Agenda and draft minutes

To receive apologies for absence from the meeting

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Dart, James and Newton and from the Head of Communities & Place.

15 minute period for public contributions. The deadline for registering to speak is by 2pm Thursday 24^th July 2025. To register please email dem.services@torridge.gov.uk

None received.

Members with interests to declare should refer to the Agenda item and describe the nature of their interest when the item is being discussed.

Members were reminded that declarations of interest should be made as and when the specific agenda item to which they related was under discussion.

There were no Part II items.

The following matters were raised by the Chair:

The Chair highlighted Stagecoach’s recent fare increases and informed Members of a consultation challenging these changes. He encouraged Members to submit individual responses and noted the Democratic Services can provide the relevant information.

Members asked whether submitting a joint letter would be more effective. The Chair explained that, since the issue is not on the agenda and requires urgent attention, individual responses would be more appropriate. The Chief Executive added that a joint letter would require the matter to be formally raised at Full Council through a Notice of Motion.

To receive the report form the Major Projects Manager.

The Major Projects Manager presented the report, the purpose of which was to update Members on the current project work in progress, grant funding status and options for completion of the Holsworthy Leisure Centre Decarbonisation project.

Councillor Hackett joined the meeting at 6:42pm and therefore unable to participate in the vote.

Members requested clarification on the timeline for closure if option 1 or 2 were approved. The Major Project Officer explained that if option 1 is selected, the project is expected to take 6 to 7 months. During this period, the premises would need to close at scheduled intervals. However, he noted that every effort would be made to carry out as much of the work as possible without closing the facility.

Members asked for details about running costs if option 1 or 3 were to be approved. The Major Projects Manager explained that any modern replacement boiler will be more efficient. However, the maintenance contractor has advised that with the reduced heating load, and ongoing servicing, the oil usage will be significantly lower. Therefore, it is difficult to measure operational efficiencies given the reduction in demand.

Members asked why the project would be funded through borrowing rather than using reserves. The Finance Manager (s151 Officer) explained that, as this is a capital project, regulations require that funds be set aside for repayment. He emphasised that reserves are limited and can only be used while they are available and currently the authority is committed to several capital projects. He also provided clarification on the borrowing and interest process.

Given the work already completed, Councillor P Hames proposed to approve Option 3. This was seconded by Councillor D Bushby.

The Major Projects Manager highlighted that the project was for decarbonisation, not to lower energy costs. He explained that with the fabric improvements, the electrical demand and running costs would have been comparable to oil costs. Although, the installation of solar panels has contributed to the everyday running costs.

Members asked whether the manufacturers had provided any indication of the boilers’ expected lifespan. The Major Projects Manager responded that the lifespan is largely dependent on the maintenance. However, the manufacturer has confirmed that replacement parts remain available and the boilers can continue to be maintained for the foreseeable future.

Councillor L Piper declared an interest as a Director of Active Torridge (non-pecuniary). Speaking in his capacity as Ward Member for Holsworthy and Lead Member for Leisure, he commended the diligent work and decision making carried out by the Major Projects team. He noted that the improvements so far have enhanced the experience for staff and users, and suggested that the money can be more efficiently used for decarbonisation efforts elsewhere.

The Major Project Manager confirmed to Members that if the funding isn’t used by March 2026, the money will be returned.

Members expressed concerns about the potential impact on community wellbeing if the leisure centre were to close again for any length of time.

It was proposed by Councillor Hames, seconded by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 475.

To receive the report of the Head of Legal & Governance (& Monitoring Officer).

The Chair introduced the Head of Legal and Governance (& Monitoring Officer), who advised Members of the purpose of the report, to agree joint terms of reference for a joint Plans Committee with North Devon Council.

This included a verbal update, as further discussions have occurred since the publication of the agenda. She explained that the urgency of the report stems from the recent submission of the planning application. The authority requires sufficient time to make any necessary constitutional changes, which would not be feasible if the report were postponed until the next Full Council meeting.

The details included:

-       It has been agreed that all nine Members of the Plans Committee can sit on the Joint Committee. North Devon will also appoint nine Members.

-       North Devon would Chair the Committee and therefore have casting vote. This is because the larger proportion of land is within North Devon.

Councillor R Lock, as Chair of Plans Committee detailed the conversations that have taken place between her and the relevant Officer’s at North Devon Council. Councillor Lock stated that she was happy to proceed and proposed to approve the recommendation.

