Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Cllr N Bradshaw.

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

Barry Warren

SHO13A - Cost of Abortive Zed Pods Capital Projects transferred to Revenue - £455,300. This seems to be the loss of a large amount of money which the Council is burying.

Question 1:

How many projects were aborted?

Question 2:

Why was such a large amount expended before the projects were aborted?

SHO01 - A provision of £234k is shown as Housing Rent Error overcharge, which resulted in more than £7 million being wrongly paid by tenants to the Council.

Question 3:

Is this the cost of the team working on this?

Question 4:

If not, what is this amount for?

It is proposed to transfer money from the Housing Maintenance Fund final reserve to cover both these costs (totalling nearly £700,000).

Question 5:

How can failed Zed Pods projects be classed as Housing Maintenance?

Question 6:

Does this transfer mean that ready money will no longer be available for any housing maintenance emergencies that may suddenly occur?

Question 7:

Isn’t this just a way to lower the Housing Maintenance Reserve, so the Council can argue that paying back the full tenant overpayments will threaten the Council’s ability to maintain the housing stock?

Contract Decision – Mid Devon Housing Build

This contract for the construction of a pair of semi-detached houses in Cullompton has been put out to tender and Cabinet is now being asked to decide to whom the contract should be awarded.

The Council has gone out to tender for a contract to build these houses which is valued at less than £1 million.

Question 8:

Why did the Council give multiple multimillion pound contracts for house builds direct to Zed Pods without going through this tender process?

Paul Elstone

The construction of a pair of 2-bedroom semi-detached properties at Honiton Road, Cullompton is part of this Councils social housing portfolio. This being Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Project Number 51 

Under Financial Implication in the Cabinet Report, it says the Housing Revenue Account budget is £600,000 for this project. 

Yet the approved HRA Capital Programme 2025/26 onwards, says that the budgeted cost for this project is £387,000. 

And the recent ZED POD modular home value for money benchmarking report, put to Scrutiny Committee, says the total cost of the project is £444,854. A very precise figure and despite the development even being started.  I have called the benchmarking report fundamentally and fatally flawed because of some very basic and high value calculation errors.

My efforts to have the report fully reviewed and properly audited so Council Members could ensure best value for money have abjectly failed. A lack of response I am disappointed to say that has become the norm for this Council. 

The Honiton Road project does not seem to be anything like value for money, especially so given it is traditional build. That it is not so energy efficient and will not receive Homes England and Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) grant funding. Something a Category 2 MMC panel system build could or would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

To record any interests on agenda matters.

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 April 2025.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 1 April 2025 were APPROVED as a correct record and SIGNED by the Leader.

To receive a verbal update from the Leisure Manager on Digital Transformation.

Cabinet received a verbal update from the Service Delivery Manager on the Digital Transformation update.

The following was highlighted:

• Cabinet had previously approved the digital transformation of the Leisure Service, the leisure management system and leisure application had been implemented.
• The swimming lesson software was in the early stages of implementation and access control was now out to tender.
• The Leisure Service went ‘live’ with Flow.
• The database of over 12k customers, the data was imported from an old system with only 6 known errors which were easily remedied (for perspective, companies usually imported with around 600 errors).
• The officers were thanked for their work, the delivery team that had made the project possible and who had worked tirelessly to build the system, in a tight timescale, in order to meet the deadline required.
• The new app was launched on Monday 7April which had been a great success. Customer feedback had been extremely positive and the ease of the new booking journey had been especially well received. To date there had been 3,570 app downloads.
• Lot 2.2, access control, was an ongoing project. A tender process had taken place in April 2025 however there had not been a successful outcome. With only two applications, neither of which were deemed suitable.
• Lot 2.1, course software, was an integral part of the digital transformation for leisure. This system would mainly be utilised for the lesson programme, of circa 2.4k customers, as well as the running of commercial courses.

Discussion took place with regard to:

• The application was easy to use and rolled out in good time.

To receive a report from the Deputy Chief Executive (S151) Officer on the 2024/2025 Annual Treasury Management review report.

Cabinet had before it a report * from the Deputy Chief Executive (S151) and the Head of Finance, Property and Climate Resilience on the 2024/25 Annual Treasury Management Review Report.

