Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence are set out at the end of the minutes.

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

Agenda Item 14:

Councillor Jessica Bailey declared an Affects NRI as a Devon County Councillor serving on the Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Authority.

Councillor Steve Gazzard declared an ANRI as Unison member and former employee of Devon Ambulance Service

Agenda Item 15:

Councillor Jessica Bailey declared an Affects NRI as a Devon County Councillor serving on the South West Regional Flood & Coastal Committee.

Agenda Item 16:

Councillor Steve Gazzard declared an Affects NRI as a Unison member and former employee of Devon Ambulance Service.

Councillor Sarah Jackson declared an Affects NRI as their partner is a CWU member.

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 April 2025 and the extraordinary meeting held on 18 June 2025 were confirmed as a correct record.

Information on public speaking is available online

Two members of the public had registered to speak at the meeting.

Agenda Item 10 – Combe Raleigh Parish Meeting:  Mr Dezell, Chair of Combe Raleigh Parish Meeting.

Mr Dezell advised Council that Combe Raleigh Parish Meeting were seeking powers to enable certain works in the area to be carried out.  These works included highway improvements, tree planting and maintenance of verges and would ensure significant improvements were made for the benefit of local residents.   

Agenda Item 16 – Motion on Notice:  Communication Workers Union – design and positioning of letterboxes:  Mr Darren Robotham on behalf of the Communication Workers Union.

Mr Robotham spoke in support of the motion calling for the banning of low level letterboxes in doors and request that Government is asked to introduce legislation to support this.  

Information on matters of urgency is available online

There were no matters of urgency.

None.

To agree any items to be dealt with after the public (including the Press) have been excluded. Thereare two items which officersrecommendshould be dealtwithin thisway, but if confidential minutes from Cabinet and/or the Council’s Committees are being discussed, Officers may recommend consideration in the private part of the meeting.

The Chair of Council confirmed that there was one item of confidential/exempt business that would be dealt with under Agenda Item 22.

The following Questions on Notice had been submitted and the responses to those questions were submitted to Council.  The table below includes any follow-up questions submitted at the meeting.

The Council noted the minutes from meetings of the Cabinet and other committees, including: 

·        Cabinet – 2 April, 30 April and 4 June 2025

·        Housing Review Board – 24 April 2025

·        Licensing and Enforcement Committee – 2 April and 3 June 2025

·        Licensing and Enforcement Sub Committee – 2 April 2025

·        Personnel Committee – 15 April 2025 Planning Committee – 22 April, 13 May and 10 June 2025

·        Strategic Planning Committee – 19 May 2025

·        Arts and Culture Forum – 16 April 2025

·        Asset Management Forum – 16 June 2025

·        Cranbrook Placemaking Group – 9 June 2025

·        Leisure Strategy Delivery Forum – 8 April and 11 June 2025.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes from the meetings listed be noted.

The Council received a report setting out a request from the Combe Raleigh Parish Meeting to make an order conferring on it powers of a parish council.

The Council noted that under Section 109 of the Local Government Act 1972, that on the application of a parish meeting not having a separate parish council, the district council may by order confer on the parish meeting any functions of a parish council.

The Chair of the Parish Meeting explained the need of the powers to carry out certain works in Combe Raleigh, including planting trees and maintaining trees and verges to improve the quality of life for local residents.

In consideration of the request councillors raised the following issues:

·        Concern around powers of last resort and powers to do anything (including incurring expenditure)

·        Important that any powers conferred on the parish meeting are use responsibly and allows them to carry out sufficient activities in their area

·        Consideration should be given to formation of a parish council

·        Powers support the ability to use funds they hold

The Council recognised the need for the parish meeting to have the powers to be able to carry our works for the benefits of the local community but felt that powers of last resort to incur expenditure, not otherwise authorised and subsidiary powers to do anything which was calculated to facilitate, or was conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their functions under s111 should be considered at a later date.

