Meeting documents

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Neil Bloomfield, Malcolm Cavill (dispensation given), Mike Lock, Pauline Lock, Robin Pailthorpe, Clare Paul, Tricia O’Brien, Tiffany Osborne, Dean Ruddle, Alan Smith and William Wallace.

To approve and sign the minutes of the previous meeting held on Thursday, 20^th January 2022.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on Thursday 20^th January were approved as a correct record of the meeting and signed by the Chairman.

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. 

Councillor Rob Stickland declared a personal interest in Agenda item 10: Options to refurbish Yeovil Crematorium, as the Chairman of Yeovil Without Parish Council, the part-owner of the Crematorium.

Councillor John Clark declared a personal interest in Agenda item 13: Wincanton Regeneration Finance Report, as a Trustee of the Board of Bath Opera who were a beneficiary of grants from the Wincanton Regeneration Board.  He said that he would not vote on that item.

Council was addressed by the Chairman of Long Sutton Parish Council.  He asked why so much development had been allowed to continue without the required consents at 2 sites in Long Sutton and why have stop notices not been executed in spite of the Ward Members insistence.  He also asked why retrospective and certificate of lawfulness applications had been approved against national planning and environmental health policies.  He asked what the role of town and parish councils and councillors was in the planning process and did the elected members now feel superfluous to requirements in planning matters?  He said a recent site meeting in his village included the local MP and Chairman of Area North Committee without the Ward Members knowledge or the Parish Council informed as a courtesy with no feedback given. 

Councillor Tony Lock, as Portfolio Holder for Protecting Core Services thanked the Chairman for his question and replied that he understood that the questions referred to a property with a number of live planning applications and therefore it would be inappropriate to provide any specific comments until the applications were determined.

He said it was not illegal to carry out development without securing planning permission. Such work was undertaken at an owners own risk and if found to be unacceptable would be the subject of an enforcement investigation and, if necessary enforcement action. The decision to take enforcement action involved many factors including an assessment of immediate harm to protected assets, the scope for regularisation and the wider public interest. The authority was currently pursuing a number of enforcement actions where development or land use had been found to be unacceptable.

The approach an applicant takes to promoting development or seeking to regularise development was not in itself an enforcement issue so in dealing with one or multiple applications the issues officers would assess would remain the same.

It was important to note that applications relating to the lawfulness of development and land use were determined based upon evidence and applications for planning permission and listed building consent were determined based upon planning policy and material considerations. Material considerations would include environmental issues and SSDC had officers who would provide advice on such matters to the planners.

Town and parish councils were invited to comment upon all planning applications. This provided the opportunity to raise relevant planning issues and material considerations that may otherwise not be apparent from the application itself.  For all but the smaller applications for householder development and listed building works the town and parish views would also inform decisions about whether the applications would be considered at the relevant committee or by officers.   

It was agreed to provide a copy of the response to the Chairman of Long Sutton Parish Council and the Ward Member, Councillor Gerard Tucker, requested that the response also include the reason why a stop notice had not been applied at the property.

(Subsequent to the meeting, the following response was provided regarding the stop notice:

Finally, and in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 115.

The Chairman welcomed all to the meeting and reminded Members that only those present in the room would be able to vote although participation in the debate was welcome by all present on-line.

Councillor Sarah Dyke said she wished to thank the staff of the Environmental Services team who were part of the response to the Storm Eunice which caused many trees fell across the county.  The arboricultural team were also supported by streetscene, the parish rangers, the horticultural and locality teams and admin teams at Lufton Depot. They had received many thanks for their work over the weekend to remove fallen trees on highways and property.  She particularly thanked Spencer Gregory who had carried out tree risk surveys. A tree replanting scheme would be developed to replace those trees lost in the storm.   

The list of Chairman’s engagements was NOTED.

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

The Leader of Council introduced the report and said that a great deal of work had gone into the final Action Plan of the Council.  She noted the five priorities in the Action Plan and she thanked the officers who had assisted in its preparation to leave a legacy for South Somerset.

