Agenda and minutes

53/16  

Upon the commencement of the meeting, the Chairman received a petition from Salcombe residents calling for the return of Mr Chad Benson to the role of road sweeper for the town of Salcombe.

The Chairman proceeded to exercise his discretion to permit the petition organiser to make a short representation to the Council.  In so doing, the representative paid tribute to Mr Benson and urged Council officers to reconsider their decision and to reinstate him to the position of road sweeper for Salcombe.

to approve as a correct record and authorise the Chairman to sign the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 29 September 2016 and the Special Council meeting held on 27 October 2016;

54/16              

The minutes of the meeting of Council held on 29 September 2016 and the Special Council meeting held on 27 October 2016 were both confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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;

55/16              

Members and officers were invited to declare any interests in the items of business to be considered during the course of the meeting, but there was none made.

to consider business (if any) brought forward by the Chairman as reported under item 2 above;

56/16              

The Chairman made reference to the following announcements:-

-      his wish to thank Members for their support with his Christmas Raffle Draw, which had raised £300 for his chosen charity (South Brent Caring);

-      his Christmas refreshments.  The Chairman proceeded to invite all Members to his office (upon the rising of this meeting) for light refreshments.

to consider the following question(s) received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 8.

(a)  From Cllr Hodgson to Cllr Hicks, lead Executive Member for the Joint Local Plan

‘Can the controversial proposed development site T3 in the centre of Totnes be removed from the Joint Local Plan with the provision that Totnes Neighbourhood Plan group is allowed to propose how appropriate areas or zones of this site should be redeveloped.’

(b)  From Cllr Baldry to Cllr Hicks, lead Executive Member for the Joint Local Plan

‘You are quoted in the Press as saying “Sherford is about building local homes for local people”.  Is this an accurate report?  If it is in what legal way do you see it possible to enforce that Sherford dwellings are occupied/owned by local people?’

(Please note: the following statement issued by Cllr Hicks, in reply to questions raised at a recent Overview and Scrutiny Panel meeting, stated the following and is to be read in conjunction with questions (c), (d), (e) and (f)):

 “Because it has been included in various iterations of the Local Plan for some years, the planning judgement is that removing T3 from the allocated sites will leave it vulnerable to approach by any developer”

(c)  From Cllr Birch to Cllr Hicks, lead Executive Member for the Joint Local Plan

 ‘What situation is envisaged whereby the T3 Area becomes ‘vulnerable to approach by any developer’ bearing in mind the fact that the area is owned by SHDC?’

(d)  From Cllr Birch to Cllr Hicks, lead Executive Member for the Joint Local Plan

‘Has the District Council’s officers held any discussions with developers and/or their agents concerning:

the possible future development of the T3 area or any parts of it? and

the possible future sale of the T3 area or parts of it?

(e)  From Cllr Birch to Cllr Hicks, lead Executive Member for the Joint Local Plan

‘Has the District Council’s officers held any discussions with commercial property agents and/or residential estate agents concerning:

the possible future sale of the T3 area or any parts of it? and

the valuation of the T3 area or parts of it?’

(f)   From Cllr Birch to Cllr Hicks, lead Executive Member for the Joint Local Plan

‘Are there any internal council reports prepared by officers dealing with the possible future sale of the T3 area or part of it?

57/16

It was noted that six questions had been received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 8.

The Chairman advised that, since Cllr Hicks had forwarded his apologies to this meeting, he would respond to question (a); Cllr Tucker would reply to question (b); and Cllr Pearce would respond to questions (c), (d), (e) and (f)

From Cllr Hodgson to Cllr Hicks, lead Executive Member for the Joint Local Plan

(a)    ‘Can the controversial proposed development site T3 in the centre of Totnes be removed from the Joint Local Plan with the provision that Totnes Neighbourhood Plan group is allowed to propose how appropriate areas or zones of this site should be redeveloped?

At this point, the Chairman informed that, since this question would potentially pre-empt the debate on the motion submitted by Cllrs Rowe and Holway later in the meeting, he had been advised that it would be inappropriate for a response to be given to this question at this time.

From Cllr Baldry to Cllr Hicks, lead Executive Member for the Joint Local Plan

(b)    ‘You are quoted in the Press as saying “Sherford is about building local homes for local people”.  Is this an accurate report?  If it is in what legal way do you see it possible to enforce that Sherford dwellings are occupied/owned by local people?’

In response, Cllr Tucker advised that a minimum of 1,000 affordable and rental houses would be built at Sherford.  However, those properties that were ultimately sold on the open market could be purchased by anyone.

