Agenda item

Note: If any Member seeks further clarity, or wishes to raise issues regarding any future Executive agenda item, please contact Member Services before 5.00pm on Monday, 8 July 2019 to ensure that the lead Executive Member(s) and lead officer(s) are aware of this request in advance of the meeting.

(a)  Investing in Kingsbridge –Verbal Report (at the prior request of the Panel Chairman)

The Panel was presented with the most recently published Executive Forward Plan.  In accordance with Procedure Rules, formal requests had been made for three future Executive agenda items to be first considered by the Panel.  These items were as follows:

(a)    Investing in Kingsbridge

The Deputy Leader introduced this item and advised that the officer report had now been published with the Executive agenda.  The report highlighted that the Kingsbridge Hotel development project and Business Case was originally approved by the Executive in December 2018 (Minute E.62/18 refers).  Since this initial approval, the Deputy Leader informed that the business case had been changed therefore requiring a revised approval from the Executive so as to proceed.  It was noted that the key changes were:

-        That the cost of the project had increased from £9.10 million to £10.13 million;

-        That the scale of the development had changed from 76 rooms to 85 rooms; and

-        The height of the development had been reduced from 5 storeys to 4.

At this stage, the Chairman invited the local Ward Members in attendance to address the Panel.  In so doing, they raised a number of points that included:-

-        the apparent lack of public consultation that had been undertaken to date;

-        the apparent lack of an independent assessment of the Business Case to underpin the project;

-        it being somewhat misleading to state that Kingsbridge Town Council was largely supportive of the project.  In light of the Town Council recently calling for a public meeting on the proposals, a Member felt that the Executive decision should be deferred pending the outcome of this meeting;

-        a number of misgivings over the timing and presumptive tone of the press release that had been published earlier in the week.  In addition, disappointment was expressed that they had not been consulted prior to the press release being issued;

-        the local Neighbourhood Plan being in the early stages of development;

-        the perception that the car park was underutilised was incorrect.  As a result, the Members questioned where the hotel users would park; and

-        there being local demand for high skilled employment.

In countering a number of these points, the Deputy Leader stated that:-

-        Hotel accommodation was currently much needed in Kingsbridge;

-        whilst some negative comments had been expressed, the Town Council had confirmed its support for the principle of these proposals;

-        the vast majority of local traders were also supportive of the proposals;

-        the Council was committed to working closely with the Town Council and engaging with local residents on the development and there would be two opportunities for the public to make their comments to the Council.  Firstly, there would be a public consultation exercise following the Executive meeting and there would then be a second opportunity as part of the planning process;

-        the Council was not viewing these proposals as an income generation project for the Council.  Instead, the Panel was advised that the main drivers for advancing this project were the local economic and wellbeing benefits;

During the ensuing debate, the following points were raised:

(i)     Members who had attended the recent Tour of the District had visited this development site and felt that it had been particularly informative and useful;

(ii)    In light of the uncertain future facing town centre high streets, it was felt that this proposal was a key means of supporting the local economy in Kingsbridge;

(iii)   It was confirmed that the traffic and highways implications of the proposals were included on the preliminary risk register for this project.

In concluding the debate, the Chairman emphasised that the Panel welcomed the assurances that had been given in respect of the commitment to work closely with the Town Council and consult with local residents.

(b)   Commercial Investment Strategy

The Deputy Leader introduced this update and informed that the report would also be a standalone agenda item for consideration at the Special Council meeting on 25 July 2019.  In summary, the agenda item would be seeking Council approval to revise its Commercial Investment Strategy to be able to take advantage of opportunities outside of the South Hams area to invest in renewable energy generation assets.

During the subsequent debate, it was noted that:-

(i)     A number of local authorities were already exploring this type of investment;

(ii)    The grid was already at capacity in Devon;

(iii)   This initiative could provide an opportunity for shared working provision with West Devon Borough Council;

(iv)   It would now be timely for the Council to reconsider whether or not it should install solar panels over some of its car parks.

The Chairman closed the debate and advised the lead Member and officers that the Panel was broadly supportive of the recommendation to amend the Commercial Investment Strategy.

(c)    Council Tax Reduction Scheme 2020/21

The Chairman asked the following question:

“This year’s council tax reduction scheme is linked to Universal Credit; has there been an increased level of people having problems with payment so far. In particular with the Minimum Income Floor rule, have there been an increased number of self-employed residents struggling to pay? Do you have figures? Some councils have dropped the MIF rule. Would this council consider doing so if it leads to increased hardship for the low paid self-employed?”

In response, the lead Executive Member for Prosperity advised that the current Council Tax Reduction (CTR) Scheme was revised for this financial year, with the full report being agreed by Council on 21 February 2019. The Member urged colleagues to refer to this report, which was very comprehensive in explaining the rationale for the changes and the financial modelling.

In summary, the Member proceeded to inform that the only link to Universal Credit was that Universal Credit claims changed automatically as income changes and these changes were again made automatically to our systems. This meant that the Council could be generating new council tax bills for those residents claiming CTR on a weekly basis, thereby generating confusion and more queries, leading to more calls and more work. The scheme had been designed to limit these changes by putting claimants in Bands which allowed for fluctuations without creating changes to the council tax reduction benefit.

The Member than pointed out that an important fact was that officers were tasked with designing a scheme that helped the most vulnerable.  Some Members appeared to be focussing on the Minimum Income Floor (MIF) that impacted self-employed and not the fact that the Council had increased the benefit for those in most need from 80 to 85%, with modelling suggesting that this would provide more help to approximately 1,900 residents.

In terms of the figures, the lead Member advised that it was agreed with the Executive that a report would be brought back after 6 months, thereby providing 6 months’ worth of data to examine the impact of the Scheme.  Whilst the lead Member appreciated that other Members were interested, it was his view that the Council should wait for this data rather than react to individual issues before judging whether or not the scheme had been a success.

Nonetheless, the Member confirmed that an initial check of some 105 self-employed claims showed that:

·           19 had not even had the MIF applied;

·           And of the 86 that had, 55 (62%) were better off under the new scheme;

·           31 were worse off, with 6 having no award under the new scheme as these were all single people capable of finding alternative / additional employment;

·           5 of the 31 had been awarded an additional payment through the Councils’ exceptional hardship fund.

Finally, the lead Member confirmed that officers were not aware that any of the Devon authorities were removing the MIF.  In fact, most of the districts were now creating schemes that mirrored this Councils’, once again demonstrating that South Hams was leading the way in Devon.

The Chairman thanked the lead Member for his comprehensive response and reflected the views of the Panel in requesting that further consideration be given to this matter at its meeting on 17 October 2019.

Whilst accepting the point that there was no such thing as a perfect system, a Member did wish to make the point though that the payment of a bill did not always reflect financial resilience and it was his view that there was a flaw in the current Scheme that required addressing.