Agenda and minutes
PDF 248 KBVenue: The John Meikle Room - The Deane House. View directions
Contact: Sam Murrell, Email: s.murrell@somersetwestandtaunton.gov.uk and Jess Kemmish, Email: j.kemmish@somersetwestandtaunton.gov.uk
Webcast: View the webcast
| No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Apologies
To receive any apologies for absence.
Additional documents: Minutes: Cllr Steven Griffiths who was substituted by Cllr John Hassall, Cllr John Hunt who was substituted by Cllr Loretta Whetlor, Cllr Andy Pritchard(who attended by Zoom instead). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Minutes of the previous meeting of the Community Scrutiny Committee
To approve the minutes of the previous meeting of the Community Scrutiny Committee held on Additional documents: Minutes: The committee resolved to approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on 24th November 2022. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Declarations of Interest
To receive and note any declarations of disclosable pecuniary or prejudicial or personal interests in respect of any matters included on the agenda for consideration at this meeting.
(The personal interests of Councillors and Clerks of Somerset County Council, Town or Parish Councils and other Local Authorities will automatically be recorded in the minutes.)
Additional documents: Minutes: Members present at the meeting declared the following personal interests in their capacity as a Councillor or Clerk of a County, Town or Parish Council or any other Local Authority:-
Cllr Whetlor declared that she knew the representatives of the Onion Collectivewho were attending the meeting to present to the Community Scrutiny Committee about the work of their organisation. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Public Participation
The Chair to advise the Committee of any items on which members of the public have requested to speak and advise those members of the public present of the details of the Council’s public participation scheme.
For those members of the public who have submitted any questions or statements, please note, a three minute time limit applies to each speaker and you will be asked to speak before Councillors debate the issue.
Temporary measures during the Coronavirus pandemic Due to the temporary legislation (within the Coronavirus Act 2020, which allowed for use of virtual meetings) coming to an end on 6 May 2021, the council’s committee meetings will now take place in the office buildings at the John Meikle Room, Deane House, Belvedere Road, Taunton. Unfortunately due to capacity requirements the Chamber at West Somerset House is not able to be used at this current moment. Following the Government guidance on measures to reduce the transmission of coronavirus (COVID-19), the council meeting rooms will have very limited capacity. With this in mind, we will only be allowing those members of the public who have registered to speak to attend the meetings in person at the office buildings, if they wish. (We will still be offering to those members of the public that are not comfortable in attending, for their statements to be read out by a member of the Governance team). Please can we urge all members of the public who are only interested in listening to the debate to view our live webcasts from the safety of their own home to help prevent the transmission of coronavirus (COVID-19).
Additional documents: Minutes: There was no public Participation. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Community Scrutiny Request/Recommendation Trackers
To update the Community Scrutiny Committee on the progress of resolutions and recommendations from previous meetings of the Committee. Additional documents: Minutes: The committee noted the trackers. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Community Scrutiny Forward Plan
To receive items and review the Forward Plan.
Additional documents: Minutes: The committee noted the forward plan. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Executive and Full Council Forward Plans
To review the Forward Plans of the Executive and Full Council.
Additional documents: Minutes: The committee noted the forward plans. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Onion Collective CIC
A representative of the Onion Collective CIC has been invited by the Chair of Community Scrutiny, to attend the meeting and provide an update on the work of the organisation and take questions from Councillors. There has been particular interest around the East Quay Development and other projects, and Councillors would like to know more in their roles as community leaders.
Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair welcomed the representatives of the Onion Collective to the meeting. Chris Hall, the Director for Development and Place introduced the item and raised the below points: · The Council and the Onion Collective have built a strong relationship and the Council was thankful to the Onion Collective for their support following the failure of the Splash Point wall at Watchet. · Informed the Committee that the Onion Collective were here to present on their work and give an update to members both as a result of a request from the Committee and through their own wish to update members on their work. · The Onion Collective’s East Quay development is well respected nationally though there is some local division as is common with such projects as they undertake.
