Meeting documents

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the District Executive meeting held on 3^rd March 2022.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on Thursday 3^rd March 2022 were approved as a correct record and would be signed by the Chairman.

There were no apologies for absence.

In accordance with the Council's current Code of Conduct (as amended 26 February 2015), 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.

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. 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. 

There were no declarations of interest made by Members.

There were no questions from members of the public.

The Chairman advised of the death of Councillor Alan Smith of the Brympton Ward, the previous day.  She said that he had been ill for some time and she would be writing to his widow and family to express the Council’s condolences.  The funeral plans would be shared with Councillors when they were known.

The Portfolio Holder for Protecting Core Services introduced the report and advised that all 3 of the planning reports came from the successful cross-party planning re-imagined workshops.  The report outlined the proposed changes to the Planning Scheme of Delegation.

Councillor Henry Hobhouse advised the changes were required to prevent minor planning applications being unnecessarily presented to the Regulation Committee.

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee said the planning reimagined workshops had been a good example of cross party working.  He noted they had raised a question asking that all ‘major major’ applications would almost always go to Regulation Committee in the future? 

The Lead Specialist for Built Environment advised that ‘major major’ applications were by nature larger than most in terms of importance and therefore first applications would be presented to the Regulation Committee, however, any subsequent changes could be either delegated or referred to the Area Committee at the Ward Councillor and Area Chairmans discretion.  

At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to propose the recommendations for confirmation by Council.

The Portfolio Holder for Protecting Core Services introduced the report and advised that again, it stemmed from the successful planning re-imagined workshops.  He noted that officers had answered Councillors questions at the Scrutiny Committee meeting.

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee advised that the report and been well received and supported and a question had been raised regarding removing neighbour consultation and the Lead Specialist for Built Environment had attended their meeting and answered the question. 

The Lead Specialist for Built Environment confirmed that site notices would be displayed and neighbours would be notified of applications received, however, the validation checklist had included a form asking if neighbour consultations had taken place which had proved problematic when applications were submitted by Agents who had treated the question as a ‘tick-box’ exercise.  It had not added value to the application where now more meaningful questions to be addressed on phosphates and electric vehicle charging points which would add value to a validation checklist. 

At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to propose the revised Planning Application Validation Requirements document for consultation, following which it would be referred to Full Council for the adoption.

The Portfolio Holder for Protecting Core Services introduced the report and advised this was the third report to be produced from the planning re-imagined workshops.  He noted that a number of questions had been raised by Scrutiny Committee members at their meeting which the Lead Specialist for Built Environment had answered.

In response to a question, the Lead Specialist for Built Environment advised that pre-application planning advice was non-binding and advice on schemes not requiring permission, in the absence of a subsequent application did not provide the applicant with sufficient protection.  The proposed £103 fee for a Certificate of Proposed Lawful Development gave a decision which was reliable for a householder.  SSDC currently charged £55 for a non-binding opinion in such cases but it would be better to pay slightly more for a binding decision.

During discussion, Members felt that this should be made clearer in the Schedule of Pre-application and discretionary planning fees prior to presentation to Council. 

In response to questions from the Scrutiny Chairman, the Lead Specialist for Built Environment advised:-

·         Currently LBC applications were free of charge although they did take up officer time and it meant they had free advice where household applications were charged for that advice. 

·         Community and affordable developments were exempt from charge to demonstrate that SSDC supported affordable housing as a corporate priority but this would not include housing schemes with a small element of affordable housing.  This was open to amendment if Members wished.

·         The PPA acronym was planning performance agreements where SSDC would buy-in extra staff capacity to support a particular project.

·         The fees would take affect from 1^st June 2022.

At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to propose the recommendations for confirmation by Council, with the clarification on applications for a Certificate of Proposed Lawful Development, and an option for the level of charges for affordable housing developments.  The Portfolio Holder thanked the officers for their work on the planning reports. 

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services introduced the report and advised that the Council was required to review its use of RIPA powers annually, however, they had not been needed for several years.  The policy had been inspected and found to be well-written although the responsible officer would need to be updated to the current Monitoring Officer.

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee advised that they were pleased to see that SSDC rarely use the RIPA act powers.

There was no debate and Members were content to note the Council’s use of RIPA powers and recommend that the Chief Executive agree the minor amendments to the RIPA Policy and Procedures.

The following additional consultation from DEFRA was noted:-

·         Storm Overflow Discharge Reduction Plan

Members noted that the next scheduled meeting of the District Executive would take place on Thursday 12^th May 2022 as a virtual informal meeting using Zoom meeting software commencing at 9.30 a.m.

The Chairman asked Members to agree that the press and public be excluded from the following item and this was agreed without dissent.

The Chief Executive provided members with a brief verbal update on the progress of Local Government Reorganisation in Somerset.