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

• Treasury management was a specialist area that required a number of important indicators to be approved.
• The level of capital expenditure for the year and how it had been funded, either through existing resources or through increasing the funding requirement.
• The Council maintained an under-borrowed position, meaning it was able to use reserves, balances and cash flow to meet that funding requirement without the need for external borrowing.
• The report set out the limits for borrowing, showing that the Council was well within them and the timeframes for the repayment of the existing external loans.
• Investments conformed to the approved strategy and there were no liquidity difficulties. Indeed, healthy returns from investments were achieved averaging 4.89%, helping to invest in service delivery.
• All regulations were adhered to, all policies were complied with and no external borrowing was required.

RESOLVED that:

1. The treasury activities for the year be NOTED.
2. That Cabinet recommend to Full Council that the actual 2024/25 prudential and treasury indicators in this report be APPROVED.

(Proposed by Cllr J Downes and seconded by Cllr J Wright)

Reason for Decision:

Good financial management and administration underpinned the entire document. The Council’s treasury position was constantly reviewed to ensure its continued financial health.

Note: *Report previously circulated

To receive a report from the Deputy Chief Executive (S151) Officer on the 2024/2025 Revenue and Capital Outturn Report.

Cabinet had before it a report * from the Deputy Chief Executive (S151) and the Head of Finance, Property and Climate Resilience on the 2024/2025 Revenue and Capital Outturn Report.

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

• The net cost of services charged to the General Fund and the Housing Revenue Accounts (HRA) for 2024/25, subject to Audit Committee.
• The Outturn position for the General Fund was an under spend of £1,547k. This was a major corporate achievement and reflected the hard work and efforts of managers and services during the year.

• The success of securing £33.5m of funding to deliver the Cullompton Relief Road, where previous attempts had failed. This could help facilitate further progress on the Garden Village, J28 enhancement and the reopening of the railway station in Cullompton;
• Increased levels of membership at our leisure centres by over 500 or nearly 9%, driving up income and reducing the £1m subsidy by over £400k;
• Further increased waste collection, both in terms of what was collected and how much collected. This placed the Council as the 11^th highest in the country.
• Incredible collection rates for Business Rates (99.8%) and Council Tax (97.6%) – making the Council one of the best in the country.
• Reduced staff turnover and sickness, avoiding recruitment and agency costs previously experienced.
• The HRA position was more challenging due to a number of one off matters that caused an over spend of £1,727k. Those included the implications of the historic rent setting error, the sale of Post Hill and sunk costs on non-viable development sites.
• Despite the HRA over spend, the Council’s reserves remained healthy with the General Fund remaining at £2.025m, above the £2m minimum agreed balance as shown in Appendix 3.
• The Capital outturn position showed spend of over £23m, split £8m on General Fund projects and c£154m on HRA housing both existing housing and developing new homes. Of the General Fund spend, £2m was on the initial stages of the Cullompton Relief Road, nearly £1m had been spent on adaptions to housing for disabled residents enabling them to stay longer in their own homes.
• As previously reported, during 2024/25 a historic error was identified in the calculation of Social Rent. Following the Council’s self-referral to the regulator, they had issued their judgement which also highlighted the proactive steps being taken to correct the issue. All of the overcharged rents had been corrected and the detailed work required to identify the precise level of tenant refunds was being progressed.

Discussion took place with regards to:

• Clarification around the salary underspend due to the delay in recruitment and delayed usage of contingencies to fund compliance. 
• Was the cost of converting St Georges Court final?
• What was driving the deficit in the collection rate forecast?

RESOLVED that:

1. The Outturn achieved in 2024/25 which showed a net under spend of £1,547k (11.8% on the Net Total Expenditure Budget) for the General Fund, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To receive a report from the Director of Place and Economy on the Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) and Rural England Prosperity Fund (REPF): 2024/25 Closure and 2025/26 Delivery

Cabinet had before it a report * from the Director of Place and Economy on the Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) and Rural England Prosperity Fund (RESP) and the 2024/25 Closure and 2025/26 Delivery.

