Agenda and draft minutes

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;

OSDM.1/17    

Members and officers were invited to declare any interests in the items of business to be considered during the course of the meeting and these were recorded as follows:-

Cllr J P Green declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in Item 5: ‘Review of Fees and Charges for 2017/18’ (Minute OSDM.2/17 below refers) specifically in relation to the proposed fee for Acupuncture, Tattooing, Ear-piercing and Electrolysis by virtue of his wife being an acupuncturist.  In the event of this particular fee being debated, Cllr Green advised that he would then leave the meeting during the discussion and he abstained from the vote on the recommendation;

Cllr P C Smerdon declared a Personal Interest in Item 6: ‘Budget Proposals Report 2018/19’ (Minute OSDM.3/17 below refers) by virtue of being a Council representative and Trustee of the South Hams Community and Voluntary Service (CVS); and

Cllr K Pringle declared a Personal Interest in Item 6: ‘Budget Proposals Report 2018/19’ (Minute OSDM.3/16 below refers) by virtue of also being a Council representative of the South Hams CVS and remained in the meeting during the debate and vote on this agenda item.

OSDM.2/17    

The meeting considered a report that set out proposals for fees and charges for all services for 2018/19.

In discussion, reference was made to:-

(a)    play area inspections.  Whilst some Members were of the view that an increase to £70 in the inspections service was significant, the point was made that the Public Spaces Working Group was supportive of the proposed increases;

(b)    increases in Planning Fees.  The Meeting was advised that the 20% increase in Planning Fees (came into effect on 17 January 2018) would generate upwards of £120,000 in additional income for the Council;

(c)    ‘Pay on Entry’ charges for public conveniences.  Members felt it would be beneficial to provide the Executive with a steer on the proposed charges and it was therefore PROPOSED and SECONDED and when put to the vote declared CARRIED that this charge ‘should not exceed 20 pence’;

(d)    the transfer of public convenience ownership from the Council to a local town/parish council.  A Member emphasised the importance of any town or parish council who was considering such a transfer being made aware by the Council that they would be liable for Business Rates on this asset;

(e)    dinghy parking at Coronation Park.  A Member questioned why officers were recommending no increase in the fees and charges being applied for dinghy parking at Coronation Park, whilst proposing that every other dinghy park incur an increase.  In reply, officers advised that the fees and charges applied to Coronation Park had increased by 100% in 2017/18 to reflect the significant capital works that had been undertaken at that time.  As a consequence, it was not considered appropriate for these to be increased again in 2018/19.

It was then:

OSDM.3/17    

Members considered a report that asked for consideration of the draft Budget proposals for 2018-19.

In introducing this agenda item, the Chairman highlighted the need for the Meeting to focus on making recommendations to the Executive on how the Council should close the projected Budget gap of £345,688.

In discussion, reference was made to:-

(a)    the Business Rate Pilot status funding.  Members requested receipt of information outlining the terms of the bid and what was being proposed within these terms;

(b)    the unfairness of the Central Government funding provision.  In expressing his deep frustrations at the unfairness in the Council’s Settlement Funding Assessment, a Member PROPOSED the following motion:-

‘That the unfairness of Central Government Funding for Shire District Councils be brought to the attention of our local MPs, with them both being encouraged to ask a parliamentary question on this point during the weekly Prime Ministers Question Time.’

This proposal was subsequently SECONDED and when being put to the vote was declared CARRIED.               

(c)    the proposal to install Beach Huts.  For future 2018/19 draft Budget Setting reports, it was agreed that reference within the title to ‘North and South Sands’ should be deleted;

(d)    any public conveniences transfer to a local town/parish council.  A Member asked that it be recognised that town and larger parish councils often had greater capacity and resilience to be able to take on such additional responsibilities.  In response, these disparities were acknowledged and assurances were given that, if approved, time had been built into the Programme to enable for a detailed consultation exercise to be undertaken before any savings would be realised.

Specifically regarding those public conveniences highlighted in the presented agenda report at South Milton, the view was expressed that the National Trust (who generated significant income in this particular location) should take on responsibility for providing these facilities.  Officers responded by giving an assurance that all interested third parties would be contacted as part of the consultation process in this regard;

(e)  the proposal to cease accepting cash and cheques at Council premises (excluding Car Parks).  A lengthy discussion on this proposal ensued during which a number of Members expressed their concern that this would have a particular impact on elderly residents.  Also, whilst reference was made to the ability to pay via Paypoint or the Post Office, this view was countered by some Members stating that villages such as South Brent no longer had a high street bank or Post Office facility.

At this point, the Chairman invited a show of hands on how many Members did not support the proposal to cease accepting cash and cheques at Council premises.  In so doing, exactly half (9 of the 18 Members in attendance) were unsupportive of this proposal.

To reflect the general sense amongst the meeting, the Chairman proceeded to invite a show of hands on a proposal to discontinue accepting cash and cheques at Council premises (excluding Car Parks), whilst still retaining a postal  ...  view the full minutes text for item OSDM.3/17

OSDM.4/17    

Members considered a report that sought to recommend the adoption of a Local Enforcement Plan and a Planning Enforcement Member Engagement Protocol.  In addition, the report also sought Member endorsement of a series of proposed actions.

In discussion, the following points were raised:-

(a)    It was confirmed that, whilst Enforcement Cases were not normally published on the Council website, the authority did have a duty to maintain and publish an up to date Enforcement Register;

(b)    A number of Members expressed positive feedback over the recent Enforcement drop-in sessions that had been held with local Ward Members.  In addition, those Members who had yet to sign up to a session with the Enforcement Specialist were actively encouraged to do so;

(c)    In light of there being some very minor numerical and typographical errors identified (e.g. Section 2.7 of the Protocol referred to the incorrect paragraph), it was suggested that Delegated Authority be given to the Community Of Practice Lead, in consultation with the lead Executive Member for Customer First, to make any necessary minor amendments prior to the Plan, Protocol and Actions being finally adopted;

(d)    A number of Members welcomed production of these documents and, in expressing deep frustrations at the extent of rule flouting that was taking place in the South Hams, hoped that the Enforcement Officers would be able to use these as a real statement of intent to send out a message that the Council was not a pushover;

(e)    In recognising the importance of the Legal Community Of Practice to the service, officers confirmed that there was frequent dialogue between both areas and these draft documents (and targets) had been endorsed by legal officers prior to their publication;

(f)      Whilst accepting that there was resource (and cost) implications, a Member did nonetheless lament the lack of any plan checking to ensure that developments were being built in accordance with the approved plans;

(g)    It was confirmed to the Meeting that some of the anticipated additional income that would be generated by the increase in Planning Fees would be used to increase the resilience within the Planning Enforcement service.

It was then: