Meeting documents

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the District Executive meeting held on 3^rd November 2016.

The minutes of the District Executive meeting held on 3^rd November 2016, 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 Ric Pallister and Peter Seib.

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.

Mrs E Stokes spoke on behalf of Castle Cary Town Council regarding Agenda item 6: Recycle More.  She said that although she supported the proposal to recycle more, she had concerns about the plans to divert household waste from landfill.   She said the proposal for a waste transfer site at Dimmer would have a huge impact locally and no feedback had been sought from Town and Parish Councils and the local community.  She also mentioned traffic issues through the village of Clanville as the road was not suited to the HGV traffic from the Dimmer site. 

Mr M Roberts spoke on behalf of Cary Moor Parish Council regarding Agenda item 6: Recycle More.  He also expressed concern at the lack of local consultation and felt the proposal negated any future the opportunity to relocate waste disposal nearer to Yeovil, so reducing waste vehicle travel time.  He questioned the transfer of waste from areas in Mendip to Dimmer when their ultimate destination would be Avonmouth and, the logic of entering into a 25 year contract with Viridor. 

Mrs V Nobles spoke as a member of Care for Cary, a local support group regarding Agenda item 6: Recycle More.  She asked whether the Waste Board had sought feedback from the District Executive committee and if the report would be scrutinised by the SCC Scrutiny Committee.  She also noted that the Area East Committee had objected to the siting of a waste transfer station at Dimmer and she said there should be a break clause in the contract with Viridor relating to the waste transfer station at Dimmer.

The Managing Director of the Somerset Waste Partnership advised that the points raised by the public speakers did not relate to the agenda item for discussion by Members.  There was a consultation process each year with Councils on the Business Plan of the partnership and the issues around the waste transfer station at Dimmer were matters for the Strategic Planning Authority (SCC).  He said that if the proposals produced the same reduction in residual waste as had happened in the trial then one fifth (1/5) of waste would be diverted into recycling and would not be sent to Dimmer.  He also noted that there was the possibility of more waste from South Somerset being sent to the Walpole Transfer Station in the future which may reduce waste being sent to Dimmer.

There were no announcements from the Chairman.

The Chairman, as Portfolio Holder for Waste and Recycling, advised that following the trial of collecting additional recyclable materials in 2013, the new scheme would include collecting plastic pots, trays and small electrical appliances.  There would be one additional sack for cans and plastic for each household and the scheme would start from October 2017 in phases across Somerset. 

The Managing Director of the Somerset Waste Partnership advised that the proposal was aimed to divert more waste from going to landfill sites.  In the trial, there had been a 27% reduction in residual waste when refuse was collected every 3 weeks and garden waste every 2 weeks with recyclables collected weekly.   Although the one-off roll out cost was projected to be £2.2m, there was an estimated annual saving of £1.7m so the costs would be recovered within 18 months.  There were reputational risks and so an extensive communications plan was in place including the development of an app to inform residents when their recycling was due.  They were also looking at consolidating their vehicle depots to one in the east of the county and one in the west.   Provided all the partner Councils agreed to participate in the scheme, and, the decision was confirmed by the Somerset Waste Board at their meeting on 16^th December, then new waste collection vehicles would be ordered and the scheme would commence in phases from October 2017 to October 2018.

The Strategic Director (Operations and Customer Focus) said she had been inundated with requests from the public to recycle more items so she felt the Council’s reputation would be enhanced by the scheme.  She noted that the roll-out of the new recycling would be phased to link in with the Transformation Programme and there would be funding available to deal with the increased volume of phone calls from the public.  If the Council did not agree to participate then it would create an issue of how to deal with an ageing vehicle fleet. 

In response to questions from the Scrutiny Committee, the Development & Monitoring Manager of the Somerset Waste Partnership responded:-

·         Additional resources had been made available to mitigate any impact on Customer Services Teams and it may be preferable for the Waste Partnership to take the bulk of the public phone calls.

·         There was no intention to remove Household Waste Recycling Centres and it was hoped to ease congestion at these sites.

·         There were no health concerns regarding dog waste in waste bins and if the waste was double bagged then the odour should be reduced. 

·         A newsletter was planned as part of the communication plan and the roll-out of the new service would be reported to all partner councils. 

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

·         If one partner council decided not to join the Recycle More scheme, then a recalculation of the scheme would have to take place and councils would be asked to reconsider the amended scheme.

·         The Somerset Waste Partnership  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.

The Performance Officer introduced the report and noted that the performance indicators without data were due to a time lag in receiving the data.  She noted the Scrutiny Committee had questioned the percentage of Council Tax collected in particular the collections that had been raised during the current financial year which were back filling previous years’ debts.  The service manager had advised that in the previous year this totalled £1,476,000 (2015/16) and that the amount collected in 2016/17 could be included in the end of year report.  She further confirmed that in the Council Plan Actions listed in Appendix C, the Doctors surgery in Somerton was due to be purchased to provide additional parking in the town. 

Councillor Val Keitch further reported that the Scrutiny Committee had also sought reassurance that staff sickness be monitored during the organisational change and she said they would look at developing a more proactive role in monitoring corporate complaints in the future. 

At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to note the performance and complaints data as presented. 

The Assistant Director (Communities) advised that the report summarised the activity of the Local Strategic Partnership over the previous 6 months.  She noted the successful event held in October which was aimed at tackling loneliness and the on-going emphasis on self-managing as there was no dedicated co-ordinator.  They also had a Healthy Communities sub-group who were looking at the work of the Symphony Project.  She said the partnership was still a catalyst to bring together public and private agencies and how it progressed in the future was for the partners to decide. 

Councillor Val Keitch advised that the Scrutiny Committee had asked for an update on the Troubled Families Project which although now led by Somerset County Council, this had initially been a high profile initiative which came under the LSP.

During discussion, several Members expressed concern at the number of healthy initiative projects happening in the district, operated by different organisations and the possibility for duplication and overlapping.  The Deputy Chief Executive acknowledged that the organisations should be co-ordinated to work together and said it would take some time to ensure this. 

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

Members noted the following additional reports to be added to the Forward Plan:-

·         Council Tax Support Scheme 2017/18 – Jan 2017

·         Proposed Redevelopment of Yeovil Crematorium – Jan 2017

·         Commercial Property Strategy – Jan 2017

·         Disposal of the former Stables at Churchfield, Wincanton (Confidential) – Jan 2017

·         Allowenshay Private Water Supply – Feb 2017

·         Public Space Protection Orders relating to dogs – Feb 2017

Members noted that the next scheduled meeting of the District Executive would take place on Thursday 5^th January 2017 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Brympton Way, Yeovil commencing at 9.30 a.m.

The Chairman, as Portfolio Holder for Environment & Economic Development introduced the report to Members.

The Assistant Director (Economy) explained the change in economic circumstances which had forced a rethink of the original plans.

At the conclusion of a short debate, Members were content to confirm the recommendations to explore alternative options for the development of the site.