Agenda item

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

 

Barry Warren

 

My questions relate to item 5 on the agenda and in particular comments from the Deputy Chief Executive (S151 Officer) in his report at Paragraph 2.4 – the first bullet point where it states:

Pressure, REF 17, reduced maintenance costs through the transfer of assets or increased financial contributions from Town or Parish Councils – looking unlikely this will be achieved given the limited conversations – moving the £50k pressure from Amber to Green. However, conversations continue with several Town and Parish Councils on the potential transfer of assets or increased financial contributions. 

 

This last sentence is a problem for me and our Parish Council.

 

At the end of last year, our Clerk wrote to the Deputy Chief Executive with an enquiry about the Parish taking over complete ownership of two of the main sites located in Willand. But no response, not even an acknowledgement, was forthcoming from the Deputy Chief Executive - even after the Clerk sent him a reminder.

 

Our Parish Council lease six of the nine Mid Devon District Council (MDDC) play/open space areas within the village. Historically we would have taken over ownership of them, but officers would only agree 25-year leases. They are maintained more frequently and better than the MDDC areas. Over the past 12 months the Parish has spent about £35,800 + VAT on these areas which have been a saving to MDDC.

 

It is very disappointing to see the generalised, almost critical comments, of the Deputy Chief Executive when our Parish has done as much as we have, at some cost to our Parish, without much recognition.

 

Question 1:

Is it recognised that Willand Parish Council has been positive in their response?

 

Question 2:

What are the alleged conversations which have taken place with our Parish?

 

Question 3:

Is MDDC going to engage with the Parish Council in relation to the latest approach?

 

Question 4:

Alternatively does this lack of response indicate that the Parish Council should consider a hand back of the leases?  

 

Question 5:

Under REF 17 is there an error in moving from Amber to Green?  Should this be Amber to Red or removed completely?

 

The Deputy Leader stated that Mr Warren would receive a written response to his questions in 10 working days. 

 

Paul Elstone

 

Question 1:

The Phoenix Lane multi story car park is in a prime location, having very close access to shops and other facilities not least public transport.

Several Local Authorities have or are currently progressing cost-effective conversions of redundant multi story car park space into accommodation units.

Has this Council commissioned a fully independent technical and cost feasibility study in respect of making use of the redundant upper levels for the purpose of providing either a Category 1 or 2 MMC social housing development?

 

Question 2:

If a feasibility study has been done, will you make it available for public examination?

 

Question 3:

Failure to investigate this option would indicate that social housing in Mid Devon is not the high priority currently being projected.

That a Phoenix Lane solar panel project costing £640,000 and with a near 10-year payback period takes priority over the real potential of being able to house many families in need. This at a lower cost and in a less contentious location than its present plans.

If this Council has not conducted a feasibility study, will they do so before Cabinet agrees this officer recommendation to approve the Phoenix Lane multi story car park solar panel project?

 

Question 4:

Much is being made of the Governments fair funding cuts causing financial distress to this Council.  A Council which charges well above the County and Country average Band D District Council Tax amounts.

 

It is noted that after many expenditures cuts the Draft 2026/27 General Fund Budget still shows a shortfall of over £1 million.

 

This Council purchased five properties at Haddon Heights Bampton at a top market price of £3.15 million in March 2024

 

After being subject to an over £200,000 plus price reduction, these five properties have not been openly marketed since July 2025. 

 

The estimated loss to date is around £600,000 this inclusive of price reduction, lost investment income and double Council Tax.

 

Time prevents from commenting on the reasons for these properties being taken off the market other than to say after speaking to the existing residents, it is believed that yet again members and the public have been knowingly misled.

 

Will this Cabinet and this Administration look at its own gross financial failings even it is believed maladministration before always blaming others for the state of its finances?

 

The Deputy Leader stated that Mr Elstone would receive a written response to his questions in 10 working days. 

