Items
No. |
Item |
E.1/16 |
Minutes PDF 27 KB
to approve as a correct record and
authorise the Chairman to sign the minutes of the meeting of the
Executive held on 7 April 2016 (previously circulated);
Minutes:
E.01/16
The minutes of the Executive
meeting held on 7 April 2016 were confirmed as a true record and
signed off by the Chairman.
|
E.2/16 |
Declarations of Interest
Members are invited to declare
any personal or disclosable pecuniary interests, including the
nature and extent of such interests they may have in any items to
be considered at this meeting;
Minutes:
E.02/16
Members and officers were
invited to declare any interests in the items of business to be
considered during the course of this meeting but none were
made.
However, Cllr Bastone advised
that he would abstain from the vote on Item 8: ‘Admiral Court, Dartmouth Phase 4 Business
Case’ (Minute E.05/16 below refers) by virtue of being a
local Ward Member. He remained in the
meeting for the duration of the discussion on this item.
|
E.3/16 |
Public Question Time PDF 6 KB
A period of up to 15 minutes is
available to deal with questions submitted to the Council in
accordance with the Executive Procedure Rules;
Minutes:
E.03/16
It was noted that the following question
had been tabled in line with Executive Procedure Rules:
Question from Cllr Judy Pearce:
The coastal
footpath is an essential economic driver in the South Hams. The
news that Natural England intends to cut funding by 50% in six
months' time will mean that it will be impossible to maintain the
path and signage to expected standards. Substantial efforts at
rationalization and cost savings have already been put into place
with the 'New Deal' arrangements three years ago and it will be
very difficult to absorb any further cuts at short notice.
The AONB unit
will discuss this on Friday, and the Coast Path Partnership is
holding a crisis meeting. It is to be hoped that both will feed
through their deliberations so that any action can be effectively
coordinated.
Since the action
by Natural England to reduce funding of the coastal path by 50%
threatens an essential tourist attraction in all Devon and Cornwall
coastal local authorities, please can the Executive take immediate
action to contact these authorities to ask them to lobby their MPs
urgently for a reversal of this decision, and, in the case of the
Devon authorities, to give full support to the County Council as
the highway authority in its attempts to negotiate improved
alternative arrangements?
In response, the Leader thanked Cllr Pearce
for raising this question and stated that it was well timed and a
very important issue. He proposed that
a letter be sent to all Devon authorities and Cornwall Council to
ask that they lobby local MPs. He also
proposed that a copy of the letter be sent to all Town and Parish
Councils as it would impact their areas. The Interim AONB Manager should prepare the letter
and also send it to Natural England, DEFRA and the
Minister.
Members agreed this way forward, and one
Member asked that Devon Countryside Alliance also be lobbied.
|
E.4/16 |
Syrian Vulnerable Persons Scheme PDF 65 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
E.04/16
Members were asked to
consider a report that sought approval to participate in the
national Syrian Vulnerable Person’s Relocation Scheme
(SVPRS).
The Leader introduced
the report and advised that the Council was working with Devon
County Council on this matter. A number
of Members supported the initiative as set out in the
report. Members did question the level
of ongoing support, in terms of security and wider wellbeing for
the families involved. The COP Lead
confirmed that there was a robust process in place and the Council
would work with third sector organisations to support the
families. One Member queried the
statement within the report that there was widespread support for
the initiative across the South Hams.
The COP Lead accepted that whilst there was support across the
District and no negativity had been expressed, it was fair to say
that the majority of the support was centred around the Totnes area.
Finally, the Leader
confirmed that the properties identified for this initiative were
not properties that were available to residents but were normally
for emergency use and were currently surplus to
requirements.
It was then:
RESOLVED:
That the
Council be RECOMMENDED to:
1.
Agree to participate in the national Syrian
Vulnerable Person’s Relocation Scheme (SVPRS);
2.
