Transcript

Good morning, welcome to the Executive Meeting on Tuesday 4th June 2024. Apologies for absence. I have one which is Councillor Taylor. I have Managing Director Phil Shears. Thank you very much. Minutes. Do we agree the minutes are a true and fair representation of what went on proposed by Deputy Chair, seconded by Councillor John Nutley. Show of hands, please. Thank you, that's unanimous. Announcements. I think I have none. Oh, no, I will make an announcement. I would like to welcome, I knew what I was going to say. I would like to welcome Councillors, Councillors Williams and Buscombe to the Executive. Your first Executive Meeting, so thank you very much. Look forward to great things from you. And that's it, I think from me. Declarations of interest. Do we have any? I have one, but it's not really a declaration of interest. In terms of South West Water, I did take up their water shares option. Purely on the basis that allowed me to go along to the Annual General Meetings to make noise, which I have yet to do, but I will be doing at the next one. I think it's not a controlling interest and there's no significance in monetary value, but I'll just put it there anyway. So I intend to take full part in the conversation. How many shares? Two? Ten? It's a handful. Compared to their millions of shares, it's non-significant. But there's a particular reason for asking because that's very relevant. I shall provide you details of what I currently have. Thank you. OK. Executive Forward Plan. Any comments or thoughts on the Executive Forward Plan at this time? No. Can I see a show of hands to note that, please? Thank you very much. OK. Moving on to public questions. We have one member of the public here. This is Jenny Dingsdale. You've had a written response. Do you have any further supplementary question? Would you like to come to a microphone? Thank you very much for the response. I think it's a great idea to refer it to the Prevent Partnership, so I will email them and let them know my thoughts. But I do worry that this doesn't address the spread of this really harmful ideology within the Council. We've seen it quite a few times already. So would you commit to an internal investigation and assessment of the harms that this ideology has caused within the Council and future plans to prevent further harm? Thank you for your question. Can I ask Councillor Goodman Bradbury if she'd like to provide a verbal or written answer? Thank you, Chair. I don't think at this point I can make that kind of commitment to you. What I want to do is to make a written response to you. And, yeah, I think that's probably the best way forward. Would you like me to copy you into the email to the Prevent Partnership? Absolutely, yeah, that's fine. OK, thank you very much. Moving on, a strategic asset plan, which I think is going to be presented by Councillor Palesor and we have Councillor Parker. Not here, registered to speak. OK. Sorry, Councillor Paul Parker. Councillor Palesor. Yes, thank you, Chair. One of the things about assets and estates, as people have seen from the strategic asset plan, the three part that has been circulated, is that one of the major issues that has always been with any kind of authority is actually knowing exactly what you've got in order to be able to manage it effectively so that it provides sufficient income to support the services that we all want to see delivered. This strategic asset plan actually does that. I would recommend it to the executive and to the council. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Tom Phillips and his team for bringing this together. It has taken some considerable time, but for those who have actually taken the time to read the document, I think you will see why it's taken such a long time to bring it together and also from all the departments that have actually contributed to it. It's an important document going forward because for the next five years it gives us policies on which we can develop and look at each individual asset in its own right because, as we all know, one size does not fit all and our assets need to be looked at individually and may need, and certainly will need, individual decisions to be taken on what we do with them going forward. Can I just clarify one thing, please? At the overview and scrutiny committee last week, I did say that all buildings would be open to full consultation. Clearly, that would then cut across the delegated authority of the offices that are currently in existence within the constitution if we looked at all assets and all buildings. This does not replace current constitutional delegated authority to officers or decision-making. What it does is supports that and enhances it going forward. We do have Tom with us today if there are any questions, but I would recommend it to the executive.

