Meeting documents

To receive Members’ apologies.

An apology was received from Councillor Diogo Rodrigues, who was substituted by Councillor Anthony Betty.

Councillor Jo Roundell Greene would be joining the meeting via Microsoft Teams.

The minutes of the LGR Joint Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 19 August 2022 were approved.

Details of all Members’ interests in District, Town and Parish Councils can be viewed on the Council Website at

County Councillors membership of Town, City, Parish or District Councils and this will be displayed in the meeting room (Where relevant).

The Statutory Register of Member’s Interests can be inspected via request to the Democratic Service Team.

The Committee noted the details of the personal interests of all Councillors present already declared in relation to their membership of County, District, Town and Parish Councils.

The Chair will allow members of the public to ask a question or make a statement about any matter on the agenda for this meeting. These questions may be taken during the meeting, when the relevant agenda item is considered, at the Chair’s discretion. 

Mr N Hall, a resident in Somerset, provided the following statement to the Committee: -

Good morning. My name is Nick Hall. I live in Pilton, near Shepton Mallet. You will recall that I have spoken at the last three LGR Scrutiny meetings. I was elected as a Parish Councillor in May.

The saga with Mendip District Council’s irregular approach to Licensing continues:

The Premises License for the Pilton Party (PRL767) has a mandatory condition that requires the event organiser to forward, to the Council, a certificate from the ticket printer. This condition helps ensure that the attendance does not exceed 7,999 - which is a prerequisite for public safety.

We asked to see the certificate, but MDC told us that they only had sight of it. Our concerns about the discharge of this mandatory condition were ignored.

I raised our concerns at MDC’s Cabinet meeting on 5 Sept 2022 and posed the straightforward question: could the CEO and his staff start resolving issues rather than avoiding them?

The CEO’s reply clearly showed his unwillingness to seek resolution of this simple issue. Moreover, he clearly understands that by not asking for this certificate he is preventing it from coming into the public domain.

I am astonished that he is effectively condoning the breach of a mandatory Premises License condition. This condition is clearly enforceable – he just needs to write a letter to the event organiser asking for the certificate.

I had assumed that the 2003 Licensing Act required all mandatory conditions to be complied with. However, after reading MDC’s Licensing Policy (section 3.8) and their Corporate Enforcement Policy it is far from clear that Mendip District Council sees mandatory conditions as mandatory.

In about six months, the New Somerset Council will inherit these issues. Will it see mandatory Premises License conditions as mandatory?

The Chair thanked Mr Hall for his comments and for attending the meeting.  He advised Mr Hall that he needed to direct his comments to his local district council and their licensing department for further action.

To receive an update from the LGR Programme Director.

The LGR Programme Director, Alyn Jones gave a PowerPoint presentation updating the Committee on the LGR programme, covering the following matters: -

-        Programme overview, strategic objectives, progress

-        PwC Monthly feedback report for July and August 2022

-        Activity during February

The Committee discussed the presentation, and the following was a summary of the areas raised: -

·         Clarification was requested on the term ‘recast’ mentioned on page 11 for Budget Milestones.

The LGR Programme Director advised that the budget for the Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) had been cast when the business case was pulled together, this meant that some money had been put into this year and next year’s budget for redundancy as there was uncertainty as to when the money would be needed.  Recast meant that the budget may need to be moved into a different year once the redundancy costs were known.

·         Councillors queried point 3 on Contracts and when was the work completed and how many high contracts were due to end soon or could be extended.

The LGR Programme Director advised that all the contracts were now known across all five councils and that they had all been centralised to enable work to be carried out on efficiencies.  High contracts were not yet known but he was happy to bring the information to a future meeting.

·         Clarification was requested on point 5 for Capital Investments.

The LGR Programme Director apologised for the language used in the report, asset optimisation was a name given for one of the workstream groups.  He further explained that he wanted to ensure there was a good grasp of investments so that they were not impacted by vesting day.

·         Councillors raised concern on the delay to tier 2 and 3 appointments and the impact that would have on the rest of the staff.  They queried how long the delay would be and what was being done to address the concerns.

