Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Cllr N Bradshaw.

Cllrs A Cuddy, G Czapiewski, M Fletcher, N Woollatt attended via Teams.

To receive any questions relating to items on the Agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.

Paul Elstone:

Question 1

Paragraph 2.7 on Page 169 of your papers says that the Council contracted to purchase the Post Hill Site for £410,000 in December 2017. But Land Registry shows the land was purchased for £492,000 in October 2020. Can these differences be explained?

Question 2

In a document dated December 2017 3 Rivers are shown as a Nominee as part of the commercial transaction to acquire the Post Hill site. Please explain the full reasons as to why this Nominee status was necessary?

Question 3

In papers presented to the Planning Committee on the 8th June 2016, as justification for the Council buying the Post Hill Land, for Affordable Homes the following is said. “Benefits in bringing forward the development more quickly”. That was 7 years ago. Since then, David Wilson Homes, who were contractually required to build around 70 affordable homes before the Council took over this liability as part of the land purchase agreement, have now fully completed their Braid Park development with all homes occupied. Despite spending over £1 million, this Council has not put a single affordable home on the site. The Council wasted money and has effectively blocked the building of 70 Affordable Houses - how does this demonstrate the good governance that is both expected and required of a Council?

Question 4

According to the Land Registry, 3 Rivers paid £2.75 million plus taxes in December 2019 for land in Knowle Lane, Cullompton. The land had Outline Planning permission which had only been granted on appeal after this Council supported by Cullompton Town Council had refused it. Yet this Council lent 3 Rivers the money to buy this highly contentious plot of land.

3 Rivers has done nothing with it since and has allowed the outline planning approval to lapse. Any future development will have to apply for new Planning permission, which this Council should oppose again. The Council has allowed 3 Rivers to devalue this site, how does this demonstrate the good financial governance that is both expected and required of a Council?

The Leader thanked Mr Elstone for their questions and stated that a written answer would be provided. 

Graeme Barnell

Question 1

What is the strategy of this administration in addressing the availability of housing especially of affordable and social rented housing?

Answer

Cabinet Member for Housing and Property Services confirmed that the Council does currently have a clear Housing Strategy 2021-25, with an objective to increase the number of affordable homes and specifically to increase the Council housing stock of social and affordable rent accommodation. The report is consistent with this strategic position, nonetheless the draft Housing Revenue Account (HRA) target of 500 new Council houses in 5-years represents an acceleration and increase of the original strategy target of 160 homes.

Question 2

If such a strategy is being formulated, when can it be expected?

Answer

See above.

Question 3

When will regular performance data regarding the delivery of the various types of affordable housing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

To record any interests on agenda matters.

No interests were declared under this item. Members were reminded of the need to make declarations of interest where appropriate.

To consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the meeting held on 1 August 2023 and 16 August 2023.

The minutes of the previous meeting, held on 1 August 2023 and 16 August 2023, were approved as a correct record and SIGNED by the Leader.

To receive a report from the Corporate Manager for People, Governance & Waste.

Cabinet had before it and NOTED a report* of the Corporate Manager for People, Governance and Waste which provided Members with an update on performance against the corporate plan and local service targets for quarter 1 (2023/24).

It was highlighted that with regards to complaints, performance had been higher than what was detailed within the report presented.

Note: * Report previously circulated.

To receive a report from the Corporate Manager for People, Governance & Waste.

Cabinet had before it and NOTED a report* of the Corporate Manager for People, Governance and Waste which provided Members with a quarterly update on the Corporate Risk Register.

The following was discussed:

·        It was asked whether the risks titled Culm Garden Village and Cullompton’s Town Centre Relief Road, should be considered at the same level of risk.  To which the Deputy Chief Executive (S151) acknowledged that these were linked, but the reason for a difference in risk was due to the long term funding received for the Culm Garden Village and that it was appropriate to treat these as separate risks.  The relief road was considered higher, which was also agreed by the Audit Committee.

Note: * Report previously circulated.

To receive a report from the Deputy Chief Executive (S151).

Cabinet had before it a report* which presented the forecasted outturn position for the General Fund, Housing Revenue Account and Capital Programme for the financial year 2023/24, covering the period between April 2023 to June 2023.

The following was highlighted:

• The General Fund faced a £527k overspend at year end, which was significantly better than initial projections. The previous administration set a budget with a projected yearend overspend of £625k. Along with this, there was a £400k salary saving target which meant that a balanced budget required over £1m to be delivered in year. 

• Planning and Building Control income was lower than forecasted due to stagnation of the housing market. Recycling income prices had dropped since the budget was set. However these were offset by higher income from Garden Waste and Leisure Services.

• HRA was projected to have a £346k underspend due to slippage of projects.

The following was discussed:

·        Whether vacancy targets had put pressure on the use of agencies and it was asked how this was managed. The Corporate Manager for Finance explained that agency costs were included within the savings target presented which was above £400k.

·        It was highlighted that many organisations and Local Authorities were struggling with sickness rates and turnover.

