Agenda and minutes

Information on public speaking is available online

The Chairman welcomed those present and invited members of the public to address the Council.

Elizabeth Pole, on behalf of Honiton Labour Party, wanted to make a statement in support of a Motion proposed by Councillor Matt Booth about climate change, which she considered reflected the concerns of many young people. She expressed a view that District Councils should be the standard bearers of action to tackle climate change, which encompassed a range of activities which would fall under their remit. She gave a number of examples of alternative low cost solutions, including incorporating the highest standards of home insulation; installing electric vehicle charging points; cycle and bus lanes; reducing the use of carbon using fuels in favour of wind, solar and water power; more home-working; tree planting amongst other examples. She stated that current carbon reduction targets for the County to be reached by 2030 are too low and could be increased in recognition of the urgency and priority of these issues. She referred to a Community festival to be held at Honiton community College on 20^th April when these and related issues will be raised.

The Chief Executive responded by stating that although Cllr Booth’s motion was not on the agenda for this meeting, a report would be going to Cabinet in April addressing these issues.

The minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 12 December 2018 were confirmed and signed as a true record.

Guidance is available online to Councillors and co-opted members on making declarations of interest

Councillor Roger Giles, Minute No. 13

Type of interest – Personal interest

Reason – Member of Plastic Free Ottery.

Councillor Paul Carter; Minute No. 10, minutes of Strategic Planning Committee

            Type of interest – Disclosable Pecuniary Interest

Reason – The Cranbrook DPD covers land in which he has a financial interest.

Councillor is a member of the Strategic Planning Committee

Councillor Tim Dumper; Minute No. 13

            Type of interest – Personal interest

Reason – Involved in Exmouth Plastic Reduction

Councillor Peter Burrows; Minute No. 13

            Type of interest – Personal interest

Reason – Leader of Plastic Free Seaton.

Councillor Matt Booth; Minute No. 13

            Type of interest – Personal interest

Reason – Member of Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE).

Councillor Steve Hall:Minute No. 10, minutes of Licensing & Enforcement Committee

            Type of interest – Disclosable Pecuniary Interest

            Reason – Councillor is a Private Hire License Holder with EDDC

Councillor John O’Leary: Minute No. 10, minutes of Licensing & Enforcement Committee

            Type of interest – Disclosable Pecuniary Interest

            Reason – Councillor is a License Holder with EDDC

Councillor Geoff Pook; Minute No. 56

            Type of interest – Personal interest

Reason – Previous involvement in the house building industry.

The Chairman wanted to report on the official opening of Blackdown House today and what had been done to celebrate it. All councillors had had the chance to look around, to see how it had been delivered and how it would operate. The Chairman had welcomed all members of staff, and had been delighted to present pins for long serving members of staff, two of whom had worked for EDDC for over 40 years. There had also been children from two schools in Honiton who had prepared time capsules which were buried outside the front of the building. Cllr Alan Dent had worked with the schools on what could be included in the capsules. Present at the opening had also been some of the designers and contractors involved in the construction of the building, as well as key officers who had been involved in the relocation programme. The flag had been raised and the office officially opened.

A tour had been given to Honorary Aldermen and Alderwomen at 5.30pm and the Chairs and Clerks of Town and Parish Councils would be visiting on 28^th February. The Chairman read out a message of welcome to EDDC in coming to Honiton from Honorary Aldermen Vivienne Ash and Peter Halse who were unable to attend the meeting.

Sixteen questions had been submitted in accordance with Procedure Rule 9.2 - the printed questions and answers were circulated at the meeting.  Councillors submitting questions are entitled to put a related supplementary question (Procedure Rule 9.5). A summary of the supplementary question asked and response is set out below.

a)    Question 1 – Cllr Bond was interested in the motion originally proposed by Cllr Booth about climate change and carbon reduction across the range of Council activities rejected on the basis that it was being debated at Devon County Council (DCC). She asked the Leader whether he agreed that regardless of what was being debated at County Hall, EDDC should be prepared to debate the issues independently.

In response, Councillor Thomas stated that on occasions when specific motions were coming up at the same time, there was wisdom in getting the two authorities into line with each other. On this occasion he was happy to accept the guidance of the Chief Executive.

b)    Question 2 – Cllr Bond stated that the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP) Panel does not meet often and has no agenda or published minutes, whilst the Informal Reference Group (IRG) meets less frequently also with no agenda or minutes, indicating two levels lacking openness and transparency. When the groups were set up, there was mention of them being held in private. The supplementary question put to the Leader was whether he agreed that the IRG should be open to all councillors if they wished to attend as observers.

