Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence.

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

The following questions were received from members of the public:

Mr Barry Warren

Question 1:

Within Willand Parish there are 9 play areas, 6 of which are managed by the Parish Council, either owned or under lease from MDDC. MDDC are contracted to carry out monthly safety inspections of the play equipment in the 6 areas and the Parish are invoiced twice yearly, 6 months in advance.

The table shows that for 2023/24 we paid £2,293.06 but we actually paid £1,841.26. [A considerable 24.5% difference.] The second invoice was more than the first as it appears the second had an additional site added and there was a rise in other charges of 16.89%.

Why is there a discrepancy between the figure shown in the table and what we actually paid?

Response from the Cabinet Member for Finance:

The bill for the period of April 2023 to September 2023 was £578.94 total amount £694.73 including VAT. The bill for the period of October 2023 to March 2024 was £955.44 total amount £1146.53 including VAT with the Chestnut drive play area added following completion of the lease to the Parish these reflect the sum quoted to the amount paid. The £2293.06 including VAT, the sum quoted in Cabinet report was for October to March over a full year.

Question 2:

The new charges for 2024/25 are set out in the table but it is not clear how the charges will be worked out.  Worked out one way we would be charged £2,764.80; a 50.15%% rise having already experienced a 16.89% rise for the second half of 2023/24.

There is a potential alternative way to work out the costs and Willand inspections cost would be £3369.60 an 83% rise on the previous year. We are unclear as to which system will be used.

How are the charges to be worked out?

What are MDDC actually expecting Willand Parish Council to pay for safety inspections for play equipment for the whole of 2024/25 for monthly safety inspections of play equipment covering all 6 sites?

Response from the Cabinet Member for Finance:

The revision to the proposed fee structure provides greater equity across the Parishes, the forecast cost £3369.00 as calculation includes the Chestnut drive play area the other partial reason for the increase. Officers of the Council will contact the Parish Clerk to discuss the changes in the fee structure.

Question 3:

It is stated that if approved by Cabinet these charges will be implemented as of 1 April 2024 but we are having to set our precepts now. We are unaware of any communication with the Parishes on this issue.

How does this action fit with the stated intention of this administration to work more closely with Parishes?

If one looks at recommendation 2, what will be put in place for timely discussion with Parishes in order that they may look elsewhere for the service if needs be before having to set their precepts?

Response from the Cabinet Member for Finance:

The Fees  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

To record any interests on agenda matters.

The Leader declared that all members of the Cabinet had been contact prior to the meeting in regards to the Grand Western Canal.

To consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the meeting held on 12 December 2023.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 12 December 2023 were approved as a correct record and SIGNED by the Leader.

To receive a report from the Deputy Chief Executive (S151) on 2024/2025-2028/2029 Medium Term Financial Plan.

Cabinet had before it a report * from the Deputy Chief Executive (S151) Officer on the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) covering the period of 2024/2025 to 2028/2029.

The Cabinet Member for Finance outlined the contents of the report with particular reference to the following:

·         This reports covers the fourth update of the Medium Term Financial Plan covering the five years 2024/25 to 2028/29. This report encompasses all elements including the General Fund, Housing Revenue Account and the Capital Programme.

·         The initial results of the budget element within the resident’s survey has been included within Section 3 of the report. The results are similar to previous years and the allocation of the Council’s resources reflect the public’s priorities as far as possible within the Council’s financial constraints and statutory requirements.

·         Since the December Cabinet, further work had been undertaken to reduce the shortfall further. £103k of further savings has been identified, the majority of which (£78k) results from changes to the Building Control Partnership where the council pick up a lower percentage of the costs. Crucially, the staff savings has reduced by more than half and no resulting redundancies.

·         In December the local government finance settlement was announced. Although very much a like for like settlement compared to 2023/24, this did announce £85k of additional grant funding above the forecast and additional Council Tax income following the announcement of 3% cap not 2%.

