Meeting documents

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the District Executive meeting held on 8^th January 2015.

The minutes of the District Executive meeting held on 8^th January 2015, copies of which had been circulated, were taken as read and, having been approved as a correct record, were signed by the Chairman.

There were no apologies for absence.

In accordance with the Council's current Code of Conduct (adopted July 2012), which includes all the provisions relating to Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI), personal and prejudicial interests, Members are asked to declare any DPI and also any personal interests (and whether or not such personal interests are also "prejudicial") in relation to any matter on the Agenda for this meeting. A DPI is defined in The Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1464) and Appendix 3 of the Council’s Code of Conduct. A personal interest is defined in paragraph 2.8 of the Code and a prejudicial interest is defined in paragraph 2.9.

Members are reminded that they need to declare the fact that they are also a member of a County, Town or Parish Council as a Personal Interest. As a result of the change made to the Code of Conduct by this Council at its meeting on 15th May 2014, where you are also a member of Somerset County Council and/or a Town or Parish Council within South Somerset you must declare a prejudicial interest in any business on the agenda where there is a financial benefit or gain or advantage to Somerset County Council and/or a Town or Parish Council which would be at the cost or to the financial disadvantage of South Somerset District Council.  If you have a prejudicial interest you must comply with paragraphs 2.9(b) and 2.9(c) of the Code.

There were no declarations of interest made.

Questions, statements or comments from members of the public are welcome at the beginning of each meeting of the Council. The total period allowed for public participation shall not exceed 15 minutes except with the consent of the Council and each individual speaker shall be restricted to a total of three minutes. Where there are a number of persons wishing to speak about the same matter, they should consider choosing one spokesperson to speak on their behalf where appropriate. If a member of the public wishes to speak they should advise the committee administrator and complete one of the public participation slips setting out their name and the matter they wish to speak about. The public will be invited to speak in the order determined by the Chairman. Answers to questions may be provided at the meeting itself or a written reply will be sent subsequently, as appropriate. Matters raised during the public question session will not be debated by the Council at that meeting.

There were no questions from members of the public present.

The Chairman advised that he had attended a meeting of Chief Executives and Leaders of Somerset Councils the previous day to discuss the Somerset County Council proposal regarding the Pathway for Adults arrangements to discontinue all homeless duties.  The recommendation of the meeting was for SCC to continue to fund the service for a further 6 months to enable full consultation to take place.

The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Economic Development introduced Heidi Hallam, the South West Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Partnership Manager who was attending to explain the role between LEPs and the District Councils.

The LEP Partnership Manager provided a full presentation on the role of the LEPs in England and the lobbying and enabling work they carried out.  She explained their purpose to deliver transformational economic change for the area and reposition the Heart of the South West’s profile and reputation - nationally & globally - as a business location to invest in through its Strategic Economic Plan for 2014-30.  She explained the organisation, its partners and its priorities to develop and deliver investment in the area. 

In response to questions from Members, the LEP Partnership Manager advised that:-

·         LEP had been lobbying the Government regarding Broadband for rural areas and there should be an improvement in the Connecting Somerset & Dorset programme shortly.

·         She would follow up individual instances of Broadband issues and asked that Members contact her with detailed evidence.

·         The LEP had no funding of its own for projects but it could help with partner organisations who had discretionary funding.

·         A scoring mechanism was being designed to assist projects to assess their eligibility and this would be shortly available on the LEP website.

·         LAG and Leader funding was not channelled through the LEP but they were key partners.  She would ensure the ensure the Yeovil Western Corridor link was added to the list of projects to be progressed.

During discussion, several Members regretted the slow roll-out of Broadband by the Connecting Somerset & Dorset programme, particularly the ringfencing of business parks by BT which was affecting many small and medium employers in the area.

At the conclusion of the debate, the chairman thanked the Partnership Manager for attending and providing an informative presentation.  It was agreed the presentation slides would be published with the minutes.

The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Economic Development advised that the Partnership had 3 main actions for the coming year: to find alternative methods of waste treatment, to address the impact of waste and, to upgrade the fleet of collection vehicles.  She noted that the Annual Audit letter for the Partnership had given an unqualified opinion on their financial statement and Appendix 2 detailed their action plan with costings for the future.