In response, Cllr Thomas stated that EDDC was different to the other three contributing authorities in that its representatives do not operate at an executive level. Information from the GESP is brought to the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC), and he urged members to attend the SPC which provided the best opportunity for them to discuss and influence what is in the best interests for EDDC.

c)    Question 3 - In response to the supplementary question about whether anyone knows what is really being thrown away at the Knowle, and Cllr Faithfull’s concern about maps or similar non- digital items which may be of interest to museums, as well as Town and Parish Councils, Cllr Thomas stated that EDDC was committed to make contact with the Devon Records Office to provide a final check that nothing considered of value would be destroyed.

d)    Question 4 - In response to the supplementary question in relation to the sale of the Knowle, and when the Council would vacate the premises, the Deputy Chief Executive advised that subject to assessment of the clearance activity needed, the Council would like to vacate the Knowle at the end of March.

e)    Question 6 – In response to the supplementary question about whether the Leader understood that people in Ottery St Mary considered that the decision by EDDC not to designate the local hospital as an Asset of Community Value (ACV) defies common sense, Cllr Thomas stated that the answer had already been given in the written answer in that each decision around the country is made on its own merits.

f)     Question 7 - In response to the supplementary question about whether the Leader would support a review after the elections this year about the decision on ACVs being taken within the Health & Wellbeing Directorate where it may get a more sympathetic response, Cllr Thomas confirmed that he would consider this suggestion when the Council reviewed it’s constitution at its Annual Meeting.

g)    Question 8 - In response to the supplementary question for the Leader to clarify and elaborate what was meant by the written answer provided to Question 8 b), Cllr Thomas stated that clarification was provided in the written response to 8 c). The Chairman had a degree of discretion in how the civic fund is spent, but the fund is part of the overall budget which is open to scrutiny by all members.

h)   Question 9 - In response to the question put about adopting a carbon reduction policy, Cllr Booth further asked,

a) if it would not be normal process for a motion to be discussed at Council, then referred to officers before they submitted information to the Overview Committee for assessment prior to presentation to Cabinet about whether the Council should adopt such a policy, and,

b) What are considered to be the key elements of carbon reduction in East Devon, as a rural, agricultural and coastal area by this Council.

In response to these supplementary questions, the Portfolio Holder for Environment - Councillor Tom Wright, stated that there are many challenges facing East Devon in reducing use of carbon fuels and limiting the waste when it is used. Houses are being built with environmental impact in mind. Streetscene are looking at how to increase the number of electric car charging points. Blackdown House had been built to very high environmental standards, including charging points for electric vehicles in its car park. A coordinated approach is being discussed with colleagues at DCC, which would be more productive than separate pockets of activity, but this will all take time.

i)     Question 10 – In response to the supplementary question about opposition councillors being free to talk to the press, Cllr Thomas referred to the Council’s Constitution, which did not prevent councillors talking to the media. He pointed out that if press releases were required, the Council’s Communications Team could assist because it was important to consider the consequences of comments, particularly in the run up to elections.

j)      Question 11 – In response to the supplementary question about the time it takes for the Council to respond to new ideas and whether the Leader considers it acceptable for it to act as soon as possible by initiating pilot schemes to test out ideas, Cllr Thomas responded by acknowledging the occasional frustration of process which must be followed in public life. However, he pointed out that there are two items which will be put to Cabinet on 6^th March on this topic, which indicated a swift response by the Council on these issues.

k)    Question 12 – In response to the supplementary question in relation to point c) of the question put, and about how the Leader can justify the withholding of monies from Sidmouth Town Council which could have been available and delivering projects over the last year, Cllr Thomas stated that he was not aware that this was the case. He also urged councillors to contact him if there were specific questions which could be dealt with and progressed outside the meeting.

l)     Question 13 – In response to the supplementary question about the deliberate withholding of Section 106 funds from Sidmouth, Cllr Thomas responded that he was unable to respond without reference to officers, but committed to responding specifically on this issue outside the meeting.

m)  Question 14 – In response to the supplementary question about whether the Leader would commit the Council to publishing regular updates on the energy saving costs relating to relocation so that the public can see this information without resorting to making requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Cllr Thomas referred to the written response that was already provided to this question.