In his supplementary question, Cllr Baldry stated that this was clearly an incorrect statement drafted by the Communications Team and he urged Executive Members to ensure that comments that were attributed to them were factually correct.

From Cllr Birch to Cllr Hicks, lead Executive Member for the Joint Local Plan

(c)    ‘What situation is envisaged whereby the T3 Area becomes ‘vulnerable to approach by any developer’ bearing in mind the fact that the area is owned by SHDC?’

In response, Cllr Pearce advised that, as Cllr Birch would no doubt be aware, any developer could apply for permission on any land regardless of whether they owned it or not.  It was necessary only to serve a Certificate B on the registered owner before submitting.  Having said that, Cllr Pearce did assure Cllr Birch that the Council had no intention of acceding to any approach by any developer on this site.

In reply to a supplementary question regarding any such future plans for this Area, Cllr Pearce reiterated that she was personally not aware of any future intention to accede to any approach from any developer on this site.

From Cllr Birch to Cllr Hicks, lead Executive Member for the Joint Local Plan

(d)    ‘Has the District Council’s officers held any discussions with developers and/or their agents concerning:

(i)  the possible future development of the T3 area or any parts of it? and

(ii)the possible future sale of the T3 area or  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57/16

to consider the following motion received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10.1:

(a)  By Cllrs Green and Hodgson

“In response to rising concerns regarding the role of the Local Enterprise Partnership in participating in the bid for public funding to finance the HOSW Devolution bid, this Council calls for LEP Board Members to be bound by the same code of conduct as Publicly Elected Representatives.”

(b)  By Cllrs Hodgson and Green

“In the light of the proposed NHS cuts and the likely impact on local care services, the HOSW Devolution Bid should include a request for funding to secure a health service which looks after the needs of all those living in Devon and Somerset.”  

(c)   By Cllrs Green and Hodgson

“The Council will consider allowing Neighbourhood Plan groups to decide to develop recommendations for specific sites and remove these sites from the JLP on condition that the estimated number of dwellings included in the JLP for that Neighbourhood Plan area is not reduced.”

(d)   By Cllrs Vint and Birch

“That this Council:

notes the ruling of the High Court (Case No: CO/2241/2016) in support of a housing policy known as ‘H2. Full Time Principal Residence Requirement’ as set out in St Ives Area Neighbourhood Development Plan and which provides that: ‘New second homes and holiday lets will not be permitted at any time..’ and

supportsand encourages Town and Parish Councils within the South Hams District to adopt similar policies in their own Neighbourhood Development Plans.”

(e)   By Cllrs Ward and Holway

“The Council develops a plan to become more dementia aware, particularly for customer facing staff and to support the development of dementia awareness in the community.’

(f)     By Cllrs Rowe and Holway

“We propose that the area known as T3 should be removed from the Joint Local Plan.”

(g)   By Cllrs Hodgson and Green

“In the event that SHDC approves the Local Authority Controlled Company to deliver services on behalf of this Council, then a local referendum to ascertain public support would be held.  (This could be held as part of the proposed referendum next March on a Combined Authority of Devon and Somerset).”

58/16              

It was noted that one motion had been received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10.1.

(a)    By Cllrs Green and Hodgson

“In response to rising concerns regarding the role of the Local Enterprise Partnership in participating in the bid for public funding to finance the HOSW Devolution bid, this Council calls for LEP Board Members to be bound by the same code of conduct as Publicly Elected Representatives.”

In introducing the motion, the proposer made reference to:-

-       a recent national media report that had claimed that over 250 payments had been made (amounting to over £100 million) by LEP Board Members that involved obvious conflicts of interest;

-       his motion both seeking to protect LEP Board Members and encourage transparency;

-       his general view that, across the country, the local government overview and scrutiny function had not been sufficiently scrutinising LEP’s.  When considering the huge sums of public expenditure involved, the Proposer felt this to be regrettable.

In the ensuing debate, the following points were raised:-

(a)    Some Members informed that LEP Board Members were subject to the same rules and guidance in respect of registering and declaring their interests.  Furthermore, a Member had reviewed the South West LEP website and found that most Board Members had declared their respective interests.  However, it was also acknowledged that not all Board Members appeared to have complied with this requirement;

(b)    With regard to the overview and scrutiny of the LEP, the view was expressed that the County Council would probably be taking a lead in this regard.  As a consequence, the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel requested that the Head of Paid Service check whether this was the case and, if it was not, he would be more than happy for this Council’s Panel to take on ownership of this matter;

(c)    Whilst supporting the sentiments of the motion, a Member did highlight the importance of the most appropriate industry representatives being involved on LEP Boards;

(d)    A Member stressed his total opposition to the principle of LEP Boards and felt it to be regrettable that such emphasis, responsibility and power was being given to these unelected bodies.

