Agenda item

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

Mr Byrom referring to Item 6 (Local Plan Review – Inspectors report on adoption) on the agenda stated that he had no intention to try to block or change the plan but would formally like to pose the following question: Please will this Cabinet today do what is needed to make the following recommendation to full Council on 29 July 2020:

“MDDC Cabinet recommends that an additional (minor) modification be made to

the policies map for SP2. The dotted line marking the extension of the village

settlement area should be moved so that all the Green Infrastructure at the site is

left in countryside” and he referred to the plan circulated to the Cabinet which referred to figure 4.

He added that the proposed change would not materially affect the plan. It would –

·         leave every word of the text of SP2 unaltered from that finally recommended

by the Inspector

·          keep the location and extent of the Green Infrastructure exactly as shown on

the policies map

·         be entirely consistent with and reinforce the clear intent of the policy

concerning the area of Green Infrastructure

·         leave all the policy’s Green Infrastructure in the countryside, providing it with

extra protection against development under Policy S14

·         require minimal work - no more than a simple alteration to one map

·         be consistent with the way GI is treated at Tiverton, Cullompton and Crediton

where GI can already be found beyond the edge of settlements.

The Chairman indicated that an answer would be provided when the item was debated.

The Chairman read a statement on behalf of Mr Quinn referring to, Item 10: Annual Treasury Management Review 2019/20.

In Section 8, sub section 2 (Non-Treasury Management Investments), figures are given for the Council loans to the Company and it is stated that: “these loans are subject to overarching management review on a regular basis. This is reflected in the impairments, made in periodic monitoring reports and in a year-end review, totalling £790,000”. 

Yet the Company was loaned nearly six and a half Million Pounds in this year.

Lending such an amount to a Company that is openly saying it might not pay its’ debts on time, inevitably raises questions.

One such question was asked at Audit Committee, on 23 June 2020, where the Committee was asked for “an assurance that all loans were made with due diligence and competence by MDDC Officers, fully in accordance with the usual business risk management processes”.

The Deputy Chief Executive/ S151 Officer promised a “full and thorough response” - but no response appears in the Audit Committee Minutes.

My first question is: Where can I see this response?

With regard to Agenda item 13:- 3 Rivers Developments Ltd Feedback.

In the second paragraph of the ‘Legal Implications’ section, the Chief Executive makes a clear statement that: “Neither Officers nor Members are able to put themselves in a situation where their duty to the Council conflicts with their duty to the Company”.

He then retracts this clarity by continuing: “in so far as Officers are concerned - as their duty to the Council arises from their terms and conditions of employment. The Council, as their employer, is able to amend the terms and conditions, so that when Officers are acting in their role as a Director of the Company, they act in the best interests of the Company”.

My second question is: Has any Officer ever had their terms and conditions of employment amended in the way that the Chief Executive describes?

The Chairman indicated that that a response would be sent in due course.