Councillor Dan Ledger proposed the recommendation to make an order under Section 109(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 to confer on the Comber Raleigh Parish Meeting the powers listed in a – h.  The motion having been seconded by Councillor Ian Barlow was carried by a majority show of hands.

RESOLVED:  That the Council makes an order under Section 109(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 to confer on the Combe Raleigh Parish Meeting the following powers:

a.      Clock maintenance – Parish Councils Act 1957 s.2

b.     Road widening – Highways Act 1980 s.s.30,72

c.      Roadside seats and shelters- Parish Councils Act 1957 s.1

d.     Certain traffic signs and other notices – Road Traffic Regulations Act 1972 s.72

e.     Plant trees and shrubs and to maintain roadside verges – Highways Act 1980 s.96

f.       Newsletter to provide information in relation to matters affecting local government – Local Government Act 1972 s.142

g.     Acquire and provide buildings for public meetings and assemblies – Local Government Act 1972 s.133

h.     Allowing a contribution by way of a grant or loan towards the expenses incurred by a voluntary organisation in providing any recreational facilities - Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 s.19

The Chief Executive presented a report setting out details of the Executive Leadership team review of the current staffing structure to ensure that the authority was fit for purpose and had the capacity and resilience required both in terms of the ongoing plans for transformation and also ensuring the authority was a fit for purpose organisation that was able to appropriately respond to the Government‘s proposals in relation to devolution and local government reorganisation.

The report also set out the out of hours arrangements for the authority which had been enhanced and addressed funding proposals arising from the changes to the out of hours arrangements.

The recommendation was moved by Councillor John Loudoun and seconded by Councillor Richard Jefferies and having been put to the vote was carried by a majority show of hands.

RESOLVED:

1.     That Council approve a budget of £338,000 to be met from the Transformation Fund to support temporary funding requirements as detailed in the report.

2.     That Council approve a budget of £75,000 due to proposed changes to out of hours arrangements.

The Portfolio Holder for Culture, Leisure, Sport and Tourism presented a report seeking agreement to fund various elements of the Seaton Wetlands project.

The Council noted that funding for the interpretive masterplan would come from the sales receipts of the former Seaton Jurassic building.

Councillor Nick Hookway proposed the recommendation which having been seconded by Councillor Todd Olive was unanimously carried.

RESOLVED:  That Council approves that the residual budget of £80,000 from the sales receipts of the former Seaton Jurassic building are ringfenced for delivering outputs of this interpretive masterplan.

The Council received a report setting out the recommendations from the Independent Remuneration Panel following their review of the Councillor Scheme of Allowances, Parish/Town Council Scheme of Allowances and a review of Special Responsibility Allowances.

During discussion of this report the following comments were made:

·        Vice Chair of Strategic Planning Committee should receive a Special Responsibility Allowance in recognition of the increased workload, particularly around the preparation of the local plan.

·        The Scheme of Allowances should include details to reflect the availability of a range of railcards to be used and arrangements in place covering compassionate leave.

·        Whether consideration should be given to a cap on the number of Special Responsibility Allowances that are payable to Assistant Portfolio Holders and Councillor Champions.

Councillor Todd Olive proposed the recommendations which were seconded by Councillor Ian Barlow and having been put to the vote were carried by a majority show of hands.

That Council:

1.     Adopt the revised Councillors Allowance Scheme (attached as Appendix 2).

2.     Approve that a parish basic allowance should be available to all parish chairs and members in accordance with the Panels recommendations.

3.     Approve that the HMRC agreed travel rates for parish members should continue to be aligned to those of East Devon District Council staff and members.

4.     Approve that where it is considered necessary by the Council to introduce assistants within portfolio areas the level of remuneration should be set at 25% of the Basic Allowance (£1,347.87). To be backdated to 1 June 2025.

5.     Approve that where it is considered necessary by the Council to nominate Champions the level of remuneration should be set at 15% of the Basic Allowance (£808.73). To be backdated to 1 June 2025.

6.     Approve that the Vice Chair of the Licensing and Enforcement Committee SRA is paid at 50% of the Licensing and Enforcement Committee Chairs allowance (£1,754.28). To be backdated to 1 June 2025.