The Cabinet Member for Planning and Economic Regeneration outlined the contents of the report with particular reference to the following:

• The previous Government launched the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF).  Those funding sources replaced funding previously available under the European Structural and Investment Funds.
• The successful delivery of the previous SPF and Rural England Prosperity Fund (REPF) programme between 2022 and 2025 was particularly pleasing given that there were significant delays in the previous Government issuing confirmation of funding which substantially reduced the window for delivery. Clearly, despite short lead in times to delivery from the original Government announcements and the diversity and volume of the grants given, the performance on spend and utilisation was exceptionally strong at 99% spend of the REPF programme and 95% of the SPF programme.
• The high percentage of delivery reflected the hard work and effort invested by the Economic Development Team in proactively managing spend, identifying challenges and slippages and ensuring re-allocation of returned or unutilised funding.
• In autumn 2024 the Government would offer an additional year of Shared Prosperity Funding; subsequently it was announced that there would also be an additional year of Rural England Prosperity Funding.  This funding now flowed to upper tier authorities, being administered by the County Council on behalf of the Combined County Authority – although it had been agreed that delivery would continue to principally be directed through the District Authorities.
• The Delivery Plan proposals were developed in consideration of the Council’s Corporate Aims and Strategic Objectives, drawing also from the previously prepared investment plans submitted to the Government at the beginning of the UKSPF programme.  Some projects were proposed to be taken forward by the County Council and others by the District Council.  Those proposals had been the basis of the County Council’s submission to MHCLG.
• There were a number of restrictions with regard to these funding streams. Importantly funds needed to be spent and projects delivered by 31st March 2026. There was therefore a very short window for delivery from a relatively standing start, which was particularly challenging for projects that needed other approvals such as planning permission.  Mindful of the need to turn around schemes quickly, it was proposed that a small grants panel be established on the same basis that the existing Shopfront Enhancement Schemes were currently assessed and as set out within the report. It was proposed that this panel would be able to convene quickly and would determine grant funding requests up to the value of £30k.

Discussion took place with regards to:

• Those able to apply for funding and the rules around this.
• Some grants required those to bid for them that were complicated, would the Council be able to support those that need help?
• To have more robust communication about the funding to ensure more people were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To receive a verbal update from the Director of Place and Economy on the Cullompton Town Centre Relief Road.

Cabinet received a verbal update from the Director of Place and Economy on the Cullompton Town Centre Relief Road

The Cabinet Member for Planning and Economic Regeneration outlined the following:

• As Cabinet would be aware; there was significant effort and achievement in securing Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) monies from Homes England in order to enable the delivery of the long awaited Cullompton Town Centre Relief Road (CTCRR).
• In securing funding and commencing delivery, the Council was able to begin to address long running infrastructure challenges within Cullompton and enable the delivery of additional homes at North West Cullompton and the first elements of new housing to the east of the M5, at the site of the proposed Garden Village.
• Agreements had now been completed with Homes England and Devon County Council in order to allow the drawing down and utilisation of funding. Devon County Council would also continue to act as the Council’s delivery partner (as highways authority) in relation to the CTCRR.

• The first phase of works to enable relocation of the Cricket club had completed through works to deliver the new cricket square.
• Devon County Council had completed the acquisition of several land parcels in order to enable delivery of the road. This included the acquisition of the land required from Tesco. Furthermore, several of those transactions occurred before the end of the last financial year – thereby making good use of the funding available from Homes England within the financial year.

• Discussions continued with affected landowners where land interests or compensation still needed to be acquired or finalised;
• Further works was currently underway in relation to the cricket club – with outfield works to complete the creation of the pitch now underway, and;
• Works to refine and finesse the design and engineering components of the scheme were underway in order to get to a fixed design to allow tendering to occur.
• The intention remained to commence the main body of construction works during 2026 with completion and road opening in 2028. However, earlier enabling works were also expected to occur during this calendar year.
• Members would be aware of the positive news shared via the MP’s offices regarding the decision to fund the Cullompton and Wellington railwaystations and looked forward to further information on this cascading down from Department of Transport (DfT) and Treasury in due course.
• Positive decision in relation to the J28 Strategic Outline Business Case by Treasury in order to address congestion issues around the junction and wider town, but also to unlock the next phase of growth for Cullompton – including further delivery of new homes to the east of the M5 and beyond the current cap of 500 homes. 

Discussion took place with regards to:

• The timeframe around the planned works to be completed.
• Any foreseeable delays on the project?
• Clarification about the 500 homes open at Culm Garden Village.
• The proposed plans on the railway station.
• The lack of growth over the last 20 years and this needed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

To receive a report from the Director of Place and Economy on the Stage 1 Consultation Responses.

Cabinet had before it a report * from the Director of Place and Economy on the Stage 1 Consultation Response.