The Managing Director of the Somerset Waste Partnership outlined the alternative methods of waste treatment being considered to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill.  He also mentioned the innovative projects which were encouraging more recycling, including reuse shops at the HWRCs at Highbridge and Chard, and, the stickers proposed for household waste bins to encourage more food recycling.  He noted that the current fleet of waste collection vehicles were now in need of replacement and the options being considered including the hire of vehicles in the future. 

Whilst noting that information was provided on the Partnerships website, the Scrutiny Committee asked that the previous years outturn figures be provided as a comparison to the future budget forecasts.

In response to questions from Members, the Managing Director of the Somerset Waste Partnership confirmed that:-

·         Due to the complex makeup of disposable nappies, it was currently not possible to recycle them.

·         The trial of 3 weekly collection of household waste could be extended to other partner authorities, however, the savings achieved would not be so great unless all the partners agreed.  Weekly collections of recyclables would continue unchanged.

·         The current waste collection vehicles were owned by SCC on behalf of the Partnership.

·         The Partnership were currently trialling the recycling of plastic triggers from household cleaning products, which was funded by Unilever.

·         There was a business waste recycling directory on the Waste Partnership website. 

At the conclusion of the debate, Members thanked the Managing Director of the Somerset Waste Partnership for attending and they were content to confirm the Somerset Waste Partnership Business Plan for 2015/16.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Spatial Planning drew Members attention to the revised budget as at 30^th December noting the budget underspend variations and the delivery of major savings detailed.  He also drew Members attention to the General Fund Balance of £4,783,000 and he asked that the recommendations be confirmed. 

In response to questions from the Scrutiny Committee, the Assistant Director (Finance and Corporate Services) confirmed that the Council’s disaster recovery plan had been completely refreshed recently and she agreed to detail the capital and revenue useable reserves separately in the future.   It was also noted that the Local Plan Enquiry Reserve would be required to pay the Planning Inspector fees and to cover the cost of renewing certain strategies once the plan was adopted. 

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

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Spatial Planning advised that this was the standard quarterly budgeting report.  He drew Members attention to the delayed projects on page 56 of the report and he noted that the Area Committees also received quarterly monitoring reports on the Section 106 deposits within each area. 

In response to questions from the Scrutiny Committee, the Assistant Director (Finance and Corporate Services) confirmed that the Somerset Waste Partnership were now looking at leasing waste vehicles and so the finance set aside to purchase new vehicles may be re-profiled within the budget. 

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

(Voting: 8 in favour, 0 against, 2 abstentions)

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Spatial Planning advised that the budget was for confirmation by Full Council on 26^th February and although it was a prudent budget, this was the first year the Council were participating in Business Rate pooling.  He said the quarterly monitoring process was robust so that action could be taken quickly if any variations occurred.   

In response to questions from the Scrutiny Committee, the Assistant Director (Finance and Corporate Services) confirmed that there had been a number of announcements from the Government including the Business Rate Pooling and New Homes Bonus figures.  She also advised that the income for Engineering and Property Services had increased due to the office sharing arrangements with SCC and the CAB and also electricity savings from the photovoltaic panels installed. 

The Chairman thanked the members of the Scrutiny Task and Finish group for their involvement in the budget process and at the conclusion of the debate, the majority of Members were content to confirm the recommendations of the report to Council.

(Voting: 8 in favour, 0 against, 2 abstentions)

The Chairman advised that it was likely that any properties purchased would be managed through an arms-length letting agency so that no Right to Buy issues ever arose.  He noted that although the Scrutiny Committee had requested that each property purchase was confirmed by the District Executive, he felt it was more suitable to include a member of the Scrutiny Committee in a Portfolio Holder decision in case of any time issues involved in a purchase.

During discussion, Members were supportive of the proposal and requested that a review of the scheme be brought to them in 12 months time.

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

The Environmental Health Manager confirmed that there was currently £750,000 available to assist with private sector housing and he advised that following comments from the Scrutiny Committee, there had only been one loan default involving a gypsy or travelling family. 

During discussion, Members felt that, given the total amount of loans made compared to the default amount, the risk was very low and at the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to confirm the Policy for Awarding Private Sector Housing Grants/Loans and other Financial Assistance.