 

Nick Quinn

 

Agenda Item 11 – The Leisure Pricing Strategy

 

Firstly, I commend the Cabinet for considering this report in open session, instead of excluding the public and press as they have done in previous years.

 

Question 1:

This is another case where officers have put forward, for approval, a price rise report that contains errors.

 

At paragraph 3.5, the report states that there is a concessionary discount of “25% off 'Pay as You Go' sessions”.

 

But at paragraph 3.10, in the Price Table which you are being asked to approve, the new concession prices have not been discounted by 25%.

 

For example: The proposed Fitness Studio price is £8.65 and the proposed concession price is £7.00. A discount of 25% would mean concessions should only pay £6.49.

 

All of the concession prices shown in this table are wrong.

 

Will Cabinet please refuse to consider this Leisure Pricing report and ask that a revised, and accurate, report be submitted to their next meeting?

 

Question 2:

In this report, officers are making a 3% increase on the previous leisure session prices and then rounding-up to the next 5p, for the new price.

 

This rounding-up is overcharging.

 

An example can be seen in the table:  For a junior swim session, a 3% increase would put the current price up to £3.81 - but this is then rounded-up to a proposed price of £3.85.

 

That is an extra 1%.

 

I know that price rounding is often done to ‘simplify’ cash payments. But all Leisure Service payments are electronic (no cash accepted), so percentage increase can be applied directly to session prices without any problem.

 

The proposed prices increase charges by more than the stated percentage. If Cabinet are minded to approve a percentage increase to Leisure rises, will they ask that the rise on current prices is properly calculated and only increased to the nearest penny?

 

The Deputy Leader stated that Mr Quinn would receive a written response to his questions in 10 working days. 

 

 

Andrew Moore

 

Question 1: 

The Council is proposing to spend a significant capital sum on the solar scheme in meeting its 'climate action' and 'carbon reduction' objectives.  However, these objectives could readily be achieved without any capital cost and associated risks simply by switching to a provider using only sustainable electricity sources.  Has such an option been fully researched in developing proposed options for consideration, and if not why not?  Or, in fact, is the Council using such a supplier already to meet its strategy?  If it is, of course, then there are reduced CO2 savings to be made.

 

Question 2: 

Agenda Item 6.  The benefit claimed is a possible 215 tCO2e by year 5 of the project.  The methodology used is not explained.  Has the whole-scheme carbon budget been presented to Cabinet properly to understand the actual carbon reduction?  For example, has the significant CO2 'capital cost' associated with all materials sourcing, manufacture, supply, transportation, installation, and all associated project works (eg surface preparation, construction, etc) been assessed?   What is the 'break-even' point (using Discounted Returns Flow techniques) where the CO2 'capital cost' has been amortised by annual CO2 savings?  Without this, how can Cabinet properly understand what carbon reduction will be achieved in the lifetime of the scheme?

 

Question 3:  Agenda Item 6 

The BESS installations are known to be a significant fire hazard due to thermal runaway, although this is not identified in the risks.  Is Cabinet fully aware of the hazards associated with BESS and has a full fire safety analysis been undertaken for what must be a high-risk location atop a car park, next to a hotel, in the heart of Tiverton?

 

Question 4:  Agenda Item 8

The General Fund Budget shortfall for FY 26/27 is predicted to be over £1 million.  The proposed grant sum of £20 k is only the headline for this item.  What is the administrative cost of the scheme, and why has the Council not been clear about the total cost of the scheme to Council Tax payers?  The carbon benefit, in line with previous years, is forecast to be 1 and 10 tCO2e.  Is Cabinet aware that this is less than just one person's annual CO2 footprint?  Given the severe financial challenges the Council faces, the fact that the cost is actually much greater than the simple grant amount, and that there is near negligible carbon-saving benefit, why does the Council consider such expenditure a high priority compared with cash-strapped services, even charity grants, that would be of more immediate benefit to the local community?

 

The Deputy Leader stated that Mr Moore would receive a written response to his questions in 10 working days