Thank you, Councillor. Would anybody like to speak on this one? Anyone wish to speak on this? I would quite like to. I'm delighted to see this coming forward. I think it has, as you say, been a huge amount of work to go through the thousand-plus pieces of land, buildings and all sorts of other assets that this council owns and I think it is a very, very good start. What I'm particularly delighted about is that this will allow us to do what we did put in our initial aims to separate the treatment of commercial and community properties so that we can support the voluntary sector and the community buildings in a more sensible way rather than the annual trying to get discounts on their rent, which is just not sensible. So they have a security of knowing what a reasonable community rent is for the building that they're in and we can get all of the property on a sound footing. There have been issues with many buildings across the entire patch that fall into this area and I'm delighted that we are getting a proper strategy to sort them out so we know where we stand and they know where they stand and I think that would be really, really helpful and very important. So I'd like to thank the officers for all of the work they've done on this in the preparation of this. Councillor, what's the next steps for this strategy? The next steps for the strategy, Chair, is if we accept it today that it goes forward and it becomes adopted as the council strategy and policy for the next five years, three years with a one-year action plan, but we do have to bear in mind that it's been written against the current council strategy that's in existence and there's an emerging new council strategy coming on later on in the year, so it will be reviewed to make sure that it is still relevant to the new council strategy when it comes forward at the end of the year and it will be constantly reviewed. It's an evolving document. It will be a live document that will continue to evolve over its life going forward. Thank you and it's vitally important to this council given that it brings in, if I recall from our finance officer, some two and a half million pounds of rental income to this council. So looking after assets is, as you introduced, clearly vitally important for us to provide services. Any other comments or thoughts? No. Can I see a show of hands in favour, please? That's unanimous. Thank you very much indeed. Which brings us on to an update on the Future High Streets Fund. Again, we have Councillor Paul Parker registered to speak. He's not here. Councillor Palethorpe, can you give us this update, please? You're looking a little shocked, sorry. I didn't tell you beforehand. I think you've got a more close picture. I've been out for the past few days. The Future High Street Fund at the moment, the Market Square, Market Walk, part of the Future High Street Fund is progressing and there is an expectation that we will have a planning application to be considered by the full planning committee at the end of either this month and early in July. That will be progressing. The PAR project adjustment request for the remaining two million pounds is being developed. As we speak, I think we should err on the side of caution that we don't know what's going to happen after the beginning of July when the general election is completed and what any future government might consider for money that's already not being committed. The Queen Street is progressing as we've seen this week and I have had meetings with some of the business holders down there yesterday and last Friday and they now want to see their view. They're obviously very concerned about what the impact will be on their businesses, which is quite understandable, but their attitude and their approach has been that they wish to be very positive about this and take it forward to protect their businesses going not just during the work but obviously going forward into the future. But they've been very, very positive meetings I've had with individual businesses going forward. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Yes, it's absolutely vital that this council supports the businesses going through this period whilst the roadworks are happening and afterwards and we celebrate the Queen Street reopening when it happens and the future that it brings for it, the brighter future that it brings for it. I was talking to somebody not long ago who said exactly the same thing happened in Courtney Street when that was pedestrianised. I don't think you'd find many today going and saying let's put cars back down Courtney Street right now. So hopefully we will see, as we expect to see, an increased footfall, increased business and a thriving Queen Street after these changes have been done. Can I see a share of hands to accept that update, please? Thank you very much indeed. Which brings us on to number nine, notice of motions referred from the council. Actually it brings us on to nine and ten. It has been suggested that since these two notice of motions are so similar that we actually deal with them together. I'm hoping that will be acceptable to the movers of the notice of motion. It is to Councillor Cox. Is it to Councillor McGregor? Perfect, thank you very much indeed. In which case, Councillor McGregor, would you like to introduce your notice of motion and then we'll move on to Councillor Cox and then we'll move on to debate what we do with them. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Obviously since this motion was originally put to full council and for referral to exec, the political situation has changed ever so slightly and we are in the middle of an election campaign. However, the principle of the motion remains the same. It's to write to the secretaries of state for the relevant departments as noted in the motion to point out that the efforts of this council and businesses across the district are at risk because of south west waters discharges into various watercourses and estuaries and coastal environments around the district. I know that I haven't really asked the south west water to be brought to the council. We've done that many times. They've been to various meetings at town councils and parish councils. Nothing changes except the volume of discharge into the watercourses, which has been ever increasing. And it's due to a lack of investment. It's due to a focus on paying shareholders rather than investing in the infrastructure. And I think it's really important that we actually make a real effort as a council to point out to the political moves and shakers at Westminster, whoever they may be after 4th of July, that we are really concerned about our businesses, our tourism and our environment in this district, which will affect developments, which every single political party is talking about developments. So this actually puts developments at risk because it makes it untenable to keep building and building and building when we know, and the environment agency have actually stated this very categorically, that every single part of the infrastructure is already at capacity or will be at capacity by 2030. And there is no sign of investment going into developing that infrastructure in Tingbridge. And we really need to make a robust and direct case to the secretaries of state for the departments that will be most affected by that, stating that we are at crisis point. Thank you, chair. