Meeting documents

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the District Executive meeting held on 3^rd September 2015.

The minutes of the District Executive meeting held on 3^rd September 2015, copes of which had been circulated, were taken as read and, having been approved as a correct record, were signed by the Chairman.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Peter Gubbins, Shane Pledger and Rina Singh (Strategic Director – Place and Performance)

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.

Public participation was taken at the relevant agenda item.

There were no announcements made by the Chairman.

The Chairman confirmed that confidential papers detailing the key findings from the survey work and updated financial implication information had been circulated to Councillors.

The Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Culture commented that the report was very comprehensive.  She explained that the report had been prepared as part of the Council’s work to give serious consideration to the refurbishment and operation of facilities at the Westlands Sports and Leisure Complex on a broadly similar basis to their current use.  Its purpose was to present the key findings from the surveys that were sought by the District Executive meeting held on 3^rd September, to assess the financial implications of SSDC entering into an agreement with Finmeccanica-Agusta Westland to take over the management and operation of Westland Leisure Centre and to supply Councillors with sufficient information so that a decision could be taken.

The Committee was addressed by Paul Saunders representing the Pistol Club, Paul Hurley, Chairman of Agusta Westland Retirement Association, Rob Fox, Chairman of Westland Cricket, Edgar Herridge, Ted Callow, Carol Barge and Michael Amor of the Allotment Association.  Their comments included:-

·         The complex would suffer if the sports facilities and entertainment complex were divided;

·         There were lots of new housing projects within the town and those residents would need somewhere to play sports;

·         With the right management and constitution the complex could become a focal point for sports and entertainment;

·         The Retirement Club was the largest user of the complex for 34 years with over 200 people regularly attending events;

·         Support for an annual membership fee and volunteers to be involved with the complex;

·         Support for links to Augusta Westland to remain;

·         The Westland Cricket Club community had extended beyond its 150 members with a flourishing schools programme, community open days and hosting of county standard youth and disabled games; and took the spread of their work to over 500 young people and adults;

·         The England and Wales Cricket Board had made a firm commitment to financial assist with a new cricket pavilion, the support from the governing body would help reduce the figures the Council would need to fund;

·         Highlighted the strategic importance of Westland Cricket Club to the Somerset Cricket Board;

·         Both the Somerset Cricket Board and the England and Wales Cricket Board had highlighted Yeovil for significant investment in the coming years however without a cricket club in the town the investments would not be viable;

·         This opportunity was about creating a leisure complex for all to enjoy;

·         It was felt that consideration should be given to using volunteers to help run the entertainment venue;

·         Bingo sessions had been running at Westlands Sports and Leisure complex for about 25 years and were attended by over 200 people each evening;

·         The Allotment Society had received enquiries from the wider community about the availability of allotments and it was hoped they could be accommodated with a plot in the future.

The Assistant Director (Health and Well-Being) provided members with a powerpoint presentation.  He reminded members that further  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services introduced the report noting that there were lots of unknown areas at the present time on this report.  There were many decisions that were pending particularly with the Council awaiting the Autumn Statement.  He noted that the Council was in the middle of a process of identifying a substantial level of savings.  There was a need to consider new ways of working and working with other partner Councils in order to achieve the necessary savings; and to seek ways of turning capital to good use to support revenue.  He noted that the situation was looking positive and beneficial with regard to the pooling of business rates and recommended that the final decision on whether the Council remains in the Somerset Business Rates Pool for 2016/17 be delegated.

The Assistant Director (Finance & Corporate Services) advised that the report was the start of the budget process for the current year.

In response to a member question on the New Homes Bonus (NHB), the Assistant Director (Finance & Corporate Services) advised that the amount of NHB being used to fund the MTFP would give the authority time to make any cuts necessary in a measured way should NHB funding be withdrawn particularly as government announcements were being delayed each year.  

The Scrutiny Committee Chairman asked for clarification on the process being followed to refresh the Council Plan as clarity on priority and non-priority areas was crucial for the budget setting process. Scrutiny members also commented that having a refreshed Council Plan should inform all the major decisions facing members in the coming weeks.

The Chairman noted that the Council Plan would change if the Council were to make decisions on the Westland Leisure Complex and joint working with another authority.  The refresh of the Council Plan would be given a high priority and approved by Council by the end of the year to feed into the budget process.

At the conclusion of the debate, members were content to approve the recommendations of the report.