Councillor Peter Seib drew Councils attention to the summary of achievements listed in the last 12 months in the report.   

In response to a question, Councillor John Clarke said the new Chard, Yeovil and Wincanton employment skills hubs sought to create accessible drop-in centres to provide immediate help to those looking for employment.  He also noted that no decision had been made on the joint bid with Mendip District Council.

At the conclusion of the debate, the recommendations were proposed and seconded and unanimously agreed by Members 

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

(Voting: 38 in favour, 0 against, 2 abstentions)

The Portfolio Holder for Area West said the new Future Chard strategy considered the needs of the people of Chard and the place and considered its future opportunities and threats.  It was a long term vision and action plan to make Chard a prosperous place in the future.  There had been widespread public consultation and it was now to be adopted by Council.

In response to questions, the Portfolio Holder and the High Street Heritage Action Zone Manager advised that:

·         the leisure centre had been completed and they were looking at options for Boden Mill and building 11 and discussions were ongoing. 

·         The Future Chard strategy was expected to be delivered in partnership and as SSDC was now in its final year.

·         Chard looked towards Taunton rather than Yeovil for most of their services but the report was balanced.

At the conclusion of the debate, the recommendations were proposed and seconded and on being put to the vote were carried by 38 votes in favour with 2 abstentions.

(Voting: 38 in favour, 0 against, 2 abstentions)

(Voting: 35 in favour, 1 against, 4 abstentions)

The Portfolio Holder for Environment reminded Council that they had recognised the climate emergency in May 2019 and extra resources had been committed to achieve carbon neutrality across the council’s estate by 2030.  The ambition required substantial capital investment and external consultants had provided assessments of the works required as detailed in Table 1 in the report.  She said they represented value for money for the Council and the future Council and there was significant risk in not carrying out the work in case of equipment failure. The detail of the proposed works would be further refined and a suggestion from the Scrutiny Committee to install batteries alongside the solar panels would be considered.  She commended the recommendations

In response to questions from Members, the Portfolio Holder for Environment advised:-

·         No decision had been made on what buildings would be retained by the new Unitary Council.

·         SCC Highways had pollarded trees in Yeovil town centre.  SSDC would not remove mature trees unless they were dangerous or were diseased.

[Subsequent to the meeting, it is possible to provide more detail.  Whilst the majority of trees in the Yeovil are managed by SCC, those in the area affected by the public realm works are managed by SSDC.  In total, nine trees will or have been removed, some in the Triangle area, where they are poor quality or cannot be integrated into schemes. Prior to works starting there were 17 trees across all of the public realm schemes.  Once all schemes are complete, there will be a total of 48 trees planted which will be appropriate species, size and maturity].

·         There would be further refinement of each of the proposed projects to ensure best value for money was achieved.

·         There was a risk that some equipment could fail if not replaced soon.

During discussion it was noted that:-

·         The Brympton Way offices already benefitted from solar panels and an electricity modification to reduce use.

·         Some mature trees had to be removed due to Ash-die back

·         Buckinghamshire, Wiltshire and Shropshire Councils had all cautioned against overcommitting a new Unitary Authority both financially and with project delivery at the changeover.

·         The buildings to be improved were the Westland Entertainment Venue, the Jon O’Donnell Pavilion and Brympton Way offices which would all continue in the new Authority.

Councillor Tony Lock stated that the debate had continued long enough and he proposed that the question be put under Council procedure rule 12.  The Chairman agreed and the recommendations were proposed and seconded and confirmed by 35 votes in favour, 1against and 4 abstentions.

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

The Portfolio Holder for Area South advised that the crematorium was in need of refurbishing, the chapel was too small for some funeral services and sometimes the mourners had to stand in the car park which was unacceptable.   Some improvements had been made to car parking and the garden of remembrance but the chapel refurbishment was essential.  He thanked the Commercial Property, Land and Development Manager for keeping him up to date on the project and he proposed that the recommendations be accepted.