7.     Approves that the Independent Person appointed to the Audit and Governance Committee is paid an annual SRA of £400. To be backdated to 1 June 2025.

8.     Adopts the same approach for council and parish members as that applied to employees, for Family Friendly Policies (incorporating maternity, paternity, shared parental and adoption leave) and to include reference to these policies in the Councillor Scheme of Allowances for East Devon District Council.

9.     Request that the Independent Remuneration Panel review whether a Special Responsibility Allowance should be payable to the Vice Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee in recognition of the increased workload.

Motion 1:  Emergency Services in East Devon

Proposed by Cllr Stuart Hughes

Seconded by Cllr Colin Brown 

Supporters:  Cllrs Aurora Bailey, Brian Bailey, Iain Chubb, Mike Goodman, Jenny Brown

For nearly three decades, trained firefighters have worked alongside ambulance services to provide critical, lifesaving assistance to patients experiencing medical emergencies. Their swift intervention has saved countless lives, ensuring communities receive prompt professional care when ambulance crews are delayed or unavailable. 

This Council:  
1. Recognizes the vital role fire service co-responders have played in supporting emergency medical incidents, especially in isolated areas. 

 
2.  Acknowledges widespread concerns from fire stations, emergency personnel, and residents regarding the impact of this decision on community safety.  

3. Calls on SWAST and Devon & Somerset Fire and Rescue Service to reconsider this phase-out and explore alternative solutions that preserve co-responders' role alongside Community First Responders.

4. Requests that the Chief Fire Officer and SWAST leadership provide a full assessment of how this change will affect response times and public safety.  
5.  Urges the relevant authorities to engage with councils and local communities to ensure transparency and accountability in future emergency response planning.  

 Resolution:
This Council formally requests a review of the decision and will write to SWAST, Devon & Somerset Fire and Rescue Service, and Cornwall Fire and Rescue Service, seeking clarity on how emergency response standards will be maintained following the removal of fire service co-responders.  

Councillor Stuart Hughes proposed the motion on notice relating to fire service co-responders, which was seconded by Councillor Colin Brown and supported by Councillors Aurora Bailey, Brain Bailey, Iain Chubb, Mike Goodman and Jenny Brown.

In speaking to the motion Councillor Hughes stated that for nearly three decades, trained firefighters have worked alongside ambulance services to provide critical, lifesaving assistance to patients experiencing medical emergencies. Their swift intervention has saved countless lives, ensuring communities receive prompt professional care when ambulance crews are delayed or unavailable. 

Councillor Hughes called on the Council to:
1. Recognise the vital role fire service co-responders have played in supporting emergency medical incidents, especially in isolated areas. 

2.  Acknowledge widespread concerns from fire stations, emergency personnel, and residents regarding the impact of this decision on community safety.  

3. Call on SWAST and Devon & Somerset Fire and Rescue Service to reconsider this phase-out and explore alternative solutions that preserve co-responders' role alongside Community First Responders.

4. Request that the Chief Fire Officer and SWAST leadership provide a full assessment of how this change will affect response times and public safety.  

5.  Urge the relevant authorities to engage with councils and local communities to ensure transparency and accountability in future emergency response planning.  
6. Support the recent Devon County Council Adult and Care Committee's decisions to formally request a review of the SWAST decision and to write to SWAST seeking clarity on how emergency response standards will be maintained following the removal of fire service co-responders.

In conclusion Councillor Hughes asked that:

This Council formally requests a review of the decision and will write to SWAST, Devon & Somerset Fire and Rescue Service, and Cornwall Fire and Rescue Service, in a similar vein to Devon County Council Adult and Care Committee, to seek clarity from SWAST on how emergency response standards will be maintained following the removal of fire service co-responders.  

In seconding the motion on notice Councillor Colin Brown supported the comments from Councillor Hughes.

Having been put and seconded the motion on notice was put to the vote and carried by a majority show of hands.