·         Due to the scale of the services that report into the Economy and Homes PDG, and the Council will not look at those PDG’s to identify any further savings for 2024/25 – although of course any ideas are always welcomed. 

·         Given the scale of the budgets the following PDGs are responsible for, the Council will still seek further savings from the Community and Environment PDG’s,  and I will be proposing that any remaining shortfall to the general fund after this round is met from reserves.

·         Appendix 2 details the Housing Revenue Account and proposes a balanced budget for the HRA. Since the December update, clarification has been given by government on the Social Rent Cap which allows the Council to increase by September CPI +1% (7.7%). Therefore the proposed Rent Charges now reflect this as per Appendix 3. The additional income generated enables increased investment in both the maintenance and further carbon reduction of our existing stock. It also enables greater investment in new stock through the housing development programme. There are also financial adjustments to update the bad debt provision and the recharges to the General Fund.

The proposed capital programme was presented for review. It remained largely the same as that presented to Cabinet in December, with the General Fund showing a small £1.5m reduction and the HRA showing no change in the 2024/25 deliverable budget. Changes in the assumed funding of the programme see forecast borrowing increase by just over £0.5m. Within the General Fund, the significant investment is the Cullompton Relief Road with a sufficient funding source still being sought. The HRA has  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.

To receive a report from the Deputy Chief Executive (S151) on 2024/2025 Fees and Charges.

Cabinet had before it a report * from the Deputy Chief Executive (S151) Officer on the 2024/2025 Fees and Charges.

The Cabinet Member for Finance outlined the contents of the report with particular reference to the following:

·         Charges for Council services formed a key income stream for the Council totalling over £11m and enabled many discretionary services to continue to be provided and helped address the financial challenge the Council faced.

·         The Council charges fees for different reasons such as:

           They are set by statute such as planning.

           They recover costs (the Council adopts a full cost recovery policy)

           They support the provision of discretionary services. 

·         The setting of fees also helped to drive efficiency and customer behaviour and also ensured general taxation isn’t being used to subsidise certain services that are only used by a small proportion of people. All fees needed to be set within any overarching legal requirements and must consider equalities.

·         Following a full review, the majority of fees were proposed to be increased in line with September’s CPI inflation (6.7%). The September figure represented the mid-point for the year and was also the latest CPI available at the time of drafting the proposals for the various PDG’s to consider. It was also central Governments measure used when calculating national schemes such as pensions, business rates and grant increases. Where a service wished to vary from this, it had set out the justification to the relevant PDG.

There were currently several routes for approving the fees within the constitution, including; Cabinet or Cabinet Member decision, delegated decision by an officer, or by committees other than Cabinet.  Therefore the fees had been split into 2 appendices – with Appendix 1 requiring Cabinet approval. Appendix 2 provided the fees approved elsewhere and so was just for noting.  Some minor technical amendments and clarifications had been made within the supplementary update.

Discussions took place regarding:

·         The inflation uplift of 6.7%.

·         Venue hire and the meeting rooms in Phoenix House and Crediton Town Square facilities and guidance around this.

·         Political party using the facilities and how this would be dealt with.

·         The figures on Leisure were not the fees that were agreed at the Policy Development Groups.

·         Discrepancies in the charge of leisure for yoga fees that had been agreed at the Policy Development group and in the published minutes.

·         The proposal exceeded inflation and the justification for this had been presented to and supported by the relevant Policy Development Group in part 2.

·         The prices had doubled for example the swimming for juniors and concessionary was 14%.

·         The public were unable to see anything in part 2 and Members were not able to disclosure this information.

·         Motion 593, as agreed at Full Council, stated that the leisure fees would be reviewed in an open and transparent way.

·         The issues that arose last year in regards of fee increases.

·         Fees and Charges needed to be more open and transparent at the Policy Development groups when discussed.