Councillor Tony Capozzoli said the refurbishment was needed and he seconded the proposal.

There was no further debate and Members unanimously agreed the recommendations to refurbish the Yeovil Crematorium.

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

(Voting: 34 in favour, 1 against, 5 abstentions)

The Portfolio Holder for Health and Well-Being advised that at the end of design stage 2 it had been identified that the build costs would be significantly more than anticipated and so the design was revisited to keep the design features whilst reducing costs.  He invited the Arts and Entertainment Venues Manager to show a short video of how the building would look when completed.

In response to questions from Members, the Director for Place and Recovery and the Chief Finance Officer advised:-

·         The Council did currently subsidise the Octagon Theatre but with the new business plan it was hoped this would diminish over time when the theatre re-opened.

·         A long process of value engineering had been undertaken by the Property and Development Project Manager to contain the construction costs.  Inflationary increases had also been anticipated for the life of the project which was a contingency.

·         The length of the loan period would be provided to Members.

·         The ticket levy for Westlands was separate to the ticket levy for the Octagon theatre.  The levy would be £1.50 per ticket for the first five years rising by 50p every five years and would apply to both venues.

·         Costs to fit out the kitchens and bars was now included in the costs but the majority of the additional costs were the inflationary increases.

·         All funding sources were being explored from trusts, foundations, local fundraising and individual giving.  Any successful bids would be reported.

·         There was no opportunity to increase the Department for Culture, Media and Sport funding of £10m.

·         South Somerset had been designated as a Priority Place for funding by the Arts Council and they had been encouraged to apply for national portfolio funding to support ongoing revenue costs and arts engagement.

During discussion it was suggested that a patronage scheme could be set up to provide additional funding to the project.

At the conclusion of the debate, the Portfolio Holder reminded Council that no renovation works had taken place since the 1980s and the seating capacity needed to be increased to increase income to a position to self-fund itself.

The recommendations were proposed and seconded and were confirmed by 34 in votes favour, 1 against and 5 abstentions.

(Voting: 38 in favour, 0 against, 2 abstentions)

The Portfolio Holder for Area South advised that the financing was required to complete the improvement works.  He spoke of towns elsewhere which had pedestrianised their shopping streets with great success and he said he was pleased to report that all the shopping units in the private shopping centre were now let. He said this would be for the benefit of the people of Yeovil.

In response to questions from Members the Chief Finance Officer and Regeneration Programme Manager advised:-

·         Borrowing was done corporately not for specific projects however, funding reports for projects always gave a worst case scenario to assume that the funding would be borrowed.  The £3m from the Wincanton project would be returned centrally and would reduce the overall need to borrow by £3m.

·         The Wincanton Regeneration budget had originally been set at £2m and it was increased by £3.3m to purchase The White Horse which came with an income target.  Now that the White Horse had been removed from the programme, so had the additional budget so the amount to spend in Wincanton was broadly the same. The White Horse had been taken on by the private sector.

The recommendations were proposed and seconded and were confirmed by 38 in votes favour, 0 against and 2 abstentions.

(Voting: 38 in favour, 0 against, 2 abstentions)

(Voting: 38 in favour, 2 against, 0 abstentions)

The Portfolio Holder for Area East noted that the regeneration project budget had been increased and now decreased with the removal of the White Horse project and there could be a small overspend on the budget.  He said the old medical centre and the old police station buildings in the centre of the town were in need of renovation but there was no time to do this before the Unitary Council however, the officers costings would be kept if the new council wished to take the project on.

One of the Ward Members said there was some mis-information as the new owners of the White Horse may not proceed if their planning application failed and the sale of Churchfields offices was held in abeyance.  He asked that the report be delayed until the following month for further information.

The Portfolio Holder advised that if the White Horse was not renovated by the private developer, there would not be time for SSDC to restart the development before it ceased to be in April 2023.  It would be for the new Unitary Authority to deal with.