Councillor C Leather seconded the proposal to approve the recommendation

Some Members expressed concern regarding North Devon holding the casting vote. They emphasised that they believed matters should be considered independently. Additionally, there were apprehensions about the potential for Members to be restricted in proposing conditions on planning applications.

The Head of Legal and Governance (& Monitoring Officer) explained that the casting vote has been thoroughly considered. She furthered that it was included due to the significant risks associated with an undetermined planning application, such as the potential financial implications for both Councils.

It was proposed by Councillor Lock, seconded by Councillor Leather and –

Resolved:

To approve the recommendations of the report and the joint terms of reference with the agreed amendment to the  membership - 9 committee members for Torridge District Council and 9 committee members for North Devon Council.

(Vote: For 29, Abstentions 2)

To receive the report of the Head of Legal & Governance (& Monitoring Officer)

The Chair introduced the Head of Legal and Governance (& Monitoring Officer) who presented the report to members, the purpose of which was for Members to agree to reappoint non-elected Members to the Internal Overview & Scrutiny Committee, Standards Committee and Harbour Board Working Group.

Members thanked the Independent Members for their work.

Following a discussion, it was proposed by Councillor Whittaker, seconded by Councillor Bach and –

Resolved:

That Members approve the reappointment of non-elected representatives on the Council’s Committees and Working Group for a four year term. Member also requested that their thanks to those members be noted.

(Vote: For 26, Abstentions 5)

To receive the report of the Head of Communities & Place.

The Chief Executive presented the report to members. The purpose of which was to consider the recommendation from Community and Resources Committee in relation to a request from the Atlantic Racquets Centre for a loan of £100,000 to help them complete their facility at Caddsdown.

Councillor D Brenton proposed to approve the recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor D Bushby.

The Chief Executive clarified what instalments have been paid to date by Atlantic Racquet Centre.

Members asked why the government declined funding for the Atlantic Racquet Centre. The Chief Executive explained that following the change in government, priorities had shifted and culture and sport were no longer part of the Regeneration Partnership Programme.

It was proposed by Councillor David Brenton, seconded by Councillor Bushby and –

Resolved:

That Council approve the recommendation from Community and Resources Committee for a loan of £100,000 to the Atlantic Racquet Centre with the following terms :

a)     Repayment term of 10 years with repayments commencing when the first loan has been repaid in full.

b)     Interest rate chargeable at PWLB 10 year annuity rate at the time of approval

c)     Early repayment of the loan should the Daddon Hill Section 106 monies be released.

d)     As the loan to ARC is classed as Capital expenditure that formal approval is given to increase the approved capital program by £100,000.

(Vote: For Unanimous)

A question was asked by Councillor Thomas.

In accordance with the Constitution a written answer to the question had been circulated to Members.

Question from Councillor Thomas

‘How many cases/complaints are currently logged with the Enforcement Team at TDC's Planning Department and what is the average timescale for resolving these cases and determining an outcome?’

Councillor Thomas

21^st July 2025

Answer

‘There are currently 285 cases open and pending with the Planning Enforcement Team. These cases are allocated to the two Enforcement Officers with a planning apprentice carrying a small caseload of Section 215 notices. The outstanding cases include those where a notice has been served, or where they are subject to an ongoing appeal, or are awaiting prosecution.

It is not possible to give an average timescale for resolving enforcement cases as they vary greatly depending on the nature of the allegation / complaint and the extent to which it is considered expedient to take action and / or seek a retrospective planning application. This is why target timescales are often unrealistic beyond the initial case review and preparation of a case report. The updated Enforcement Plan will seek to introduce a more realistic triage approach with timescales that are considered more appropriate and reflective of both the work involved and the varying complexities.’

Helen Smith

Planning Manager

The following supplementary question was asked by Councillor Thomas:

How does the current caseload of 285 compare with previous years / last 5 to 10 years, and if it is higher than normal, what are we doing to reduce it? 

The Chief Executive advised that the Planning Manager would respond to this question following the meeting.

To receive petitions (if any)

There were no petitions.

There were no notices of motion.

The Chair to move:

“That the public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting because of the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972”

Items which may be taken in the absence of the public and press on the grounds that exempt information may be disclosed.

There were no Part II items.