Agenda and minutes

to approve as a correct record and authorise the Chairman to sign the minutes of the meeting of the Executive held on 15 December 2016

E.52/16           

The minutes of the Executive meeting held on 15 December 2016 were confirmed as a true record and signed off by the Chairman.

Members are invited to declare any personal or disclosable pecuniary interests, including the nature and extent of such interests they may have in any items to be considered at this meeting;

E.53/16           

Members and officers were invited to declare any interests in the items of business to be considered during the course of this meeting and the following were made:

Cllr Hicks declared a personal interest in Item 10: ‘Adoption of UAV/Drone Policy’ (Minute E.59/16 below refers) by virtue of owning a drone.  He remained in the meeting during the debate but abstained from the vote;

Cllr Bastone declared an interest in line with the Executive Procedure Rules in Item 15 ‘Transfer of Land’ (Minute E.64/16 below refers), by virtue of being a local Ward Member.  He remained in the meeting during the debate but abstained from the vote.

a period of up to 15 minutes is available to deal with questions submitted to the Council in accordance with the Executive Procedure Rules;

E.54/16           

In accordance with Executive Procedure Rules, the following question had been submitted from Lou Selene-Sayell on behalf of ‘Don’t Bury Dartington Under Concrete’:

Asset of Community Value proposals by local residents for Green Space and the Wildlife Valley at Brimhay, Dartington have been refused.  However adjacent land was previously approved as an ACV by Ross Kennerley.

Please could these new applications be reconsidered as there is inconsistency in the refusal for listing as ACVs.

The Executive Portfolio Holder for Customer First responded to the question as follows:

‘There is no inconsistency. The Humpty Dumpty Nursery application was approved because ‘The asset complies with the national definition of an Asset of Community Value (ACV), as its current use furthers the social well-being and interests of the local community (by virtue of its use as a nursery) and it is realistic to think it will continue to do so.’ It should be noted that at the request of the owner of the nursery, the decision to list was subject to an internal review, with the decision to list being upheld.

The Brimhay Nursery and Brimhay Green nominations were not supported, because in both cases the land is connected to a residence under a single ownership (i.e. South Devon Rural Housing Association), and every part of the land can be reached without crossing land not owned by the single owner. It was therefore it the view of officers that the land nomination could not be listed in accordance with Schedule 1 of The ACV (England) Regulations 2012.

The case will no doubt be made for the community/social interest in the land, and that the Council did not take this into account. Officers noted that it was inconclusive whether or not the intention for the two nominations was as a garden/space primarily for the general community, or a garden/space primarily for residents, however even if the land did further the social wellbeing interests of the local community (meeting the requirement under the Localism Act), it still could not be listed as it does not meet the requirements of Schedule 1 of the ACV Regulations.

In conclusion, this land cannot be listed, as to do so would be contrary to Schedule 1 of the ACV Regulations. This point has been made repeatedly to the applicant before nominations were made, with both this and previous application to list this land as an ACV.’

A supplementary question was then asked by Trudy Turrell, a previously agreed substitute for Ms Selene-Sayell, as follows:

Do you think that should be the case, and are your decisions delivering the spirit of the Act on two pieces of land with different attributes?

The Executive Portfolio Holder responded that he was happy with the decisions made and quoted from Schedule 1 of the Regulations which, in referring to land which is not of community value and therefore may not be listed, advised that:

… land is connected with a residence if –

(a) the land,  ...  view the full minutes text for item E.54/16

E.55/16          

Members were presented with a report that set out the budget proposals for 2017-18, included the views of the joint meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel and the Development Management Committee held on 19 January 2017, and details of changes to the budget gap from the previous report considered on 15 December 2016 (Minute E.50/16 refers).

The Leader introduced the report, and in doing so highlighted particular areas of interest.  He and the s151 Officer responded to questions.  He also advised that, in subsequent years, the presentation of the budget would be in a different format. 

Members discussed the budget pressures within Environment Services, and during discussion on the reduction of the Settlement Funding Assessment, the Executive Member for Business Development confirmed that the Council worked with SPARSE to lobby central government in respect of fairness for rural authorities.

The Executive Member for Support Services thanked officers for the production of a comprehensive report.

It was then:

RESOLVED

That Council be RECOMMENDED:

E.56/16          

Members were presented with a report that set out the Capital Bids to the 2017/18 Capital Programme totalling £2,415,000 and a suggested way that the Bids could be funded. 

The Leader introduced the report and advised Members that talks were currently underway with Devon County Council in respect of Disabled Facilities Grants funding and those figures may change.

It was then:

RESOLVED

That Council be RECOMMENDED:

E.57/16          

Members were presented with a report that set out how the Council had been exploring the possibility of establishing a Local Authority Controlled Company (LACC) jointly with West Devon Borough Council.  A Joint Steering Group (JSG) consisting of Members from both Councils had been formed to consider further detailed information and to make a final recommendation to the Council in respect of the LACC Proposal.  Having fully considered the matter, the JSG had concluded that there were no legal or technical matters that would prevent the Councils implementing a LACC. 