Agree to use the existing Private Sector Lease
scheme and the existing Council Direct Lets Scheme to be used for
purposes of resettlement in accordance with the SVPRS;
and
3.
That any specific details of the scheme are
delegated to the COP Lead for Housing, Revenues and Benefits, in
consultation with the Leader of Council and the Customer First
Portfolio Holder.
|
E.5/16 |
Admiral Court, Dartmouth Phase 4 - Business Case PDF 69 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
E.05/16
Members
were asked to consider a report that sought approval of expenditure
of up to £600,000 to develop commercial units at Admiral
Court, Dartmouth.
The Portfolio Holder for Customer First introduced
the report and set out the detail.
During discussion, the following points were
raised:
·
The Portfolio Holder for Strategy and Commissioning
confirmed that this report had arisen from the Council’s
‘Invest to Earn’ Policy;
·
A number of Members supported the proposal,
particularly the inclusion of ‘starter
units’;
·
The COP Lead Assets confirmed that the proposal
represented good value for money and the yields used in the
business case were conservative. He
also confirmed that the development would not adversely impact on
the existing units as the appropriate infrastructure was put in at
the beginning;
·
In response to questions from the Leader, the COP
Lead Assets advised that he had considered whether the report
should be wholly exempt, but that the process would be open and
would include a score for value for money and quality so the market
would still determine the price.
It was
then:
That Council be RECOMMENDED to
approve the expenditure of up to £600,000 as detailed in the
presented report, so as to develop commercial units at Admiral
Court, Dartmouth.
|
E.6/16 |
K2 Masterplan, Kingsbridge PDF 115 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
E.06/16
Members were asked to consider a report that sought approval of
expenditure of £76,000 from the Land and Development
Earmarked Reserve, to enable the appointment of a Lead Consultant
to develop a comprehensive masterplan for Kingsbridge Quay and
environs (known as K2).
The Portfolio Holder for Customer First introduced the
report. A local Ward Member expressed
concern at the level of expenditure. In
response, the COP Lead Assets advised that the price included
undertaking a full consultation exercise, which was
expensive. It would also ensure a
detailed picture for a coherent development. Another Member asked that, if a developer was
going to benefit at the end of this then the costs be passed
on. Finally, in terms of timing, the
COP Lead Assets advised that a further report would be presented
back to the Executive in 6 to 12 months.
It was then:
RESOLVED
That the
Council be RECOMMENDED to approve the expenditure of
£76,000, from the Land and Development Earmarked Reserve, to
enable the appointment of a Lead Consultant to develop a
comprehensive masterplan for Kingsbridge Quay and environs (known
as K2).
|
E.7/16 |
Consultation of proposed changes to the Council Tax Reduction Scheme 2017/18 PDF 88 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
E.07/16
Members were asked to consider a report that sought approval of
the proposed public consultation document on the changes to the
Council Tax Reduction Scheme, aligning the current scheme with the
Housing Benefit & Universal Credit.
The Portfolio Holder for Customer First introduced the
report. Following the introduction, a
number of Members raised concerns with the consultation document as
it included a significant amount of complex detail and was not easy
to understand. Officers accepted that
it contained complex information, but this was a result of the
Housing Benefit legislation and had to be included in order to set
out the options available. Officers
agreed to look at the document and check for plain English prior to
it being sent out for consultation.
It was then:
RESOLVED
That the
proposed public consultation document (as presented at Appendix A
of the agenda report) on the changes to the Council Tax Resolution
Scheme, aligning the current scheme with Housing Benefit &
Universal Credit be approved.
|
E.8/16 |
Transitional Resources PDF 42 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
E.08/16
Members were asked to
consider a report that provided Members with the rationale for
temporary fixed term transitional resources to improve customer
satisfaction and public perception of the Council. This could be achieved by eliminating backlogs and
failure demand to reduce call volumes and call answering
times. The report explained how the
resources could be funded through the New Homes Bonus money
originally allocated to Disabled Facilities Grant funding in
2015/16 and 2016/17 and from a re-investment of previous T18
savings back into the Programme.