It was then:

RESOLVED

In response to rising concerns regarding the role of the Local Enterprise Partnership in participating in the bid for public funding to finance the HOSW Devolution bid, this Council calls for LEP Board Members to be bound by the same code of conduct as Publicly Elected Representatives.

(b)   By Cllrs Hodgson and Green

“In the light of the proposed NHS cuts and the likely impact on local care services, the HOSW Devolution Bid should include a request for funding to secure a health service which looks after the needs of all those living in Devon and Somerset.”

In her introduction, the proposer highlighted that:

-       there was a huge amount of community concern regarding these cuts, which were becoming an even bigger issue in light of the aging population;

-       Health and Wellbeing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58/16

59/16              

Members considered a report that sought to approve the appointment of a Co-Opted Member to the Salcombe Harbour Board.

In discussion, both the Leader of the Council and the Chairman of the Board confirmed that the recommended candidate had been subject to the normal recruitment and selection process.

It was then:

RESOLVED

That, with immediate effect, Ali Jones be appointed to the Salcombe Harbour Board as a Co-Opted Member for the period to the date of the Annual Council meeting in May 2020.

to receive and as may be necessary approve the minutes and recommendations of the under-mentioned Bodies

* Indicates minutes containing recommendations to Council.

60/16

(a)    Salcombe Harbour Board – 26 September 2016

SH.17/16: Strategic Business Plan 2017/22

RESOLVED

That the Salcombe Harbour Board’s Strategic Business Plan 2017/22 be adopted.

SH.18/16: 2017/18 Budget

RESOLVED

That the proposed 2017/18 budget (as set out in the agenda report presented to the Board) be approved.

SH.19/16: Proposed Charges 2017/18

Whilst it was regrettable, the Chairman of the Board advised that the recommended increases in security charges were as a consequence of a recent spate of marine related crime on the Estuary.

RESOLVED

That the proposed charges (as set out in the appendix to the published Board minutes) be approved for implementation from 1 April 2017.

(b)   Overview & Scrutiny Panel – 6 October 2016

(c)    Executive – 20 October 2016

E.33/16: Annual Review of Health and Safety Policy

RESOLVED

That the revised Health and Safety Policy be adopted before it is then signed by the Head of Paid Service and the Leader of the Council.

E.34/16(b): Reports of Other Bodies: Overview and Scrutiny Panel – 4 August 2016

O&S.17/16: Task and Finish Group Updates

(a)    Partnerships – Update Report

RESOLVED

1.   That the Partnership Policy (as outlined at Appendix 1 of the presented agenda report to the Panel) and Guidance (as outlined at Appendix 2 of the presented agenda report to the Panel) be adopted;

2.   That the Partnership Register (as outlined at Appendix 3 of the presented agenda report to the Panel) be adopted;

3.   That the review and recommendations of the Task and Finish Group (as outlined at Appendix 4 of the presented agenda report to the Panel) be agreed;

4.   That partnerships be retained at current financial levels for 2017/18, subject to any financial modifications (as set out in Appendix 4 of the presented agenda report to the Panel) and/or any changes required pursuant to the ongoing reviews into the partnership arrangements with the CAB and CVS;

5.   That new, or updated, Partnership agreements be established for 2017/18 onwards establishing clear outcomes relating to Our Plan themes and, where appropriate, the Locality work to ensure co-ordinated delivery for communities; and

6.   That alongside this, a further financial and governance review be undertaken to identify the most appropriate delivery options aligned to financial and procurement procedures once a decision on the LACC is confirmed.

E.36/16: Fleet Replacement

RESOLVED

1.   That Option 3(a) be adopted as the Fleet Replacement Programme for the Council (as outlined in paragraph 4.4 of the presented agenda report to the Executive);

2.   That the contribution to the vehicle replacement earmarked reserve be re-profiled in accordance with Option 3(a) (as shown in Table 6 of the presented agenda report to the Executive) to ensure the budget is aligned to the timing of the vehicle purchases up to March 2022;

3.   That £35,000 be utilised from the 2016/17 Capital Programme Contingency Budget to fund the shortfall in 2016/17 (this recommendation is subject to the Option chosen and is based on Option 3(a) being recommended); and

4.   That minor amendments to the Fleet Replacement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60/16