n)   Question 15 – In response to the supplementary question about whether the Council was committed to investing in social housing, Cllr Thomas gave a detailed response as follows. The question had confused the General Fund and Housing Revenue Account which were very different. Over the last two years, EDDC had borrowed £84m to buy 2400 houses which housed 9,000 people or 6% of the population in safe affordable housing, subsidised by the Council. He further commented that he viewed Right to Buy as a threat to EDDC’s ability to safeguard the future of social housing locally, and if it could be removed he would be pleased for the Council to invest in social housing as a priority.

o)    Question 16a) – In response to the supplementary question about the purpose and value of the temporary attraction users’ survey, Cllr Skinner stated that a range of people had been surveyed. The Tourism survey had indicated that there was a very low spend in Exmouth, whilst the Queens Drive attractions were very popular with local residents. The purpose of the survey was to listen to people, gather information and try to produce the best schemes for the town.

p)    Question 16b) – In response to the supplementary question about the value and benefit to the public and Council of the expenditure for the temporary attractions, Cllr Skinner stated that as the biggest town in East Devon, the Council considers it important to encourage an increase of spend in Exmouth as well as increasing investment in it. The capital costs incurred during 2018 were one-off items and not ongoing costs.

q)    Question 16c) – In response to the supplementary question about undertaking a cost benefit analysis and producing project costings for the three years of the project, Cllr Skinner stated that some projections have been supplied already, and the local Council and Chamber of Commerce were in support of the activities being undertaken.

r)     Question 16d) – In response to the supplementary question about the contract with conditions between the Council and Grenadier Estates, and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CiL) contributions, Cllr Skinner stated that discussions on the contract were moving forward swiftly. The road and car park were under construction and Grenadier were expected on site in June 2019. The issue of the appeal by Grenadier about CiL charges were a matter for the Planning Authority to consider.

a)    To consider the report of the Council’s Section 151 Officer, Strategic Lead - Finance, and the recommendations contained therein which include approval of the recommendations of the Cabinet on 6 February 2019 relating to the Council’s Revenue and Capital Estimates for 2019/20 and precept details of the parish and town councils, Devon County Council, Devon and Cornwall Police & Crime Commissioner and the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority.

b)    To approve the calculations for setting the Council Tax in accordance with the Local Government Finance Act 1992 as amended by the Localism Act 2011.  These calculations form the basis of the formal setting of the Council Tax for the District.

Note 1 Please note draft figures are included for:

Devon& Somerset Fire & Rescue Authority who meet on 19/2/19 to set their budget

Devon County Council who meet on 21/2/19 to set their budget

Any changes as a result of these meetings will require the report to be recirculated.

Note 2 A recorded vote will be taken of the vote on this itemso that there is a record of how Members have voted in budget setting (legislation which came into force on 25 February 2014 - The Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014).

Note 3 Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 precludes councillors from voting on the setting of the Council’s budget / council tax where there is an outstanding council tax debt of over two months. It is also a requirement, where you attend any meeting to set the budget and this preclusion applies, that you must declare the fact you are precluded from voting. A failure to do this is a criminal offence.

Members considered the report of the Section 151 Finance Officer and the recommendations of the Cabinet from its meeting on 6 February 2019 relating to the Revenue and Capital Estimates, the purpose of the report being to enable the Council to calculate and set the Council Tax for 2019/20.

The precepts from Devon County Council, Police and Crime Commissioner for Devon and Cornwall, Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Authority, and town and parish councils (preceptors) had been added to EDDC’s Council Tax requirement. The Council, as billing authority, would formally set the Council Tax for the area to include all the amounts to be collected.

The Council Tax requirement for 2019/20 be set at £8,405,144 with a resulting Council Tax Band D amount of £141.78 (an increase of £5 a year (3.66%) which was within the threshold stipulated by government before triggering a council tax referendum) and that the budget be agreed as presented in the Council papers. The Chairman moved the printed recommendations set out in Appendix A to the report.

Members were reminded that in line with legislation that came into force on 25 February 2014, The Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, a recorded vote would now be taken on the budget decision.

The proposal as printed in Appendix A to the report was put to the vote and carried.