The Cabinet Member for Planning and Economic Regeneration outlined the contents of the report with particular reference to the following:

• Area B made up a part of the strategic allocation that lay to the east of Tiverton. The advancement of Area B had stalled until recently when West Country Land started to work proactively across the allocation to secure ownership or options on about 90% of the land making up Area B.
• The Councils planning policy required the completion of a master planning exercise on Area B prior to planning permission. West Country Land had therefore been working collaboratively with the Council to accelerate the production of a masterplan across the area.  Together the Council and West Country Land undertook a Stage 1 public consultation between November 2024 and January 2025.
• It set out the number, location and attendance at the consultation events and the number of consultee responses.
• Appendix 1 gave an officer summary of the main issues – set out under the 8 headings asked at the public consultation.
• This report was presented at the Planning Policy Advisory Group (PPAG) meeting on 19 May 2025 at which detailed consideration and discussion was given to the responses made under each of the 8 headings presented at the public consultation. 
• A provisional timetable for the next stages in the production of the masterplan were set out in the report including a Stage 2 public consultation on the Area B Masterplan during August / September 2025.

Discussion took place with regards to:

• The configurations of the roads and provisions that were in place.
• No mention of Primary and Secondary School provisions, were they in Area A?
• The Overdevelopment with little consideration for the existing residents of Mayfair and access for those 10 dwellings from Area B not Mayfair.
• The no road traffic access to Mayfair.
• The Completions of the Phase 2 of the A361 road junction.

RESOLVED that:

The comments received at the Stage 1 public consultation (Appendix 1) be NOTED.

(Proposed by the Leader)

Reason for Decision:

No budget had been set aside by the Council to support the production of the masterplan. It would largely be funded by the developer including the production of the draft masterplan for public consultation, booking of venues and neighbour consultation.

Note: *Report previously circulated

Discussion with regard to the next item, will require Cabinet to pass the following resolution to exclude the press and public having reflected on Article 12 12.02(d) (a presumption in favour of openness) of the Constitution. This decision will be required because consideration of this matter in public may disclose information falling within one of the descriptions of exempt information in Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972. The Cabinet need to decide whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption, outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

Recommended that under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the next item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 respectively of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, namely information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information.

The Leader indicated that discussion with regard to the following item, may require the Cabinet to pass the following resolution to exclude the press and public having reflected on Article 12 12.02 (d) (a presumption in favour of openness) of the Constitution. This decision was required because consideration of this matter in public would disclose information falling within one of the descriptions of exempt information in Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972. The Cabinet decided, in all circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption interest in disclosing the information, outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.

It was RESOLVED that the meeting remain in Part 1.

To receive a report from the Head of Housing and Health on the Contract Decision- Mid Devon Housing Build.

Cabinet had before it a report * from the Head of Housing and Health on the Contract Decision - Mid Devon Housing Build.

The Cabinet Member for Housing, Assets and Property Services outlined the contents of the report with particular reference to the following:

• The results of the tendering of the Honiton Road new development contract for the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and to confirm the award of the contract.

• In the Council’s Corporate Plan, Mid Devon Housing (MDH) were investing in completing new development projects to provide new affordable homes within its district.
• The Honiton Road scheme was a pair of 2-bed semi-detached properties built on land adjacent to 1 Honiton Road, Cullompton. This property had significant curtilage with the land and property within HRA ownership.
• Access was relatively restricted to the front and side of the property, consequently it was unsuitable for HGV delivery of modular homes and the scheme would be a traditional build with improvements to the existing access to provide off-road parking for the new and existing properties.
• The allocated budget for the work was £600,000.00 with the build-contract tender submissions below this. The additional budget would adequately allow for pre planning and planning costs alongside HRA management and direct on-costs with some project contingency.

Discussion took place with regards to:

• How many houses had been built in the last 2 years.
• Where and what will be the impacts to the neighbouring residents during the development and how will these be managed?

RESOLVED that:

• The new Honiton Road New Development Contract, to be AWARDED to Contractor 4.
• Delegated authority to the S151 Officer (in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing, Assets and Property) to complete the associated Honiton Road New Development Contract be GRANTED.

(Proposed by Cllr J Lock and seconded by Cllr M Fletcher)

Reason for Decision:

The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) budget for the works is £600,000.00. Further information was provided in the report and as set out fully in Part II Annex A.

Note: *Report previously circulated

To note the contents of the Forward Plan.

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

The Clerk identified the changes that had been made to the list since it was published with the agenda.

This included the following:

·         Mid Devon Housing (MDH) Mobility Scooter in Flats Policy had been added to October.

Note: * Key Decisions Report previously circulated.