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor David Combs. I guess I hope we record our no confidence in South West Water. I appreciate South West Water has been doing a charm offensive on local authorities locally, and I do hope actually going forward we can work closer and more closely, and we're really doing that with South West Water. But I think we do need to make it clear we have no confidence in them based on what they have done to our rivers and sea. I've looked at the research by, I think it's Greenwich University, and clearly they have put shareholders ahead of investing in infrastructure that we need to do. But also the regulators, the environment agency and of what have been underfunded continually, and we need local, you know, national government to fund these bodies correctly, so at least they can hold these water companies to account. In Timmeth we had a few weekends ago a public, we waited before, made sure the water was safe before we get it, went in the river, town Councillor, our Mayor, acting as a Councillor, not as the Mayor, Councillor Williams, the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Chloe Myers, Councillor Steve Walsh, Councillor Mike Jackman, who has businesses in the town, including a fishing shop, and Councillor Penny Lloyd took part in that demonstration, which was massively supported by Timmeth people against South West Water. That was part of the SAS, Surfers Against Sewage, floating demonstration. So there is quite heavy feeling, you know, we fought Timmeth against the dumping of Exmouth Marina's sludge off Spray Point, only for South West Water to pour, you know, thousands of tonnes of sewage. And of course the sea is used by Timovians and visitors all year round, not just in the summertime, so we do need serious things, so I think we need to say we have no confidence as a Council in South West Water, so I hope you'll support that. Thank you, Councillor. Anybody on the Executive want to go first on talking to this? In which case I shall. So I took the liberty of printing off some documents from South West Water this morning, having been following their so-called WaterFit programme, which I heard of about a year ago. When I first looked at the WaterFit documentation published in 2022, I think it was, it talked about starting to make a difference to the rivers in terms of pollution by 2030. Now to me that is far, far too late. I looked at what they did last year and I've got their fact sheet in Q&A about dividends published after their accounts were published for 2023. And it talks about pen and dividends totalling 111 million, nearly 112 million, in comparison to investment of 358 million during the same period. Now if you're investing 358 million and you're returning 112 million to your investors, that doesn't seem the best of ratios to me. It's not a one-off because they also say in the same document, since it was privatised in 1989, and I quote, Pen and has overseen investment of nearly double the amount paid in dividends. Now it sounds good when you put it that way round, but they're paying out half as much in dividends as they are actually investing in repairing the network. That isn't good enough. And most of that money is coming from, coming or being supported by water bills, so we are paying the dividends rather than investing in the infrastructure. So those tend to support, and they do claim in their latest WaterFit to give them credit, they do claim some improvements, but they say they launched in April 2022, invested 330 million over three years. Now we haven't seen a huge amount of benefit from that already, and here we are halfway through 2024, so halfway through that investment programme, and the amount of discharges are still getting worse, so something isn't working. There are a number of things in my experience working in south-west water as a water counsellor, and indeed as a town counsellor. Dawlish, you may remember, was plagued by problems with sewage about five, maybe ten years ago, where a certain area of Dawlish was consistently being over-flooded by drains that were suffering from pressure from development on the higher part of the hill. So they put an extra four or five hundred houses in, and all of that sewage was going down one single six-inch pipe, which clearly was not working. This was going through into people's gardens, into people's homes, and was quite frankly revolting. It was covered widely on Spotlight at the time. After quite a lot of work, we did manage to get south-west water to put a two million pound investment, a new tank and new sewers in there. It came to light that south-west water were only looking at development plans as they came to the planning committee. They were not considering the local plan that was long time in place, so it must have been post 2014, but long time in place to actually show what was coming round the corner. So they were only looking at what was guaranteed and what planning applications were being granted. Now their time scales and their expansion doesn't give them the ability to invest things. Fifty houses doesn't mean the sewage pipe overflows. Another 50 houses probably doesn't. Fifty houses in and of itself doesn't make a difference. But when you've got 50 and 50 and 50 and 50, it starts to make a difference. And that's what's been happening across the patch. So to this end, we've been raising this up with the other districts within Devon. And there is an organization called the Devon Districts Forum where all the district leaders and chief executives meet. And we have been discussing the issues with south-west water and trying to get them to pay more attention to the local plan in terms of their investment