The representatives of the Onion Collective gave a presentation and raised the following points during their presentation: · The representatives raised that they appreciated the opportunity to come and update members on their work. · West Somerset was a lovely place but faced challenges. For example, there was a significant lack of cultural activities. · Noted that West Somerset was an Opportunity Area and that young people in the area in particular faced challenges. · Introduced the team involved in the Onion Collective and the range of skills and experience amongst the team. · Explained that the Onion Collective was a social enterprise. Any profits the company madewere reinvested into the community and the projects the Onion Collective did. The directors also took part in consultancy, helping other CICs and charities, to raise money to fund the work of the Onion Collective. · The Onion Collective had received funding from a variety of organisations including the Lottery and the Arts Council. · The Onion Collective’s approach was centred around community, was ambitious and nimble, collaborative, involved consultative working with partners and looking to address market and social failures. · Several of the Directors of the Onion Collective were involved in setting up the youth and community centre Minehead Eye in Minehead ahead of the Onion Collective being formed. · The Onion Collective worked with partner organisations to set up a Visitor Centre and Boat Museum in Watchet. This was one of the first projects the Onion Collective was involved in. · The Onion Collective began by running small social action projectswhich have grown. Their collaboration with the Coastal Communities Team had likewise grown. Watchet had received £350,000 for community projects. · The Onion Collective were looking to establish a new Bio Mill industry in Watchet. This had been a challenge, particularly given the pandemic and Brexit. One partner had pulled out, but the Onion Collective still hadfunders for the project and were continuing with it. · Another project the Onion Collective was working on was Understory, which was a community led tech project. It was a gaming ... view the full minutes text for item 65. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This matter is the responsibility of Executive Councillor Francesca Smith, the Portfolio Holder for Housing
Report Author: Kerry Prisco, Management Accounting and Reporting Lead. Additional documents: Minutes: The portfolio holder for Housing introduced the report and raised the following points: · The report included rent setting. · The HRA faceda number of financial pressures but there was confidence that the standards provided for tenants could be maintained and the development of more housing could continue. · Increased rents were recommended to be CPI plus 1%. · Further investigation regarding the recommendation for the disposal of the Duke Street carpark would be undertaken ahead of the report going to the Executive.
The Director for Housing and Communities raised the following points: · The previous meeting of this committee looked at the future plans for the HRA and some of the challenges it faced. · The HRA was facing substantial pressures and challenges. There had been changing customer needs, pressure on the labour and skills market, climate change and retrofit, increased standards following the Grenfell tragedy, Covid and Brexit. These pressures had put significant challenges on the budget setting process. The budget was effectively a balanced budget. · An annual review of the business plan was undertaken,and officers had done that again with the financial advisers Altair. The proposed budget did meet the parameters for being safe but some of the margins on these are tighter than they have been previously due to the pressures on the budget. · The budget would require efficiency savings to be made. · There was more work to do over the coming months to plan mitigations for various scenarios to ensure the HRA would be resilient to increased pressures on the business. · There would be a need to make sure income performance was good on void management and arrears. · The central recharge paid to the General Fund from the HRA for the HRA being part of the Council would need to be looked at. It would also be important to agree the percentage the HRA would pay the new unitary authority once that came into existence. · Officers were looking to maximise the use of grant funding. · A review of the HRA’s discretionary services was also planned to be undertaken. · A review of the HRA’s assets was intended to be undertaken with the intent to potentially dispose of a few assets a year to meet a modest target of £350,000 of income generation per year. · The Duke Street Car Park is owned by the HRA but the income of the pay and display car park had been going to the general fund as the running of a car park was not something which would usually be owned by the HRA. There would be a review of the car park to see if the income could go to the HRA and if this was a function the HRA could undertake,but the current proposal was to effectively sell the car park to the General Fund. · The report detailed ... view the full minutes text for item 66. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This matter is the responsibility of Executive Councillor for Environmental Services, Cllr Andrew Sully.
Report Author: Vicky Lowman – Specialist (Parking and Enforcement) Additional documents: Minutes: The Portfolio Holder for Environmental Servicesintroduced the report and raised the following points: · Protecting and enhancing the environment of the district was one of the Council’s corporate priorities. The Litter Strategy would provide a framework within which to do this. · The Litter Strategy had been written in line with the government’s Litter Strategy for England. · The strategy proposed a zero-tolerance approach to littering. · There were 8 key objectives from the strategy which included a litter prevention programme, community protection notices, looking at how the Council was proactively addressing the causes of littering, creating a public realm which looked cared for, understanding of the cleansing schedule which the Council had to do, building a strong sense of community and a set of enforcement and reward responses. · The Portfolio Holder welcomed officers from East Hampshire District Council who were attending the meeting via Zoom to discuss the External Litter Enforcement item which would follow the Litter Strategy.