RESOLVED:  That the Council formally requests a review of the decision and will write to SWAST, Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service, and Cornwall Fire and Rescue Service, in a similar vein to Devon County Council Adult and Care Committee, to seek clarity from SWAST on how emergency response standards will be maintained following removal of fire service co-responders.

Motion 2:  Inclusion of Care Homes and hotel accommodation in Flood Risk Assessments  

Proposed by Cllr Stuart Hughes

Seconded by Cllr Geoff Jung

Supporters: Cllrs Aurora Bailey, Brian Bailey, Iain Chubb, Mike Goodman, Jenny Brown, Colin Brown, Paul Hayward, Yehudi Levine, Tim Dumper, Del Haggerty, Bethany Collins, Charlotte Fitzgerald, Matt Hall, Anne Hall, Olly Davey, Paula Fernley, Marcus Hartnell, Joe Whibley

Inclusion of Care Homes, and Hotel accommodation in Flood Risk Assessments.  

As part of East Devon`s work on Coastal Protection Schemes, care homes housing a significant number of vulnerable residents, plus important hotel accommodation are assessed  as commercial properties.  Unfortunately the current flood risk assessment models’ classification means only  individual dwellings count towards  substantial  grant funding  yet care homes and hotel accommodation are classed as commercial properties and are subject to far less beneficial funding.   

To ensure a comprehensive and a more accurate assessment, the Council urge the Government, through Defra & the Environment Agency, to formally classify both care homes and hotels as dwellings in calculations for flood defence funding and coastal protection schemes. This adjustment would better reflect community vulnerability, improve resource allocation, and strengthen long-term resilience planning for East Devon and beyond.  

Therefore the Council calls on Defra and the Environment Agency to review this oversight and incorporate care homes and hotels as a distinct category in future flood risk strategies.

Councillor Stuart Hughes proposed a motion on notice which was seconded by Councillor Geoff Jung and supported by Councillors Aurora Bailey, Brian Bailey, Iain Chubb, Mike Goodman, Jenny Brown, Colin Brown, Paul Hayward, Yehudi Levine, Tim Dumper, Del Haggerty, Bethany Collins, Charlotte Fitzgerald, Matt Hall, Anne Hall, Olly Davey, Paula Fernley, Marcus Hartnell and Joe Whibley.

In speaking to the motion Councillor Hughes stated that as part of East Devon`s work on Coastal Protection Schemes, care homes housing a significant number of vulnerable residents, plus important hotel accommodation are assessed as commercial properties.  Unfortunately, the current flood risk assessment models’ classification means only individual dwellings count towards substantial grant funding yet care homes and hotel accommodation are classed as commercial properties and are subject to far less beneficial funding.   

Councillor Hughes further stated that to ensure a comprehensive and a more accurate assessment, the Council urge the Government, through Defra & the Environment Agency, to formally classify both care homes and hotels as dwellings in calculations for flood defence funding and coastal protection schemes. This adjustment would better reflect community vulnerability, improve resource allocation, and strengthen long-term resilience planning for East Devon and beyond.  

Councillor Hughes requested that the Council calls on Defra and the Environment Agency to review this oversight and incorporate care homes and hotels as a distinct category in future flood risk strategies.

In seconding the motion on notice Councillor Geoff Jung supported the comments from Councillor Stuart Hughes.

Having been put and seconded the motion was put to the vote and unanimously carried.

RESOLVED:  That the Council calls on Defra and the Environment Agency to review this oversight and incorporate care homes and hotels as a distinct category in future flood risk strategies.

Motion 3: Communication Workers Union – design and positioning of letterboxes

Proposed by Cllr Peter Faithfull

Seconded by Cllr John Heath

Supporters: Cllrs Bethany Collins, Jenny Brown, Geoff Jung, Chris Burhop

This Council will actively support the work of the Communication Workers Union in relation to the design and positioning of letterboxes.