The other Ward Member regretted the loss of the £3m budget for the regeneration works as he felt it could have been used to renovate the old health centre instead.

The recommendations were proposed and seconded and were confirmed by 38 in votes favour, 2 against and 0 abstentions.

(Voting: 38 in favour, 2 against, 0 abstentions)

(Voting: 38 in favour, 0 against, 2 abstentions)

The Leader of Council introduced the report to increase the staffing budget for funding extra capacity if required and some changed to the Senior Leadership Team.  She said there must be sufficient officer capacity to ensure an ongoing service to residents and the ongoing Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) programme.  The proposals in the report were also included in the overall budget report to be discussed later.  She said all staff were working incredibly hard and the LGR work would increase so the proposals needed to be agreed.

During discussion the following points were made:

·         Additional staff should be allocated to the Contact Centre to answer phone calls from the public.

·         Certain service areas had been particularly affected by Covid and LGR and this had partly driven the report.

·         Reforming the structure of the local government in Somerset during a pandemic had been difficult and the report should be welcomed.

The recommendations were proposed and seconded and were confirmed by 38 in votes favour, 0 against and 2 abstentions.

(Voting: 38 in favour, 0 against, 2 abstentions)

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services noted that this would be the last time SSDC would set its own budget and it incorporated all of the previously agreed reports of the meeting and included a small surplus which would top up the MTFP Support Reserve.  The budget assumed a council tax rise of 2.82% which was less than inflation.  The report consolidated several financial reports and this would help to bring together the 4 District Councils and the County to a single financial position the next year.  The Council would be handing on a legacy of proper reserves, sound finances and £6m income from the income generation scheme although there would be no further investment in commercial property.  He commended the advice of the financial team and he proposed the recommendations to Members, noting the advice of the Section 151 Officer. He concluded that Council were asked to approve and adopt the Asset and Finance Protocol as each Council would as part of the LGR.

In response to questions from Members, the Portfolio Holder confirmed:-

·         That the SSDC budget would comply with the Asset and Finance Protocol.

·         Individual projects contained sufficient contingency funding to cover all but the most extreme events and the remainder of the risk would be covered by the new corporate pool resource. This pooling of risk was more efficient and the Corporate Risk Reserve was large. Only extreme events would require help from the corporate reserve.

At the conclusion of the debate, the recommendations were proposed and seconded and a named vote was taken.  The recommendations were confirmed by 33 in votes favour, 1 against and 6 abstentions.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services said the report was to agree the formal tax resolution and note that the total Band D council tax increase was 3.31% including the town and parish council precepts and overall represented a 3.08% increase.  He proposed the recommendations.

Councillor Adam Dance thanked the Portfolio Holder and the finance team for the low increase in council tax without any cuts to Council services.

The recommendations were proposed and seconded and a named vote was taken.  The recommendations were confirmed by 39 in votes favour, 0 against and 1 abstention.

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

The Leader of Council advised that the Statutory Pay Policy Statement was required to be agreed and published annually although it could be amended in-year with Councils approval.  She proposed the recommendations. 

The recommendations were proposed and seconded and were unanimously confirmed by Council.

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services said the community governance process had been completed and asked Council to agree to accept the vote from the people of Yeovilton and Limington and to form a single parish council to be named "Yeovilton and District Parish Council" and to draw up a Reorganisation Order to give effect to the recommendation.

The recommendations were proposed and seconded and were unanimously confirmed by Council.

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

The Leader of Council introduced the report and invited questions. 

The Council NOTED the report.

The Chairman of the Audit Committee thanked the officers for their work in preparing the Treasury Management Strategy and their patience in explaining it to councillors. 

The Portfolio Holder thanked the members of the Audit Committee for their work in reviewing the Treasury Management Strategy.

The report was NOTED.