The Assistant Director for Commercial Services raised the following points: · The Litter Strategy was designed to change culture and behaviour in the district. There would be a focus on education, ensuring that there was the right infrastructure with litter and dog bins and there also would be a focus on enforcement. · Litter damaged the environment and could impact the economy by discouraging people from visiting the area.
During the debate the following points were raised: · Concerns were raised about the litter being dropped during waste collections by Somerset Waste Partnership. Officers responded that the Council would take this up with SWP as the Council’s contractor if they were failing to keep to the agreement of the contract. · Support was expressed for the Litter Strategy coming forward. · It was asked if the mapping exercise of dog bins mentioned in the report could be shared with members and it was queried if the mapping exercise included bins owned by parish councils or only those owned by Somerset West and Taunton Council. It was responded that litter and dog bins which were Somerset West and Taunton Council's responsibility had been focused on as part of the reason for the survey was to use the data to form a maintenance and repair programme for the bins owned by the Council. · It was questioned about whether the bins in the unparished area of Taunton had been surveyed and mapped. Officers responded that they had been in contact with the Charter Trustees as there were several bins in the unparished area which are going to be replaced. The maps would be provided to members following the meeting. · It was questioned whether the Council would undertake educational work in schools as part of the strategy. It was responded by officers that this would be part of the strategy. · It was asked if a system of numbering bins could be adopted to allow for members of ... view the full minutes text for item 67. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
External Enforcement - Litter
This matter is the responsibility of Executive Councillor for Environmental Services, Cllr Andrew Sully.
Report Author: Vicky Lowman – Specialist (Parking and Enforcement)
Additional documents: Minutes: The Assistant Director for Commercial Services introduced the report and raised the following points: · The report detailed a one-year trial with East Hampshire Council who already provide this service for 10 other councils. The aim would be to have a service with a net zero cost. · The planned trial would employ two full time Environmental Enforcement Officers. It was proposed that £100 fixed penalty notices be issued, reduced to £80 if paid within 14 days. Estimated payment rate was 72-80%. If six fixed penalty notices were issued per officer per day the service would break even. · Provision had been made in the 2022/23 budget to cover the risk of the trial. · The trial was based on monthly payments of fixed penalty notices with a three-month notice period if it was not working.
During the debate the following points were raised: · It was raised that the report noted that enforcement officers may attend safeguarding training, but it was suggested that this be changed to say that enforcement officers must attend safeguarding training. · It was asked how many challenges East Hampshire District Council had and the court cases this had led to. Concerns were raised about the costs of challenges to the Council. Officers responded that one of the reasons the decision had been made to work with East Hampshire was because they did not conduct litter enforcement to make money. Fixed penalty notices would not be served to children under 18. Officers from East Hampshire responded that they ensured that enforcement officers were ethical in their actions and body cameras were also used for monitoring. There had not been a single stage two complaint against officers because if a mistake was made the fixed penalty notice would be cancelled. They had had more than a 99% success rate in the single justice procedure. East Hampshire officers responded that they had the same concerns initially about enforcement before they started their scheme. Through implementation of the scheme a 60% reduction in littering was anticipated. · It was suggested that only two officers for the whole district seemed a very small number. It was responded that the more officers employed the less chance there was of meeting targets. Officers would be deployed in high footfall areas. · It was questioned how payments worked. It was responded that there was now a more streamlined process and payments would be made directly. · It was asked about coverage of more rural areas and whether they would be patrolled. Officers responded that this was something which would have to be reviewed constantly and a balance would need to be struck to ensure the scheme remained cost neutral. · It was asked about litter being seen alongside waste bins outside people’s homes and whether this counted as fly tipping or litter or what could be done in these instances and whether litter officers could intervene to speak to those responsible. Officers responded that this was something ... view the full minutes text for item 68. |