The Portfolio Holder set
out a detailed introduction to the report and explained how the T18
Programme had been designed to meet the challenges of reduced
budgets without cutting frontline services. Whilst the budget reductions were being achieved,
Members would be aware that the transition to the new model had
resulted in increased call volumes, increased call waiting times
and service backlogs. He also explained
how the Resource Model was based on the end of programme
state, that was, the calculation of
staff resource assumed that technology would have been fully
delivered and embedded across the authority. The technology had been delayed and in some cases
required significant development to meet the requirements of the
Council and the availability of staff for testing and training had
been limited due to the constant need to carry out the day
job. Concerns had been expressed and
something needed to change to bring service levels back to an
acceptable standard to ensure staff felt comfortable with the
workloads and to raise staff morale across the
Authority. This proposal was the result
of a significant piece of work by officers that set out a short
term strategy to assist with the successful delivery and completion
of the T18 Programme.
During discussion, the
following points were made:
(a)
A number of Members expressed concerns over the
reported staff survey results. The
Executive Director (SD & CD) and the Group Manager Customer
First confirmed that the report only included specific questions
from the survey that related to capacity and plans were in place to
address the issues that had arisen. The
staff survey results had been one of the drivers to bring the
report to Members;
(b)
Officers confirmed that this report was the
conclusion of a significant and detailed piece of work to ascertain
the resource needed and would prevent the need for a piecemeal
approach to Members to request additional support. Members accepted and welcomed this
approach. The Executive Director
(S&C) confirmed that no further resource should be required,
however, that did not include any further work pressures that may
arise from as yet unforeseen changes in legislation;
(c)
Members asked if, once the IT systems were fully
operational, that the organisation could fall back to the original
numbers of staff as set out in the blueprint. Officers responded that, for the most part, the
blueprint numbers were expected to be correct, however there may be
minor differences in order to ensure customer
satisfaction;
(d)
The majority of ...
view the full minutes text for item E.8/16
|
E.9/16 |
Reports of Other Bodies PDF 22 KB
a) Overview and Scrutiny Panel – 2 June
2016
Minutes:
E.09/16
RESOLVED
That the
following be received and that any recommendations contained
therein be approved:
a)
Overview and Scrutiny Panel – 2 June
2016
During discussion on this item, the Executive
Director (SD&CD) provided clarity on a response given by an
officer at the meeting of the Panel in respect of the presentation
on the Case Management function (Minute O&S.5/16
refers). The Case Management Manager
had stated that no backlogs existed within Case Management, however
the Executive Director clarified that the answer given reflected
the position within the Council Tax function rather than the whole
of Case Management.
i.
O&S.6/16 DARTMOUTH LOWER FERRY – TARIFF
REVIEW
Prior to the vote on this item, the Leader confirmed
that he had received a request to retain one of the charges at 50p
rather than increase it to 60p, as the staff had raised concerns
over the ability to give change for the
new charge. The Chairman of the
Overview and Scrutiny Panel confirmed that he was supportive of the
charge remaining at 50p.
It was then RESOLVED:
That Council be RECOMMENDED that the proposed charges as
detailed in Appendix A as presented to the Overview and Scrutiny
Panel for Dartmouth Lower Ferry be approved with the following
amendment:
That the child single tariff, proposed to increase to 60p,
remain at 50p.
(NOTE: THESE DECISIONS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF E.4/16, E.5/16,
E.6/16, E.8/16 and E.9/16, WHICH ARE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE SPECIAL
COUNCIL MEETING TO BE HELD ON 30 JUNE 2016, WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE
FROM 5.00PM ON MONDAY, 27 JUNE 2016 UNLESS CALLED IN, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SCRUTINY PROCEDURE RULE 18).
|