Recorded vote on the budget:

Councillors Andrew Moulding, David Key, Mike Allen, Brian Bailey, David Barratt, Dean Barrow, Susie Bond, Matthew Booth, Colin Brown, Jenny Brown, Peter Burrows, Paul Carter, Maddy Chapman, Alan Dent, Bruce de Saram, Paul Diviani, Tim Dumper, Jill Elson, Mark Evans-Martin, Peter Faithfull, Graham Godbeer, Simon Grundy, Ian Hall, Steve Hall, Marcus Hartnell, Stuart Hughes, Douglas Hull, John Humphreys, Geoff Jung, Cherry Nicholas, John O’Leary, Helen Parr, Christopher Pepper, Geoff Pook, Eleanor Rylance, Philip Skinner, Pauline Stott, Brenda Taylor, Ian Thomas, Phil Twiss, Mark Williamson, Eileen Wragg, Tom Wright- voted in favour – 43.

Councillors Megan Armstrong, Roger Giles, Ben Ingham, Dawn Manley, Geoff Pratt – abstained - 5.

Councillors Cathy Gardner, Val Ranger, Marianne Rxson – against – 3.

RESOLVED: 

Cabinet          

Minutes 117-137, 138-161 

Scrutiny

Minutes  41-50

Overview & Scrutiny Committees Joint Budget Meeting

Minutes  1-3

Housing Review Board

Minutes  52- 62

Strategic Planning Committee

Minutes  35 – 43, 44 – 48

Development Management Committee

Minutes  26- 29, 30 -38, 39-50

Audit and Governance Committee

Minutes 36-47

Licensing and Enforcement Sub Committee

Minutes  42-45, 46-48, 49- 52, 53 - 54

Standards Committee

Minutes  7 -14

The recommendations of these meetings have already been referred to Cabinet for consideration

RESOLVED

1.    that the above-mentioned minutes be received and the recommendations approved

Arising from consideration of the above minutes:-

Ø  Cabinet, minute number 160 – Commercial Investment Framework

Councillor Roger Giles wanted to propose an amendment to the recommendation under this minute, with the intention of introducing more financial safeguards for the Council. One of the points made was that with the loss of central government grant funding directly to EDDC, the Council needed to pursue other funding streams as a result of government policy, and it was considered that an effective process to safeguard the Council was in place. The amendment was not carried following a vote.

“In view of the £24 per band D property increase in policing precept, this council urges the Chief Constable to recognise the needs of East Devon when deciding how to allocate extra resources. It is true we enjoy a comparatively low crime rate but we have also seen an increase in antisocial behaviour and vandalism. These incidents, whilst not deemed serious offences, have a very negative affect on our communities and the feelings of safety and security of our residents.

East Devon residents are the biggest contributors to the police budget in Devon, other than Plymouth. It is only fair that we should get a fair share of the larger cake.”

Proposed by Councillor Tom Wright

Seconded by Councillor Mark Evans-Martin

Supported by Councillor Brian Bailey, Councillor Alan Dent, Councillor Ian Hall, Councillor Bruce de Saram.

The following motion was proposed by Councillor Tom Wright, seconded by Councillor Mark Evans-Martin and supported by Councillor Brian Bailey, Councillor Alan Dent, Councillor Ian Hall, Councillor Bruce de Saram.

“In view of the £24 per band D property increase in policing precept, this council urges the Chief Constable to recognise the needs of East Devon when deciding how to allocate extra resources. It is true we enjoy a comparatively low crime rate but we have also seen an increase in antisocial behaviour and vandalism. These incidents, whilst not deemed serious offences, have a very negative affect on our communities and the feelings of safety and security of our residents.

East Devon residents are the biggest contributors to the police budget in Devon, other than Plymouth. It is only fair that we should get a fair share of the larger cake.”

    The proposer of the motion, Councillor Tom Wright, referred to being present at the Police & Crime Panel in February when the Police & Crime Commissioner (PCC) got her wish for an increase in the policing precept. It is an increase of 20% from last year and such an increase should lead to a noticeable increase in policing presence in East Devon. The Chief Constable had agreed to reconsider reducing the numbers of PCSOs last year, but this year will be reducing them to 150 across the force area. Whilst East Devon  is a low crime area, the incidence of disorder dealt with, has increased by 31%, which were non-serious incidents but ones which would have been dealt with by PCSOs and have a negative impact on local residents. As the biggest contributor to the policing precept in Devon apart from Plymouth, East Devon is providing an additional £1.5m to the police and would like the Council to write to the Chief Constable to see what he will do additionally for East Devon.

  The seconder of the motion, Councillor Mark Evans-Martin stated his support for the motion.

  The following issues were raised by Councillors during consideration of the    motion:

Ø  Additional funding could enable the police to go into schools to speak to 9-11 year olds, supporting preventative work. 