RESOLVED that:

·         The proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

To receive a report from the Corporate Manager for People, Governance & Waste and Corporate Performance and Improvement Manager on the Corporate Performance Plan.

Cabinet had before it a report * from the Corporate Manager for People, Governance & Waste on the Corporate Performance Report.

The Corporate Performance and Improvement Manager outlined the contents of the report with particular reference to the following:

·         Appendices 1-5 provided Members with details of performance against the Corporate Plan and local service targets for quarter 2, financial year 2023/24. This spanned the period July 2023 to September 2023. 

·         The Corporate Plan had four themes: Homes, Environment, Economy, and Community. Climate Change was a cross cutting theme of the Plan. Alongside the performance reporting of the Corporate Plan, the Council presented performance information on a wide range of corporate performance indicators, these were detailed in Appendix 5.

Discussion took place regarding:

·         Bin collection being below target and the CRM (Customer Relationship Management) system, can the CRM track other services or support calls across the Council?

RESOLVED that:

·         Members reviewed and scrutinise the Performance Indicators and information detailed in this report.

(Proposed by the Leader)

Reason for Decision:

There were no direct legal implications arising from this report. However, if the performance of some indicators is not at required levels, there is a risk of legal challenge. Performance management helped the Council meet its duties in relation to Value for Money.

Note * Report previously circulated.

To receive a update from the Corporate Manager for People, Governance & Waste and Corporate Performance and Improvement Manager on the Corporate Performance Plan.

Cabinet had before it, and NOTED, a verbal update * from the Corporate Manager for People, Governance & Waste on the Corporate Performance Dashboard.

The Corporate Performance and Improvement Manager outlined the contents of the report with particular reference to the following:

·         The performance dashboard gave an overview of Performance, Finance and risk. Each Policy Development Group and Planning Committee had a dashboard.

·         Dashboards were available on the Council website for public performance reporting.

·         The dashboard states the rag rating to show the performance.

Discussion took place regarding:

·         The management system for staff sickness to reduce and improve the sickness levels.

·         The amber and red rag rating to have an explanation and actions to improve these ratings.

·         The Council Tax collection to date, how did this track to where the Council needs to be?

·         National bench marking comparator data with the dashboard.

·         The challenges against targets that had been set.

·         To publicise the dashboard on the achievements made.

Note * Dashboard previously circulated.

To receive a report from the Corporate Manager for People, Governance & Waste and Corporate Performance and Improvement Manager on the Corporate Risk.

Cabinet had before it a report, and NOTED, * from the Corporate Manager for People, Governance & Waste on the Corporate Risk Report.

The Corporate Performance and Improvement Manager outlined the contents of the report with particular reference to the following:

·         The Corporate Risk Register contained the strategic risks which were most likely to impact the corporate priorities of Mid Devon District Council. It was reviewed at least quarterly by Corporate Managers and the Leadership Team and updated as required. It was then presented to the Audit committee and to Cabinet. Risks were managed on the Council’s corporate performance and risk management system, SPAR.

·         The corporate risks were presented on a risk matrix (heat map), Appendix 1. Information on each risk was presented in a standard template, Appendix 2. These risks have been determined by the Council’s Leadership Team in consultation with Corporate Managers and other Council officers.

Discussions took place regarding:

·         Narrative around the risk and how do the council define severity as 1 to 5 to understand the levels of severity.

Reason for Decision:

There were no direct financial implications arising from this report. However, risks which were not mitigated may have financial implications for the Council. Equally, the treatment of risk may require resources to be (re)allocated. Having a robust approach to risk management will continue to help the Council minimise future financial risks and implications. A number of the Corporate Risks being managed contain financial risk, such as CR7 Financial Sustainability.

Note * Report previously circulated.

To receive a report from Climate and Sustainability Specialist on the Biodiversity Duty.

Cabinet had before it a report * from the Climate and Sustainability Specialist on the statutory duty to conserve and enhance biodiversity.