As a planning authority we are in a unique position to influence the fitting of letterboxes to reduce the risk of harm to our postal and delivery workers. The CWU have, for a long time, been campaigning for a ban on low-level letterboxes. The two main causes of injury in relation to low-level letterboxes are back injuries and dog bites. I therefore request that this council work in a number of ways to support the campaign of the CWU. 

1. That we actively discourage low-level letterboxes on new build homes.
2. We actively promote discouraging low-level letterboxes on replacement doors.
3. That we will show our support of the CWU campaign to our two Members of Parliament.

Along with the main campaign about low-level letterboxes, we will discourage the use of poor designed letterboxes that can often include sharp edges and overly powerful springs, that can often cause minor injuries in the form of cuts and bruises. 

Councillor Peter Faithfull proposed the motion on notice which was seconded by Councillor John Heath and supported by Councillors Bethany Collins, Jenny Brown, Geoff Jung and Chris Burhop.

In speaking to the motion on notice Councillor Peter Faithfull requested that this Council actively support the work of the Communication Workers Union in relation to the design and positioning of letterboxes.

Councillor Faithfull stated that as a planning authority we are in a unique position to influence the fitting of letterboxes to reduce the risk of harm to our postal and delivery workers. The CWU have, for a long time, been campaigning for a ban on low-level letterboxes. The two main causes of injury in relation to low-level letterboxes are back injuries and dog bites.

Councillor Faithfull requested that this council work in a number of ways to support the campaign of the CWU. 

1. That we actively discourage low-level letterboxes on new build homes.
2. We actively promote discouraging low-level letterboxes on replacement doors.
3. That we will show our support of the CWU campaign to our two Members of Parliament.

Along with the main campaign about low-level letterboxes, we will discourage the use of poorly designed letterboxes that can often include sharp edges and overly powerful springs, that can often cause minor injuries in the form of cuts and bruises. 

In seconding the motion on notice Councillor John Heath supported the comments from Councillor Faithfull.

Having been proposed and seconded the motion on notice was put to the vote and unanimously carried.

RESOLVED:  That this Council work in a number of ways to support the campaign of the CWU.

1.     That the Council actively discourage low level letterboxes on new build homes.

2.     That the Council actively promote discouraging low level letterboxes on replacement doors.

3.     That the Council will show its support of the CWU campaign to our two local MPs.

Motion 4:  Newton Poppleford Settlement Boundary

Proposed by Cllr Chris Burhop

Seconded by Cllr Paul Hayward

Motion supported by:  Cllrs Stuart Hughes, Colin Brown, Yehudi Levine, Ben Ingham, Ian Barlow, Jess Bailey

At the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) meeting of 22^nd November 2024 when settlement boundaries were discussed, the SPC minutes record the following in relation to Newton Poppleford’s proposed settlement boundary;

“Newton Poppleford – raising the issue of consistency, concern was raised on the proposed Settlement Boundary in that the area described as excluded in stage 2 on the map should be included.  Road safety concerns were also raised.  A proposal to support the report recommendation failed. Therefore, a proposal to have the settlement boundary as the area shown as Stage 2 with the inclusion of area adjacent to Exmouth Road was supported.”

Recommendation (f) of that minute went on to state “Newton Poppleford – that the Settlement Boundary be drawn as including Stage 2 plus area adjacent to Exmouth Road, with the exact boundary to be drawn by officers for delegated approval by the Assistant Director and the Chair of Strategic Planning Committee.”

Whilst the thought process given at the time of expanding the settlement boundary to “make the settlement boundary more even over the geographical area of the village” was on the face of it understandable, the discussion, which excluded the District Councillor for the village, ignored the fact that all of the village’s amenities are located to the Eastern end of the village, which is why historically the settlement boundary was set to expand only to include the two proposed development sites Newt 04 and Newt 05 to the East of Exmouth Road, per officers’ recommendation.