Ø  The Council should push back against government cuts to get the resources it needs, and challenge the PCC locally to provide more resources.  

Ø  The courts and police services could be selling assets such as redundant sites on prime land to prop up their budgets.   

Ø  The Council should receive more funding from government, since income tax is decreasing while Council tax is increasing.

Ø  The PCSOs represent good value for money and provide local knowledge that can facilitate speedy resolutions at local level.

Ø  Councillors should see themselves as being in a position of social responsibility with local knowledge, able to engage locally and work with young people.

ØLocal Authorities and community groups should be working together.

Councillor Tom Wright moved that the motion be put. 

The Chairman then put the motion to the vote.

RESOLVED

that following a vote, the motion proposed by Councillor Tom Wright and seconded by Councillor Mark Evans-Martin was carried with 1 abstention.

We have known for some time about the failures both locally and nationally of the NHBC and the House Builders Federation to ensure that all new homes are consistently built to a standard that people buying them can have full confidence in. Indeed, in February 2018 the then Housing Secretary announced that ‘'From broken boilers to cracks in walls, the current choice of schemes risks leaving thousands without answers, with others having to manoeuvre between at least four different services just to work out where to register a complaint. Fixing this housing crisis is about more than just building homes, it’s ensuring people have the answers available when something goes wrong. Today’s top-to-bottom review shows Government is working hard to deliver a better and simpler system’

The Government stated that it would therefore be introducing as a priority a new property ombudsman to streamline complaints against shoddy builders.

As a Council that not only provides an excellent and highly regarded building control service but also has seen significant levels of new building in its district (in accordance with Government requirements) we call on the government to fulfil its pledge to provide this much needed remedy for homeowners as a matter of the highest priority’.

Proposed by Councillor Douglas Hull

Seconded by Councillor Eleanor Rylance

Supported by Councillor Steve Gazzard, Councillor Brenda Taylor, Councillor Peter Burrows, Councillor Tim Dumper, Councillor Eileen Wragg.

The following motion was proposed by Councillor Douglas Hull, seconded by Councillor Eleanor Rylance, and supported by Councillor Steve Gazzard, Councillor Brenda Taylor, Councillor Peter Burrows, Councillor Tim Dumper, Councillor Eileen Wragg.

“We have known for some time about the failures both locally and nationally of the NHBC and the House Builders Federation to ensure that all new homes are consistently built to a standard that people buying them can have full confidence in. Indeed, in February 2018 the then Housing Secretary announced that ‘From broken boilers to cracks in walls, the current choice of schemes risks leaving thousands without answers, with others having to manoeuvre between at least four different services just to work out where to register a complaint. Fixing this housing crisis is about more than just building homes, its ensuring people have the answers available when something goes wrong. Today’s top-to-bottom review shows Government is working hard to deliver a better and simpler system’.

The Government stated that it would therefore be introducing as a priority a new property ombudsman to streamline complaints against shoddy builders.

As a Council that not only provides an excellent and highly regarded building control service but also has seen significant levels of new building in its district (in accordance with Government requirements) we call on the government to fulfil its pledge to provide this much needed remedy for homeowners as a matter of the highest priority’.

The Chairman invited the proposer of the motion to speak, and welcomed Cllr Hull to the Council after a long sickness absence, and wishing him well. Members demonstrated their agreement by a round of applause for Cllr Hull.

Councillor Douglas Hull, stated that the situation with new house building in East Devon seemed to have been getting worse and wanted the district to have houses to be proud of. He wanted those present to consider those people buying new homes in the area, many of which would be of a second rate standard.

The Chairman invited the seconder of the motion to speak.

Councillor Eleanor Rylance referred to the caseload on her ward, which included Cranbrook. She made reference to both tenants of new build properties as well as home buyers. She stated that it was clear that developers have encouraged people to buy houses quickly before snagging issues have been dealt with, and that tenants are worried about complaining to their landlords for fear of losing their tenancy. There are many quality control issues and when complaints are made, the issues remain unresolved.  She stated that minimum standards should be imposed and that local standards should be set because national standards are not high enough, whilst developers are making large profits.

The following issues were raised by Councillors during consideration of the motion:

Ø   Smaller local developers can often provide better quality housing than the big national companies.

Ø   What is required is a national ombudsman or ultimate appeal mechanism for home buyers.

Ø   Reference was made to a report out today referring to a developer which is currently operating in East Devon, highlighting a shocking list of case studies which demonstrate poor practice.