RESOLVED that:

1. The Cabinet are asked to:

a)     Note the financial monitoring information for the income and expenditure for the three months to 30 June 2023 and the projected outturn position;

b)     Agree the amendment to the Capital Programme of £3,733k reflecting the inclusion of Leasing costs in line with amended regulations and other additions since the budget was set;

c)     Note the updated Treasury Management reporting as required by regulation, and recommend that Council approves the changes to the treasury and prudential indicators in tables 6.3.1 and 6.3.2;

d)     Note the use of Waivers for the Procurement of goods and services as included in Section 9.

(Proposed by J Buczkowski, seconded by S Keable)

Reason for the decision:

The financial resources of the Council impact directly on its ability to deliver the Corporate Plan prioritising the use of available resources in 2023/24. The Monitoring Report indicates how the Council’s resources have been used to support the delivery of budgetary decisions.

Note: * Report previously circulated.

To receive a verbal update from the Corporate Performance and Improvement Manager.

The Cabinet NOTED a verbal update from the Corporate Manager of People, Governance and Waste in which it was outlined that the development of performance dashboards were delivered to each Policy Development Group (PDG), with Homes PDG having two. There was also a planning and corporate dashboard and that the Corporate Dashboard would be circulated to Cabinet.

To receive a report from the Corporate Manager for People, Governance and Waste.

Cabinet had before it and NOTED a report* of the Corporate Manager for People, Governance and Waste which provided Members with an overview of the Environment and Enforcement service for the financial year 2022/23.

It was highlighted that there were no outstanding abandoned vehicles from the 22/23 financial year.

The following was discussed:

·        An explanation was sought on the process followed when abandoned cars were removed by the Council. An officer explained that they were kept for up to for 14 days, after that, they were crushed. If someone claimed the vehicle, they would have to pay the removal costs as well as a fixed penalty notice for abandoning a vehicle.

·        Parking Outturn 2016 – 2023 was raised and it was noted that costs had increased. But so had the variance. An officer explained that due to increased costs the income generated had reduced.

·        The Council’s fleet of electric vehicles was welcomed.

·        The Enforcement team were due to undertake Police and Criminal Evidence Act training.

Note: * Report previously circulated.

To receive a report from the Corporate Manager for People, Governance and Waste.

The Environment Policy Development Group made the following recommendations:

1.     To cease collecting side waste from 1 October 2023 and deliver a comprehensive communications programme in advance of this to minimise the need for enforcement.

2.     To postpone the trial scheduled for 2023-2024 to allow for an evaluation of the effectiveness of the current scheme against the metrics of recycling % achieved, residual tonnage reduction, and overall cost to the authority.

Cabinet had before it a report* of the Corporate Manager for People, Governance and Waste which outlined the  effectiveness of the council’s waste and recycling scheme, known as the Bin-it 123 scheme, as implemented in October 2022. It also highlighted the improvement of operational efficiency of collection crews, increased recycling rates and limiting C02 emissions. It also provided a review of recycling frequency following the Cabinet decision on 29 Nov 2022 to complete a weekly recycling trial in the District during the financial year 2023-2024.

The following was highlighted:

• The Council had been flexible with the transition to the ‘Bin it 123’ scheme and that side-waste had been collected, but there was a need to stop collecting side-waste. It was noted that other top performing Authorities had a zero tolerance approach and did not collect side-waste.

• First few months were encouraging and that the recycling rate was just under 60%.

• A weekly recycling pilot was agreed to be undertaken but due to unclear funding and costs it was asked to defer until financially feasible.

The following was discussed:

• Concern was raised over stopping the collection of side-waste and of the length of time it would be left until dealt with. It was also asked how communal refuse points would be managed and how those that left side-waste would be identified. An officer explained that initially households would be contacted but if further breaches continued, Section 46 would be applied. This would be a formal warning that would last for 1 year and could then be escalated further if this warning was breached. 

• The Corporate Manager for People Governance and Waste explained that the Council would not let the District become untidy and that they were asking for residents to comply with the scheme. The Council would ensure that residents had the appropriate containers and bins, it was also about working with residents and landlords, providing support if needed. 

• That statistics and figures should be reported to the Environment PDG to ensure that the Council kept on track.

• That top performing authorities were collecting every 2 weeks, clarification was sought as to why the council was being compared to every 2 week collection models when the Council collected every 3 weeks. The officer explained that these authorities were identified as the top performers and that it was to highlight that none collected side-waste.  

• It was raised that this Council should be compared to authorities that also collected every 3 weeks.  To which the Corporate Manager for People, Governance and Waste agreed that this could be reported to the Environment PDG.

• It was noted that the increased recycling rates should be celebrated, and that recycling pots and pans should also be considered.

• Education on recycling was raised, to which the Corporate Manager for People, Governance and Waste explained that education was important and needed to be continual so that recycling awareness was maintained. In addition, it was also raised that many people learn in different ways and that it was key to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

To receive a report from the Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing.