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee advised that there were still two vacancies on the Scrutiny Committee and they had met 3 times in 4 weeks to consider the Executive and Council reports and he thanked the members who had read the reports and given their consideration. He also thanked Becky Sanders who had covered the workload of the Scrutiny Specialist during her absence.

The Leader of Council also thanked the members of the Scrutiny Committee for their detail in the consideration of the executive reports.

The report was NOTED.

(The following Councillors voted NOT to approve the Motion: Jason Baker, Mike Best, Martin Carnell, John Clark, Nicola Clark, Adam Dance, Sarah Dyke, Karl Gill, Peter Gubbins, Brian Hamilton, Mike Hewitson, Henry Hobhouse, Ben Hodgson, Kaysar Hussein, Andy Kendall, Tim Kerley, Tony Lock, Paul Maxwell, Kevin Messenger, Graham Oakes, Oliver Patrick, Crispin Raikes, Wes Read, David Recardo, Peter Seib, Garry Shortland, Andy Soughton, Mike Stanton, Rob Stickland, Gerard Tucker)

(The following Councillors voted in favour of the original Motion: Dave Bulmer, Hayward Burt, Tony Capozzoli, Michael Lewis, Sue Osborne, Gina Seaton, Lucy Trimnell and Colin Winder)

(The following Councillor abstained from voting: Robin Bastable)

Councillor Martin Wale proposed his Motion to Council.  He said that he had been called to Chair the Appeal Hearing for the ex-Director and when he received the papers it was apparent the allegations had been known before the recommendations to the Appointments Committee and Council in May 2021.  He said the Council had been misinformed and misled on the appointment and the allegations were serious and criminal and they had not been reported to the police in the proper manner for over 6 months.  He said he felt the matter had been poorly handled and all Councillors had been misled on the suitability of the one candidate for Chief Executive. 

Councillor Tony Capozzoli agree to second the Motion.

Councillor Val Keitch, as Leader of Council, responded that the timeline had been the key factor.  She said it had been suggested that the police should have been informed earlier however the anonymous letter could have been vindictive and vexatious and therefore it had been correct to conduct a full internal enquiry.  The anonymous letter, received in April 2021 had been addressed to the previous Chief Executive and herself and they had immediately instigated a full inquiry by the South West Audit Partnership.  At that point, Ms Pestell did not appear to be greatly involved and another staff member was heavily implicated and there was no reason to suggest she should not be considered for the post of Chief Executive.   The interim Chief Executive post was advertised internally and one applicant came forward, Ms Pestell.  At that stage the investigation was proceeding and people were being interviewed. 

The Appointments Committee met on 4 May and agreed Ms Pestell was suitable to be appointed.  That decision was ratified by Council on 5 May 2021, allowing time for a handover period before the previous Chief Executive left the authority.  On 1 June, an interim report was received from the South West Audit Partnership which cast doubt on that appointment and the offer was immediately withdrawn and Ms Pestell was immediately signed off work as sick.  This delayed the investigation as it was deemed incorrect to insist she attended interviews. Therefore questions were put to her and she responded in writing which took time.  More interviews continued and an independent person was appointed to review the South West Audit Partnership report and give advice.  The conclusion was reached that there was evidence of wrongdoing and a disciplinary hearing of the Appointments Committee was convened for 8 October.  Ms Pestell did not attend the hearing and requested an adjournment of one month.  The disciplinary panel agreed that a delay of one week was appropriate and the panel was reconvened on 15 October. Ms Pestell had previously tendered her resignation and that notice period would have ended on 9 November therefore any delay longer than a week could have meant that she would no longer have been in SSDC employment.  At the disciplinary hearing on 15 October the panel members agreed that there had been gross  ...  view the full minutes text for item 133.

There were no questions submitted under Procedure Rule 10.

There were no questions submitted under Procedure Rule 10.

Members noted that the next scheduled meeting of Full Council would take place on Thursday 17^th March 2022 in the Council Chamber, SSDC Council Offices, Brympton Way, Yeovil commencing at 6.30 p.m