Ø   A home is the biggest investment for people and should be stress free but with bodies to complain to if necessary.  The Council should be proud of its Housing Company which it is to be hoped will be productive in future.

Ø   Members referred to the unflagging efforts by Cllr Hull over the years to progress issues about new home building.   

The Chairman asked Councillor Hull if he wanted to give his right to reply.

Councillor Hull stated that there was no more to be said given the backing of his councillor colleagues, and wished to thank those in attendance for their support. He then moved that the motion be put. 

The Chairman then put the motion to the vote.

    RESOLVED

that following a vote, the motion proposed by Councillor Douglas Hull and seconded by Councillor Eleanor Rylance was carried unanimously.

This Council continues to support the fine work done by the EDDC Recycling team in achieving the best results in Devon.

To support and encourage local Organisations and voluntary groups who are involved in trying to reduce the amount of single use plastics used in their communities & beaches by making resources and expertise available, where appropriate. The order of priority should be - Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.

To actively help promote such activities through the Councils social media platforms.”

Proposed by Councillor Peter Burrows

Seconded by Councillor Tim Dumper

Supported by Councillor Eileen Wragg, Councillor Eleanor Rylance, Councillor Brenda Taylor and Councillor Steve Gazzard 

The following motion was proposed by Councillor Peter Burrows, seconded by Councillor Tim Dumper, and supported by Councillor Eileen Wragg, Councillor Eleanor Rylance, Councillor Brenda Taylor and Councillor Steve Gazzard.

 “This Council continues to support the fine work done by the EDDC Recycling team in achieving the best results in Devon.

To support and encourage local organisations and voluntary groups who are involved in trying to reduce the amount of single use plastics used in their communities and beaches by making resources and expertise available, where appropriate. The order of priority should be - Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.

To actively help promote such activities through the Councils social media platforms.”

The Chairman invited the proposer of the motion to speak.

Councillor Peter Burrows, referred to the improvements over the years by Local Authorities to recycling efforts, and particularly by EDDC. 

The Chairman invited the seconder of the motion to speak.

Councillor Tim Dumper stated that many councillors in Exmouth and around the district are involved in local plastic reduction and recycling activities. He wanted to congratulate Cllr Wright as Portfolio Holder alongside the recycling and refuse teams who have raised the performance of EDDC to one of the highest in the country, and also for giving good advice to councillors and communities locally.

The following issues were raised by Councillors during consideration of the motion:

Ø   Climate change could be regarded as an even bigger threat than terrorism.

Ø   There was dismay expressed that Cllr Booth’s motion had been dismissed in the light of action taken by school children to show their concern for these issues and the lack of action by the relevant authorities, by walking out of school in protest.

Ø   Reference was made to recent reports produced by the Public Policy Think Tank and also by DEFRA who outlined improvements to be implemented which would be enshrined in forthcoming legislation.

Ø   Cllr Wright stated that EDDC had done well to date as a result of strong leadership and the work of Streetscene, but also cross-departmental efforts across the Council which included the communications team, Customer Service Centre and others, and including local residents. There are very few complaints about the service provided by EDDC.

Ø   Cllr Marcus Hartnell thanked Cllr Burrows and Cllr Dumper for putting the motion. EDDC are amongst the top ten authorities for recycling and will continue to use its limited resources to encourage education and participation in recycling activities at local level, referring to the Streetscene Service Plan for details.

Two amendments to the motion were proposed by Cllr Rylance and Cllr Gardner.

The Chief Executive read out the amendment from Cllr Rylance, suggesting a slight rewording as follows;

“That the Portfolio Holder assess the Council’s existing policy so as to further reduce the use of single use plastics in respect of the hire and use of its land, property and other assets, and all other relevant legal responsibilities, and to review this in six months’ time to gauge its success”.

The Chairman put the amendment to the vote and it was carried.

Cllr Wright seconded the amendment.

The Chief Executive suggested that the second amendment from Cllr Gardner be included in the minutes as a note for the Portfolio Holder as it did not relate directly to the motion but could prompt further useful research on this topic.

The note would read that, this Council will investigate working with TerraCycle and the introduction of TerraCycling points throughout the District.

The Chairman stated that as the amendment had become the substantive motion, he could now put it to the vote.

    RESOLVED

that following a vote, the motion proposed by Councillor Eleanor Rylance and seconded by Councillor Tom Wright was carried unanimously.

The Chairman announced the meeting as closed.