The LGR Programme Director advised that the staff structure was the responsibility of the Head of Paid Services, who started in his role on 3 October 2022.  His first task would be to meet with the Executive to discuss how to move forward with staffing and tiers 2 and 3 were important for the delivery of the project.

·         Councillors highlighted service alignment and the importance for vesting day to ensure certain services had been aligned.  They queried which services would be aligned first.

The LGR Programme Director advised that service alignment was a key area that was feeling the pressure of ‘business as usual’ (BAU) demands, which was causing a delay in the work.  He assured councillors that more programme support had been put into place to track resource to enable service alignment. He furtheradvised that the PWC report had identified that without a structure in place, there could be issues moving forward with the project.  However, a target model had been put in place to provide a guide.

·         Councillors queried the table on Asset Optimisation of Property on page  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

To receive an update on the LGR Risk Register.

The Risk Manager, Angela Farmer, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the LGR Risk Register.

The Committee discussed the presentation, and the following was a summary of the areas raised: -

·         Councillors raised concern on MTFP.

The Risk Manager advised that it had been flagged as a concern

·         Councillors highlighted page 38 and Engagement of Parish Councils and requested that officers ensured that all Parish Councils were included especially those in rural areas.

The LGR Joint Scrutiny Committee noted the presentation.

To receive an update on the Local Community Networks (LCNs).

The Local Community Network (LCN) Project Lead, Sara Skirton, gave a PowerPoint presentation which provided an update on the LCN and progress to date, which included a breakdown of the consultation questions for the Committee to provide feedback.

The Committee discussed the presentation, and the following was a summary of the areas raised: -

Aims - which were important

·         Councillors agreed that all 4 aims that had been listed were important.

·         Councillors raised concern on the delay in the LCN consultation papers being distributed.  They raised a further concern that due to the death of Queen Elizabeth II, some Parish Councils were not due to meet again before the consultation deadline.

·         Councillors proposed that the consultation deadline be extended to November 2022.

The LCN Project Lead advised that they could feed that back to Executive for a decision.

·         Councillors suggested that all the Parish Councils could be written to and advised that if they were not due to meet until after the deadline (because of meeting cancellations), that their feedback would still be accepted.

·         Councillors accepted the concern raised, however, they queried what the impact would be if the deadline was extended.

The LCN Project Lead accepted that there was a challenge for the Parish Councils to submit their responses, however, officers were due to take the report to Executive on 16 November 2022 and there would be a lot of data to analyse, and a risk was identified if they extended the deadline, the analysis could be rushed and officers would rather get the details right when they take the report to Executive.

·         Councillors advised the committee on what the Parishes in their area were doing and he believed they would submit their responses within the deadline.

·         Councillors highlighted that the consultation deadline was not the ‘end date’ it was simply the beginning of the process and there would be many more opportunities for feedback on the LCNs.

·         Councillors queried whether the 171 responses would be broken down into which area the response had come from in the district, as they wanted to ensure that support was being given to those areas that might be struggling to submit their feedback.

The LCN Project Lead advised that they could get the geographical locations for the responses and would check if there were any locations that were missing responses.  She further advised that all councillors should have been sent a ‘frequently asked questions’ pack for assistance in completing the consultation.

·         Councillor Keitch highlighted the Parish Conference that was due to take place on 4 October 2022 in Yeovil and urged representatives from all councils to attend.

·         Councillors queried whether it was just Parish Councils responding or had many members of the public submitted feedback.

The LCN Project Lead advised that public engagement seemed to be fair but that other stakeholders would probably have a bigger interest.

·         Councillors flagged a concern that the Unparished Area of Taunton was often missed out in consultations.

The Governance Specialist advised that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

To consider passing a resolution having been duly proposed and seconded under Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act, 1972 that the press and public be excluded from the next item on the agenda on the basis that if they were present during the business to be transacted there would be a likelihood of disclosure to them of exempt information of the following description: Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)

Resolved that under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the next item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information.

The Communications Lead Officer, Chris Palmer, gave a presentation on the branding for the New Council.

Discussion was had on the work that had been carried out on the branding and councillors thanked officers for the work

The Chair may raise any items of urgent business.

The LGR Programme Director, Alyn Jones, gave the committee an update on the Community Governance Review for the Unparished Area of Taunton.