWAST, Police, and the Fire Service are paid for the resources that they have on site.
• The festival is fantastic but the current payment model is flawed, as there is not the capacity within the council to deal with them and not enough for councils to be adequately supported. We should take the position where we expect our costs are covered, and the licensing fee does not do that.
• If the Committee Members made a recommendation to Executive about the licensing fee would that go to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing, and Communities? There was a recent consultation on licensing fees that the council participated in.
• Where do Parish Councils and communities  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

To consider the presentation from Christopher Brown, Service Director of Housing.

The committee received a presentation from Christopher Brown, Service Director for Housing, providing the context of demand and supply pressures and statistics around people are risk of homelessness and rough sleeping. They detailed the prevention approach, and looked at the impact of rough sleeping and the Severe Weather Emergency Protocol (SWEP), and how the new Somerset Housing and Rough Sleeping Strategy is being developed. The request to the councillors was to know what information the committee needed from the team as the strategy was being developed?

The committee noted the report and a discussion followed.

The team offered to do a members briefing including the strategic work that the team is doing so that members can be more aware.

A presentation was given by Christopher Brown, Service Director for Housing,  providing the context of demand and supply pressures and statistics around people are risk of homelessness and rough sleeping. They detailed the prevention approach, and looked at the impact of rough sleeping and the Severe Weather Emergency Protocol (SWEP), and how the new Somerset Housing and Rough Sleeping Strategy is being developed. The request to the councillors was to know what information the committee needed from the team as the strategy was being developed?

During the discussion, the following points were raised and responded to:

• With the development being an iterative process and there is a huge amount of data to be gathered, when will there be a more detailed report to come back to us? In six to eight months there will be findings from the data, but there will be working groups that members may want to be involved in.
• As housing teams were previously in district councils, are the teams now in harmony or is there catching up required? Service was delivered in 2 different ways in districts. Two delivered through contracts, two delivered through direct delivery. All officers are working together on things like SWEP, a structural change for internal consistency. There are different inherited ways of working but positive communication and working towards a unified service.
• With the different ways of working, is there a disparity of skills? Each of the teams has inherent skill, but different skillsets across the council, including specialist officers and officers doing outreach. There is a need to decide how much is outsourced in future and how much is managed in house. Some areas need additional support around specific issues like prison leavers, which have impacted some areas more, so there are skill differences around that. There will be different providers who work across the services. Some services are rolled out geographically, while others are across the whole team, for example a recent grant of £269,000 from DLUHC for extra nursing capacity for the homeless health team.
• Given the council is moving to focusing on statutory responsibilities, how will that impact this work, and is there discretionary funding that will be covered? The statutory duties are very expensive. Prevention work, which is discretionary, should be focused on, as it is much more cost effective. The proposed shape of the service will do more on triage and prevention. Currently the council only prevents 29% of homelessness, compared to a national average of 52%. It’s not quite as simple as statutory vs discretionary. There is a ringfenced grant for rough sleeping intervention that has to be returned if it is not used.
• Where there is provision in the Taunton area, some people are rough sleeping because they do not follow the rules of accommodation provision, for example not taking drugs or alcohol. Some people have run out of options in terms of accommodation, and there is a creative solutions team.
• People in tents cause angst in communities. Councillors let the team  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

To consider the report.

The committee received a presentation from Christian Evans, Head of Business Partnering, and Kerry Prisco, Management Accounting and Reporting Lead, detailing the forecast overspend and how it will be financed.

The committee discussed the report and noted it.

Christian Evans, Head of Business Partnering, and Kerry Prisco, Management Accounting and Reporting Lead, gave a presentation on the report, detailing the forecast overspend and how it will be financed.

During the discussion, the following points were raised:

• Variances are voids and unrecovered rents. Are they as you would expect at this time of year? The team hasn’t had the capacity to do a deep dive on the financing. There is a 31% increase in repairs, but we are not seeing that reflected in the workforce feedback. Voids are standard turnover of stock. Where there are major voids like the kitchen etc., more work needs to be done so that the voids team can inherit a better property. Can’t reduce turnover but can make sure that the property is improved faster. There are also voids due to regeneration, as there is some demolition in areas. There is an action plan around this that could be brought to Scrutiny.
• How much time was lost over Covid that slowed down the work and prevented people from entering the property? Covid and compliance have taken a lot of capacity. A lot of the compliance work has been done and they are back on track with capital programmes.
• HRA is a ringfenced account, but obviously other work in the council impacts on HRA. Is it still subject to the financial emergency spending limit? How does the scheme get reflected in HRA? Yes, it is still subject to the £100 spending limit. There are crossovers with the general fund and vice versa, in areas such as flooding. Ringfencing means they have to be clear on what they are charging.
• How does the council tax reduction scheme impact on revenue predictions? Individual tenants take on that responsibility. The only impact is on void properties from a council tax perspective, as the discount has been removed.

To consider and comment on the Scrutiny Committee - Communities work programme 23/24.

To assist the discussion please use the following link to view the latest Executive Forward Plan of planned key decisions that have been published on the Council’s website.

Forward plan - Executive Forward Plan - Modern Council (somerset.gov.uk)

No further items were added to the Scrutiny – Communities work programme.