The revised boundary, attached as a file to this motion, was presented at the subsequent SPC on 11^th December at which I spoke in respect of the errors in the thoughts about expanding the settlement boundary to the West of Exmouth Road, namely that the lack of footpath provision makes expansion on the Western side of Exmouth Road inaccessible. This debate is covered in pages 6 & 7 of the minutes (minute 249). They record that “During discussions some members concurred that unless the footpath was installed the western side of the village would be unsafe and there was nothing to confirm at this stage that the footpath would happen. It was suggested that a condition could be imposed to ensure that no development could take place until there was a suitable footpath”.

However legal advice obtained at that meeting confirmed that no decision taken by a committee of the council could be moved within 6 months of the original decision unless the motion to amend is signed by 15 or more councillors. In other words errors identified in any council condition need 25% of the council to sign up to an amendment at full council in order to be corrected. I resolved to draw up such a motion to propose a correction.

Subsequent to the meeting I was  ...  view the full agenda text for item 23.

Councillor Cllr Chris Burhop proposed the motion on notice which was seconded by Cllr Paul Hayward and was supported by Councillors Stuart Hughes, Colin Brown, Yehudi Levine, Ben Ingham, Ian Barlow and Jess Bailey.

In speaking to the motion on notice Councillor Burhop stated that at the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) meeting of 22^nd November 2024 when settlement boundaries were discussed, the SPC minutes record the following in relation to Newton Poppleford’s proposed settlement boundary;

“Newton Poppleford – raising the issue of consistency, concern was raised on the proposed Settlement Boundary in that the area described as excluded in stage 2 on the map should be included.  Road safety concerns were also raised.  A proposal to support the report recommendation failed. Therefore, a proposal to have the settlement boundary as the area shown as Stage 2 with the inclusion of area adjacent to Exmouth Road was supported.”

Recommendation (f) of that minute went on to state “Newton Poppleford – that the Settlement Boundary be drawn as including Stage 2 plus area adjacent to Exmouth Road, with the exact boundary to be drawn by officers for delegated approval by the Assistant Director and the Chair of Strategic Planning Committee.”

Councillor Burhop further stated that whilst the thought process given at the time of expanding the settlement boundary to “make the settlement boundary more even over the geographical area of the village” was on the face of it understandable, the discussion, which excluded the District Councillor for the village, ignored the fact that all of the village’s amenities are located to the Eastern end of the village, which is why historically the settlement boundary was set to expand only to include the two proposed development sites Newt 04 and Newt 05 to the East of Exmouth Road, per officers’ recommendation.

The revised boundary, attached as a file to this motion, was presented at the subsequent SPC on 11^th December at which Councillor Burhop spoke in respect of the errors in the thoughts about expanding the settlement boundary to the West of Exmouth Road, namely that the lack of footpath provision makes expansion on the Western side of Exmouth Road inaccessible. This debate is covered in pages 6 & 7 of the minutes (minute 249). They record that “During discussions some members concurred that unless the footpath was installed the western side of the village would be unsafe and there was nothing to confirm at this stage that the footpath would happen. It was suggested that a condition could be imposed to ensure that no development could take place until there was a suitable footpath”.

However legal advice obtained at that meeting confirmed that no decision taken by a committee of the council could be moved within 6 months of the original decision unless the motion to amend is signed by 15 or more councillors. In other words errors identified in any council condition need 25% of the council to sign up to an amendment at full council in order to be corrected. Councillor Burhop resolved to draw up such a motion to propose a correction.

Subsequent to the meeting Councillor Burhop was told by the Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee that, as the plans had now been submitted for Regulation 19 consultation, then again they could not be amended until the consultation ended. Councillor Burhop requested that the proposed amendment be included in the agenda of the Strategic Planning Committee of 8^th July however the published agenda did not include this proposal.

In conclusion Councillor Burhop requested that the settlement boundary for Newton Poppleford submitted in the Regulation 19 Consutlation in the Draft Local Plan contained a material error and should now be amended per the proposed map, being officers’ original recommendation.

In seconding the motion on notice Councillor Paul Hayward supported the comments from Councillor Burhop.