However, there were significant additional initial costs (particularly Pensions contributions) in establishing a LACC and therefore the recommendation to both Councils was to not proceed with the implementation of a LACC as currently proposed.  The full JSG recommendations were set out in Appendix 1 to the presented report.   The JSG recognised the value of holding regular meetings to discuss matters affecting both Councils (such as shared services arrangements and particularly around exploring further options to meet both Councils’ financial challenges) and recommended that these meetings continue to consider future opportunities.

The Leader presented the report and, with the Executive Directors, responded to questions.  He also introduced an additional recommendation to formally propose that the Council did not proceed with a LACC in its current proposed form.  A JSG Member stated that a lot of good work had been undertaken by the JSG and it was important to retain that effort in moving forward.

One Member was concerned that, if agreed, the role of the JSG Members would be in line with the responsibilities of Executive Members.  Whilst a number of his concerns had been addressed by the Monitoring Officer, he felt that it was appropriate for the Terms of Reference of the revised JSG to be approved by full Council.  A number of Members agreed and the Leader proposed an amendment to the published recommendation accordingly.  This was duly accepted and it was agreed that the Terms of Reference would be presented to the Special Council meeting on 2 March 2017.

Another Member noted that there would be an inconsistency if the remainder of the recommendations were to be approved at the February meeting of Council, but the Terms of Reference at the March meeting of Council.  It was therefore proposed that the whole report be deferred to the March meeting of Council and that revised Terms of Reference would be included within the agenda papers for that report.

Members sought specific detail in respect of monies spent on this project and assurances were given that the total cost would be in the public domain once negotiations had been completed.

It was then:

RESOLVED

That Council be RECOMMENDED at its meeting on 2 March 2017 that:

E.58/16           

Members were presented with a report that set out information arising from workshops previously arranged for Members to discuss the finance and investment principles upon which they could bring forward income generation, investment strategy or efficiency improvement opportunities for future consideration by the Council.

The Executive Member for Business Development introduced the report and advised Members that the report recommended the formation of a Working Group to take initiatives and projects forward. 

Members were broadly supportive of this report and suggested that the remit of items for consideration be as broad as possible.

It was then:

RESOLVED

E.59/16          

Members were presented with a report that proposed formal adoption of the Drone Policy as set out in presented Appendix A.

The Executive Member for Customer First introduced the report and explained that the principle of the policy had previously been agreed but significant changes had been made to the draft version presented to Members and for that reason it was appropriate that the revised version be approved.

It was then:

RESOLVED

E.60/16          

Members were presented with a report that asked Members to note the emergency arrangements proposed to support the plan and any response that may be required, and to recommend those arrangements to Council.

The Leader introduced the report and the Senior Specialist Environmental Health responded to specific questions.  Members discussed training needs, and the importance of parish councils having emergency plans in place. 

In response to a comment that the Overview and Scrutiny Panel be asked to look at the detail of the Plan, the Leader responded that the role for Overview and Scrutiny was to ensure that the Council had a robust plan in place, as in this instance the Council was only part of a bigger picture.

It was then:

RESOLVED

1.     That the Emergency Response Plan produced by the Devon Emergency Planning Service as presented at Appendix 1 had been considered; and

E.61/16          

Members were presented with a report that presented the ICT Strategy for approval, and noted that the Strategy would be reviewed on an annual basis to incorporate changing business requirements and technology.

The Executive Member for Support Services introduced the report and for background, set out the responsibilities of staff within the ICT Service.  He also elaborated on the information contained within the exempt appendix.

Members raised recent ICT issues, particularly with the Council website.  The Group Manager Support Services responded that the new website would shortly be rolled out and explained how the improvements would overcome the recent difficulties.

It was then:

RESOLVED

E.62/16          

Members were presented with a report that sought approval of the release of s106 funds for the delivery of the green travel measures at the Follaton Oak development in Totnes. 

The Executive Member for Customer First introduced the report, and outlined to Members that the approval was being sought in line with Council Financial Procedure Rules.  The local Ward Members in attendance spoke in favour of the approval and sought further information on timescales.

It was then:

RESOLVED that:

1.    The release of s106 funds for the delivery of the green travel measures at the Follaton Oak development in Totnes, as set out in the report, be approved; and

2.   Authority be delegated to the relevant Specialist in consultation with Ward Member(s) and the Executive Portfolio Holder to agree any specific details.

“That in accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business in order to avoid the likely disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act”;         

E.63/16          

RESOLVED

That in accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item of business as the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 3 and 5 of Schedule 12A to the Act is involved.

E.64/16          

Members were presented with a report that informed them of an in principle agreement that had been reached following six months of discussions in respect of the transfer of land, and sought authority for the COP Lead Assets to conclude negotiations of the transfer of land in consultation with the s151 Officer, Head of Paid Service and Leader of the Council.

It was then:

RESOLVED

(NOTE: THESE DECISIONS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF E.56/16, E.57/16, E.58/16, E.59/16, E.60/16 PART 2, E.61/16 AND E.64/16 WHICH ARE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNCIL MEETING TO BE HELD ON 9 FEBRUARY 2017 AND 2 MARCH 2017, WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE FROM 5.00PM ON MONDAY, 13 FEBRUARY 2017 UNLESS CALLED IN, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SCRUTINY PROCEDURE RULE 18).