The Community Safety Coordinator provided Members with an outline of the new powers available to the Police, the District Council and other agencies under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, particularly the Community Trigger, which was available through the Avon & Somerset website and via the 101 telephone number which gave communities the right to a review of actions taken where there were on-going anti-social behaviour problems.

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee noted they had received a presentation on the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 at a previous meeting and had no additional comments to make.  

In response to questions from Members, the Community Safety Coordinator and the Principal Environmental Protection Officer confirmed that:-

·         The Public Space Protection Order would supersede existing Dog Control Orders.

·         All existing alcohol zones and other orders would need to be reviewed and reassessed by March 2017 as Public Space Protection Orders.

At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to confirm the implementation and use of the new provisions of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

The Chairman advised that the proposal would currently only affect one staff member with the exception of apprentices, casuals and interns and it was right that the District Council were moving towards the adoption of a living wage

In response to a question from the Scrutiny Committee, the HR Manager advised that in order to fully sign up to the Living Wage, the Council would also have to ensure that all Council Contractors were paying the Living Wage.  By deleting the two bottom spinal points below the current living wage, SSDC was making a step towards it.  

During discussion, the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Spatial Planning confirmed that although the Council were adopting the policy internally, they were not applying it externally due to the possible disruption to the local economy.  He asked that the word ‘criteria’ be added to the end of the resolution for clarification and Members were in agreement with this. 

At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to confirm the amended recommendation of the report.

The Chairman advised that the starting times of the evening training sessions within the Councillor Induction Programme had been amended to start at 6.00pm to allow working Councillors to attend. 

In response to questions from the Scrutiny Committee, the Portfolio Holder for Regulatory and Democratic Services advised that:-

·         There were several options of tablets, laptop computers and printers which could be purchased for less than £320.

·         The Local Government (Electronic Communications) (England) Order 2015 allowed for paperless meetings for those Councillors who wished to opt in to this provision.

·         It was possible to have Microsoft Office programmes installed on an IPad.

During discussion, it was noted that:-

·         The Council would have no right of access to the content of any device in the ownership of a Councillor.

·         The IT Helpdesk staff would help with advice on suitable devices to purchase and could transfer information from the existing Council laptops onto new devices.

·         One to one tuition would be available in the use of the ModGov app to access Council agendas and minutes.

·         the £320 one off sum to purchase an internet enabled device would be subject to tax and NI deductions and so it was proposed to increase this allowance to £400 to take account of this as a Benefit in Kind. 

At the conclusion of the debate, Members agreed to increase the allowance for an IT device to £400 were content to confirm the amended Member Induction Programme.

The Welfare and Careline Manager advised that Phase 1 of the Family Focus programme was now coming towards its end and the results of what the families in the programme had achieved were now being recognised.  Phase 2 would start from April 2015 with a target of 3,000 families to engage with across Somerset.  Somerset County Council would deliver the programme through their Get Set Service, using their Childrens Centres.  They had already set up a South Somerset Advisory Board which was chaired by Councillor Cathy Bakewell. 

The Assistant Director (Health and Well-Being) confirmed that SSDC would continue to operate the Family Focus programme through the Yeovil4Family project at the Yeovil Community Church with funding up to December 2015 to ensure continued support for the families in the programme.

In response to a question from the Scrutiny Committee, the Welfare and Careline Manager advised that the Family Focus programme also operated in Langport, Wincanton and Chard with referrals coming from the Police and other agencies. 

During discussion, it was noted that:-

·         Although the Government were disappointed at the low employment results, (of the 85,000 families in the programme, only 8,000 had secured better employment opportunities) it was hoped that the children in the families were more likely to secure employment in the future. 

·         SSDC should continue to support Yeovil4Family with early family intervention through working in partnership with Yarlington and other Housing providers.

·         The scale of the challenge for Phase 2 was huge and SCC may struggle to meet the required Government targets.   

At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to note the progress of the South Somerset Family Focus programme.

This item has been withdrawn from the Agenda. 

This item was withdrawn from the Agenda.

This item was withdrawn from the Agenda.

Members were pleased to note the monthly performance snapshot data.

Members noted the following addition to the Executive Forward Plan:-

·         Upgrade of Licensing Software – March/April 2015

Members noted that the next scheduled meeting of the District Executive would take place on Thursday 5^th March 2015 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Brympton Way, Yeovil commencing at 9.30 a.m.