The Homes Policy Development Group made the following recommendation:

That the PDG recommends that Cabinet adopt the updated Neighbourhood Management Policy and Equality Impact Assessment contained in Annexes A and B respectively.

Cabinet had before it a report* of the Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing which outlined that under the Neighbourhood and Community Standard, the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) requires all registered providers to publish a policy setting out, how in consultation with their tenants, they will maintain and improve the neighbourhood’s associated with their homes. This has been developed following an in-depth review of the policy in consultation with tenants and partner organisations.

The following was discussed:

• That there were no comments were received during the consultation. It was asked how the Council could engage more widely so that responses were received. The Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing explained that it was difficult getting responses for consultations, and that a new approach to improve engagement was due to take place, with other new always considered.

• The topic of vulnerable people was raised along with the safeguarding elements found within the report. The Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing explained that all vulnerable people were considered within Council policies.

• It was sought that a paragraph on vulnerable people/safeguarding be added to these policy reports, to which the Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing agreed that that this could be included in future policy reports.

RESOLVED that:

Cabinet adopt the updated Neighbourhood Management Policy and Equality Impact Assessment contained in Annexes A and B respectively.

(Proposed by S Clist seconded by J Wright)

Reason for decision:

A stated aim of the Council is to deliver sustainable communities.

Note: * Report previously circulated.

To consider any recommendations that may arise from the Scrutiny Committee.

No recommendations from the Scrutiny Committee were received

To receive a report from the Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing.

Cabinet had before it a report* from the Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing which provided options for potential large sites within the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) development programme. The sites considered are Post Hill, Tiverton, St Georges Court, Tiverton and Knowle Lane, Cullompton. These sites are presently within the control of the Council with Post Hill held within the HRA.

The report aimed to obtain agreement for the 5-year HRA development programme (2023/24 to 2027/28) in respect of these large potential sites for new social housing within Mid Devon Housing (MDH) stock taking into account the options analysis presented.

The following was discussed:

• Clarification was sought over the costs to adapt housing as it seemed like quite a round number. The Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing explained that this was an estimated cost, but there was data to support this estimated cost. 

• Asked why this accommodation was appropriate for those over 60. The Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing explained that the accommodation had ground floor and lift access and with more adaption work it would be suitable for over 60s. In addition, the location was central to town and had good transport links and good accessibility to medical sites. It was also noted that there was not a similar site within the vicinity of Tiverton.

• Some over 60s occupied family homes and that this could generate some healthy movement within the council’s stock.

• Asked if this accommodation would be available for the whole of Mid Devon. The Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing reassured that there was flexibility with this, but the initial focus was for Tiverton tenants.

• Asked if there would be any flexibility in terms of the age of the targeted tenants. The Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing explained that there would be flexibility but the focus was to target over 60s. In addition, that there was no perfect age to choose and that other tenants would still be considered.

• Asked how tenants would be encouraged to downsize and whether this would be managed by Devon Home Choice. The Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing explained that the aim was to invite tenants to free up family homes and that it would sit outside of Devon Homes Choice.

• Asked if there would be an option for right to buy, if covenants would be set and whether ground rent and service charges would apply. The Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing explained that details would be introduced to the Homes PDG and that in terms of right to buy a certain percentage could be exempt from this and that all details would be made aware to incoming tenants. There was an aim to build a community and that policies would be made clear outlining any service charges.

• Concern was raised over the cost of £100k and felt that this report was good enough for tax-payers. In addition, it was felt  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

To note the contents of the Forward Plan.

The Cabinet had before it, and NOTED, the notification of Key Decisions*.

The S106 Governance item had been postponed from the 19 September 2023 to the 14 November 2023.

Note: * Notification of key Decisions previously circulated.

To consider any organisational response to the national consultation on the closure of (staffed) ticket offices on the railway network. (verbal item for discussion)

The Leader of the Council raised concern of the announcement made by the Rail Delivery Group that train companies were pressing ahead with plans to close up to 1000 rail ticket offices across England over the next 3 years.

It was highlighted that:

• Not all residents are able to use station ticket machines, or have the means to book a ticket in advance.

• Concern that the closure of ticket offices will disproportionately affect elderly and disabled residents.

• Concerns was raised over possible staff redundancies.

RESOLVED that Cabinet:

• Instruct the Chief Executive to write to Mark Harper MP Secretary of State for Transport, and the Chief Executive of the Rail Delivery Group, expressing this Council’s opposition to the possible closure of staffed rail ticket offices – and in particular the offices across the Devon County Council area, including Tiverton Parkway.
• Instruct the Chief Executive to write to the rail operator(s) running local ticket offices, expressing the Council’s opposition to any plans to close the staffed ticket office at Tiverton Parkway or within the Mid Devon area.
• Refer this issue to Scrutiny with the recommendation that representatives from the relevant rail operator(s) are invited to attend a Scrutiny Meeting at the earliest possible point to discuss future plans for ticket offices within Mid Devon.

Proposed by Leader, Cllr L Taylor)

Reason for decision:

That Staffed ticket offices provide a vital service to residents in Mid Devon.