over a five year time period, rather than looking at each individual planning application as it comes up and judging whether or not that individual planning application will in and of itself have an impact on the sewerage system. Because clearly a few of them will. But they need to make sure that this happens. Now this is not only in Dawlish where we've had two, maybe three thousand new homes in the last ten years and still in building. But also clearly in Newton Abbott where we have significant expansion of the number of homes in the area. Both of these are suffering situations where the system is simply not fit for purpose. To this day in Dawlish in the summertime when the holiday camps come in, you can smell the sewage plant. It's not good on a hot day when things are bunged up. Now we keep on getting at them to sort of work it and clear it, but again it's not good. We need more capacity in our systems. We here this year for the first time in a long time, the reservoirs have actually filled up. Well it has been the wettest year in a long, long while, so there is some advantage to the extra rain. But it's the first time for a long time that we've actually had sufficient reservoir capacity. So both in terms of fresh water, although they have fixed a lot of leaks along the way to give them credit where it's due. But in terms of actually putting a plan together that will actually give us the capacity both in terms of fresh water and in terms of sewage processing, there clearly is nothing there. So I tend to agree with Councillor Cox's position that I personally have little confidence in what they're doing and we have to make a noise about it. I think that's probably all I want to say. I can carry on forever. This has been a scourge of my life for a long, long while. Any other councillors wish to jump in? Councillor Hook. Thank you, Lita. Notwithstanding the comments already made about south-west water visiting many councils, including our own, over the years. And the term used was charm offensive, so I don't want to necessarily disagree with that because it is true to say that on the ground or in the water, I should say nothing much has changed. I just did want to report that actually south-west water reps are going to be coming to this council in July on two occasions. So, one at the overview and scrutiny committee for 16th of July, where they'll be going over their management plans, so that will be interesting. I think potentially all members would be able to come along to that committee. And also they'll be attending planning committee on July the 23rd, specifically to answer questions on planning matters. Again, I would imagine all councillors are welcome to come along to that as well. And I just wanted to thank Councillor Colin Parker, who is chair of planning, who has met with south-west water face-to-face recently to arrange these meetings and make sure they happen. And also to say that it's point four of the notice of motion that really other people have mentioned it, that the enforcement regime and the legislation are the important bits. So, south-west water, I am told, do report some of their discharges to us. There's no way of us knowing whether it's all or what proportion it is. But really the important thing is the enforcement regime, which is about the environment agency and the legislation. So, I would say it's points under four of the notice of motion that are the key ones and lobbying to get that enforcement regime properly in place. Okay, thanks. Thank you very much. And yes, I echo your thanks to all the people who are making an effort. And I think what we do with this notice of motion needs to be seen as boosting that effort and putting more power behind them to actually do that. Any other councillors wish to comment on this one? No, so I propose that we take Councillor McGregor's suggestion of writing to secretaries of state, whoever they may be, whenever they are in position. Add that into the actions here as an alternative action. I would suggest that probably to write to the local, I don't think we got in here writing for local MPs, whoever they may be at the time as well. Just to make sure that they are on board with this. And propose that we go forward as set out with the addition of writing to secretaries of state and local MPs. Can I see a seconder? Seconded, Councillor Keeling. A show of hands in favour of that, please. That's unanimous. Thank you very much. And I think other than noting the information, individual executive member decisions. Sorry, Chair. Did I miss something? Councillor McGregor submitted a question under individual executive member decisions which I had forwarded on to Councillor. Thank you. So Councillor McGregor, have you had an answer to that? Not yet. Okay. Are you happy to wait for an answer in full time? Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. Do you have an answer if you wish now, I think it would be helpful. Thank you for the question. It is clearly a complex and legal issue around the Bishop statement scout hut and the lifting into the covenant. Clearly because it is, because of the day versus Shrewsbury council decision, this is now in the hands of legal. And the report will be coming forward. Unfortunately, because we're in the period of heightened sensitivity, it is unlikely that that report will come forward or decision will be taken before the 4th of July. Because we would not want any decision to be misconstrued as basically being political in an election period. So I will work with Councillor McGregor and share the report with him once he comes forward, so that we can actually come up with a sensible solution. But because of the legal aspects that Councillor McGregor is aware of, the issue will be not to put this council or Bishop statement parish council at risk. Because unfortunately Shrewsbury council ended up losing the best part, 600,000 pound on a decision that was challenged in the court of appeal. So that's where we are at the moment if Councillor McGregor is happy to accept that at this stage. And then I'll work with him to resolve it going forward. Splendid, thank you very much for your work on that. It's important to get this resolved. And hopefully with that, dare I say a happy ending, so that Bishop Stanton isn't left hanging. Because it's been a little while, hasn't it, since this was raised. So if we can find that solution, I understand it has to wait until later. But thank you very much. Other than that, I think we're done. I'll close the meeting. Thank you very much. [BLANK_AUDIO]