The Chairman, as Portfolio Holder introduced the report.  He referred to the overall delivery and net gain of affordable housing and noted that the projection for the current financial year was 226, which he considered to be a good projection.  With regard to affordable homes delivery he felt that the Council had done a good job in trying to keep the balance between rural and urban delivery.  He highlighted that the Council had received a high level of public subsidy associated with completed schemes particularly from the Homes and Communities Agency. 

The Corporate Strategic Housing Manager drew members’ attention to some minor amendments in the report as follows:

Recommendation e – to read ref section 9

Recommendation f – to read ref section 10

He also referred to Appendix B of the report and explained that the asterisk against some schemes referred to schemes where properties had been delivered in previous years.  

The Corporate Strategic Housing Manager drew members’ attention to several details in the report and highlighted that 181 properties had been completed in the last financial year which was considered to be a good outcome.  He referred to the slippage in the programme namely the Lufton development and the demise of Brookvale and gave further information on the proposed new allocation of funds including a new rural scheme in Misterton and some specialist bungalows in Yeovil. 

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee thanked the officer for a very detailed and thorough report and asked that funding generated by HG4 and the geographical spread be kept under review and reported to members.

During a brief discussion on the report, a member paid tribute to the officers and organisations involved with the reform of the sites affected by the demise of Brookvale and was pleased to note the emphasis on Chard numbers.

At the conclusion of the debate members were content to agree the recommendations of the report.

The Executive was addressed by David Clements, Chairman of Hinton St George Rural Community Services.  He referred to the aging population in Hinton St George with many people being unable to drive and commented it was critical for a shop and post office to be located in the village.  He confirmed that the first of the loans had been repaid and that they were in the process of paying off their current commercial mortgage, however, the biggest exposure as a business in going forward was the rise in interest rates.  The business had excellent staff and an efficient group of volunteers.  The business had a stable financial situation and cash flow had improved with the financial forecast due to be met for the year.  He asked members to support the Groups funding application.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services introduced the report and referred members to the risk matrices outlined in the report and commented that there was a low financial risk in taking the decision which supported community priorities.  

In response to a member comment, the Assistant Director (Finance and Corporate Services) confirmed that the loan agreement would include a first charge on the property and that the value of the property would be assessed and details would be included in the report to Full Council. 

The Chairman of Scrutiny Committee sought reassurance that SSDC would have first charge on the property if the loan is agreed and agreed with the suggestion that the Loans policy should be revisited in light of the number of reports now coming forward to Council for approval.

In response to a member comment, the Assistant Director (Finance & Corporate Services) confirmed that the Councils Loans Policy was currently in the process of being updated to reflect more modern pricing and reduce the frequency of loan requests needing to be considered by Full Council.

Members unanimously agreed the recommendation of the report.

The Chairman, as Portfolio Holder introduced the report and explained that approval was sought to allow SSDC to obtain an option on an adjacent site to enable the provision of both the community facilities and a 7 classroom school.  He advised that the option would only be required in the event that the forthcoming application for residential development UP Mudford Sustainable Urban Extension was not approved by spring 2016.

The Area Development Manager (South) advised that valuations had now been received.  She reiterated that there was an acute lack of school places in Yeovil and that that this was having an impact on families within the town particularly within the Wyndham Park area as well as a lack of community facilities.  It was extremely important to allow the development to go ahead in order for a school to be open in 2017.

During a short discussion on the item, members sought assurances that the provision of additional parking would continue to be discussed.

At the conclusion of the debate, Members confirmed the recommendations of the report.

The Chairman referred to the response he had received from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and drew members’ attention to the online government consultation.

The Assistant Director (Communities) updated the report and advised that Barrington School and field had been placed onto the Register of Assets of Community Value.  She advised that The Smithy Inn, Charlton Musgrove had been subject to appeal and had now been rejected. She noted that Castle Cary Constitutional Club had been sold and a nomination had been received to place the asset on the register.

During discussion, members felt that it was important for the officer and member costs associated with Community Right to Bid to be raised as part of the consultation process.  The Assistant Director (Communities) agreed to take this issue forward as part of her feedback to the government consultation.

Members were content to note the report.

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee asked when the issue of two hours free car parking (as discussed via a Motion to Full Council) would be included in the Forward Plan – at the time, members were informed that any decision on this would have to be taken as part of the 2016/17 budget setting process which is underway.

In response, the Interim Chief Executive confirmed that work had been undertaken on the issue and that the item would be considered within the budget report.

It was requested that the consultation document on Right to Bid be included in the list of current consultations.

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