The Cabinet Member for Climate Change outlined the contents of the report with particular reference to the following:

·         The first consideration to implement the biodiversity duty that came into law at the end of 2023.

·         A requirement for public authorities to assess how they can take action to conserve and enhance biodiversity, and then take these actions (beyond simply discharging its duties as the Local Planning Authority(LPA).

·         The aim was to provide for the enhancement or improvement of biodiversity, not just its maintenance in its current state.

·         To comply, a public authority must periodically consider the opportunities available across the full range of its functions. This represented a proactive, strategic assessment of a public authority’s functions, rather than considering each function in isolation.

·         The Climate sustainability specialist had coordinated preliminary consultants across the council about actions and policy areas where benefits could be delivered.

·         The Council shall establish district targets considered to be aligned with (i.e. will contribute positively towards) the requisite goals set out by government legislation and guidance. Targets should be achievable or surpassable, assuming a favourable strategic environment (with appropriate government funding, etc.).

·         The Council, as a local authority, must:

a) Consider what it can do to conserve and enhance biodiversity.

b) Agree policies and specific objectives based on its consideration.

c) Act to deliver its policies and achieve its objectives.

d) Report on its biodiversity duty actions. (Defra has guidance on this.)

·         The Climate sustainability specialist had coordinated across the Council regarding actions and policy areas  

The Climate Sustainability Specialist highlighted that the first consideration had been completed and the report sets out the next steps.

Discussion took place regarding:

·         The Planning policy and how much control the district council had for enforcing and introducing change for biodiversity.

RESOLVED that:

1.    To note that the Cabinet Member for Climate Change has submitted comment on this matter (to the Climate and Sustainability Specialist preliminary briefings) as the first consideration of what action to take with regard to this duty.

2.    To note that action and policy development will be split into two separate streams: either matters within the Council’s statutory Planning Policy making process and the statutory powers as a Local Planning Authority (largely governed and prescribed by national policy and through the work of the Forward Planning and Development Management teams); or items outside those functions, such as land and built asset management and its wider corporate operations.

3.    To note that the responsibility to deliver on the general biodiversity duty is shared across all Council operations. As such, this matter will be raised on agendas for all Policy Development Groups (PDGs) and, where within the jurisdiction of the LPA, the Planning and Policy Advisory Group (PPAG) to request input to the policy framework and action plan.

4.    That Cabinet delegates authority to the Cabinet Member for Climate  Change, the Director of Place  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

To receive a report from Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing on the Devon Serious Violence Strategy.

Cabinet had before it a report * from the Corporate Manager for Public Health, Regulation and Housing on the Serious Violence Duty Strategy.

The Cabinet Member for Community and Leisure outlined the contents of the report with particular reference to the following:

·         The Serious Violence Duty was a new legal responsibility introduced in 2023. It required specified authorities to work together to prevent and reduce serious violence in the area.

·         The core elements of this new duty Devon-wide are to:

            Prepare a local serious violence Strategic Needs Assessment.

            Prepare and publish a local strategy to prevent and reduce serious

Violence informed by that needs assessment.

·         Local authorities at District and County level and their Community Safety Partnerships are specifically named as specified authorities in the duty. Other such authorities are the Police, Probation and Youth Offending Teams, Fire authorities and the NHS Clinical Commissioning Groups. No one authority had a lead role.

·         There is a legal requirement to have completed the Strategic Needs Assessment in 2023, which was work completed by the Safer Devon Partnership (as the County upper-tier Community Safety Partnership). This was undertaken in collaboration with all the district Community Safety Partnerships including our East and Mid Devon Community Safety Partnership.

·         The duty governance arrangements build on existing peninsula wide partnership working between all Community Safety Partnerships and the Police and Crime Commissioner where the Council’s local Community Safety Partnership is represented through its membership and engagement with the Safer Devon Partnership.