Councillor Todd Olive, Chair of Strategic Planning Committee proposed an amendment to the motion to refer the matter back to the Strategic Planning Committee and the following wording was supported by the proposer and seconder to the motion on notice:  That the Council instructs the Strategic Planning Committee to revisit the decision taken in respect of the Newton Poppleford settlement boundary submitted in the Regulation 19 consultation at their meeting on 2 September 2025.

Having been put and seconded the motion on notice was put to the vote and carried by a majority show of hands.

RESOLVED:  That the Council instructs the Strategic Planning Committee to revisit the decision taken in respect of the Newton Poppleford settlement boundary submitted in the Regulation 19 consultation at their meeting on 2 September 2025.

The Council received a nomination to change the Vice Chair of the Planning Committee from Councillor Sarah Chamberlain and to appoint Councillor Eileen Wragg, following a request from the Democratic Alliance Group.

A number of councillors expressed concerns that the appointment was not in line with the requirements of the Constitution as the Chair and Vice Chair represented the same ward and this was contrary to the Constitution.  In response, the Monitoring Officer advised that whilst the Chair and proposed Vice Chair represented the same ward they did not both live in the same ward and the appointment having been proposed by Councillor Richard Jefferies and seconded by Councillor Olly Davey was put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:  To appoint Councillor Eileen Wragg as the Vice Chair of the Planning Committee.

To consider the inclusion of the Parking and Traffic Regulations Outside London Adjudication Joint Committee (PATROLAJC) to the list of outside bodies and the nomination of a councillor on the outside body.

The Council considered a request to include the Parking and Traffic Regulations Outside London Adjudication Joint Committee (PATROLAJC) to the list of outside bodies and the nomination of a councillor on the outside body.

Council supported that PATROLAJC should be included as an outside body and Councillor Tim Dumper was nominated to serve on the outside body.

Councillor John Loudoun proposed and Councillor Chris Burhop seconded the recommendation and having been put to the vote was carried by a majority show of hands.

RESOLVED: 

1.     That the Parking and Traffic Regulations Outside London Adjudication Joint Committee is included on the list of outside bodies.

2.     That Councillor Tim Dumper is appointed to serve on the Parking and Traffic Regulations Outside London Adjudication Joint Committee as the council’s representative.

The Council received a report seeking the appointment of an Independent Community Representative to serve on the Housing Review Board.

Council noted that following a recruitment process for the selection of an independent person and following an interview of the candidate one candidate was selected for their suitability to serve on the Housing Review Board.

The Chair moved the recommendation which was unanimously supported.

RESOLVED:  That Wang Tain is appointed as an Independent Person on the Housing Review Board until 30 April 2029.

To consider passing a resolution having been duly proposed and seconded under Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the press and public from the meeting, on the basis that if they were present during the business to be transacted there would be a likelihood of disclosure of exempt information, within the meaning of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

Reason: Para 3 Schedule 12A Information relating to the finance or business affairs of any particular person.

Councillor Charlotte Fitzgerald moved a motion to pass a resolution under Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the press and public from the meeting, on the basis that if they were present during the business to be transacted there would be a likelihood of disclosure of exempt information, within the meaning of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, Paragraph 3 (Information relating to the finance or business affairs of any particular person.

The motion was seconded by Councillor Eleanor Rylance and having been put to the vote was unanimously carried.

RESOLVED:  That the press and public be excluded from the meeting on the basis that if they were present during the business to be transacted there would be a likelihood of disclosure of exempt information, within the meaning of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, Paragraph 3 (Information relating to the finance or business affairs of any particular person.

Councillor Nick Hookway proposed a recommendation that the preferred option, as set out in the exempt report, in respect of the strategic leisure review was supported alongside agreeing a budget, for the amount as set out in the exempt report, to meet the expected costs to be met from the Council’s Transformation Reserve.

The motion was seconded by Councillor Todd Olive and having put to the vote was carried by a majority show of hands.

RESOLVED:  That Council approved a budget, as set out in the exempt report, to meet expected costs from the Council’s Transformation Reserve.