·         The Safer Devon Partnership had been working hard to finalise the public-facing publication version of the strategy, which would be ready in the next week or so. In the meantime, all Safer Devon Partnership partners including Mid Devon had agreed and finalised the core strategy components as set out in Section 3 of the report. In particular, this included the six key priorities set out in Section 3.7 which formed the overall statement of intent of the strategy.

·         These priorities reflected the legal duty requirement to take a public health, preventative and trauma-informed approach. As defined focus areas, they are also in keeping with the duty by encompassing public space youth violence, including weapons-related violence and drug related criminal activities with a strong emphasis on young people.  They were of course also reflective of the findings around serious violence identified in the Devon Strategic Needs Assessment.

Discussion took place regarding:

·         The formula funding and how it had been split into areas and the populations within these.

·         Concerns about overall reasonability of the Serious Violence Duty Strategy.

·         The language used in the strategy regarding care experience or involved in children social care.

·         Devon wide Strategy and would this work with 9 Local authorities and would the strategy be shared before adopting?

·         The Strategy to go to Community Policy Development Group (PDG) before coming to Cabinet for adopting.

·         Dismantling of Youth services and facilities for young people.

·         When adopting the strategy would Mid Devon have their own priority order.

·         Request to consider renegotiating how the calculation of population  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

To receive a report from the Director of Place on Strategic Grant Review.

Cabinet had before it a report * from the Director of Place.

The Cabinet Member for Community and Leisure outlined the contents of the report with particular reference to the following:

·         The purpose of today’s report is to approve the funding decisions recommended by the Community PDG to be awarded to organisations as part of the Council’s strategic grants programme.  Secondly, to agree a recommended funding period of two years.

·         This Cabinet requested for 2024/25 that, in light of the financial pressures on the Council, the total Strategic Grants budget is capped at £120,000.  The Community PDG met on 28 November 2023 to review the grants with current recipients attending the meeting to give presentations on their services, how the funding is used and the potential implications of any reductions in grant funding on their service delivery.  Written submissions and accounts were also provided to that committee.

·         That despite the significant budget challenges as a Council, this Cabinet and the Community PDG have both expressed their steadfast dedication to keep awarding these discretionary grants. We have no obligation to award these grants. In these very difficult times as we seek to balance our future budget, the choice to continue to award them is a statement of how highly we value these organisations and the benefit they bring to our communities.

·         As part of the review, Members considered:

a) The criteria for the prioritisation of the agencies that should be funded;

b) The level of funding for each agency, taking into account the proposed budget by Cabinet and the impact of any proposed reductions on the organisation and on vulnerable residents that access support through that organisation.

c) The term of the funding period, taking into account the Council’s budgetary position and the need to provide certainty to strategic partners for the purposes of financial planning.

Consistent with previous reviews, Community PDG Members prioritised funding decisions against categories of eligible potential strategic partners, where group 1 was the highest priority, group 2 the next highest, group 3 the least:

Group 1: defined as providing essential services to residents that represent a strong strategic alignment with the Council’s objectives

Group 2: defined as providing important services to residents that represent some strategic alignment with the Council’s objectives

Group 3: recognised as providing valued but non-essential services to residents that represent a weak alignment with the Council’s objectives.

The Community PDG determined the following recommendations:

·         To assist with financial forecasting and planning for funding recipients, that the strategic grant offers are made for a two-year period (April 2024 to March 2026).

·         To ensure a balanced budget, organisations in group 1 to receive a 90% funding allocation compared to current award (10% reduction) and organisations in group 2 to receive an 85% funding allocation compared to current award (15% reduction). None of the organisations were classed as group 3.

·         The Community PDG also recommended that the next review to take place in 2025/26 be added to their forward plan.

·         It is essential to acknowledge  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

To note the contents of the Forward Plan.

The Cabinet had before it and noted the notification of Key Decisions.

One addition had been made to this since the publication of the document with the agenda for this meeting:

·         Review of the Safeguarding Policy.

Note: * Notification of Key Decisions previously circulated.