Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence from the meeting

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor S Andrews, Councillor J Craigie and Councillor L Piper.

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

There were no public contributions.

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.

It was proposed by Councillor C Hodson, seconded by Councillor K James and –

Resolved:

That the agenda, as circulated, be agreed.

(Vote: For – Unanimous).

The Chair welcomed Councillor K O’Rourke, who was recently elected as a representative of the Liberal Democrats Party.

There were no questions submitted under Procedural Rule A9.

To receive the report of the Public Health and Community Safety Manager.

The Public Health and Community Safety Manager presented the report, the purpose of which was to seek an extension of the existing Public Spaces Protection Order in relation to controls for dogs in defined areas of Torridge District Council area, under section 59 of the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

Councillor P Shepherd entered the meeting at 5.33pm.

A discussion occurred.

Councillor P Hackett expressed support and moved the recommendation in the report.

In response to a question, the Public Health and Community Safety Manager explained that the PSPO does not apply to dog breeders and dog walking businesses.

Members raised concerns regarding the hunt being exempt from the PSPO, citing instances of hounds being out of control. The Public Health and Community Safety Manager outlined that alternative enforcement powers are more effective in addressing the hunt’s behaviour.

Members questioned the length of a dog lead, and the Public Health and Community Safety Manager outlined that the key aspect relates to being in control of the dog, irrespective of the lead length.

It was proposed by Councillor P Hackett, seconded by Councillor K Hepple and –

Resolved:

That the Public Space Protection Order in relation to Dog Controls for the specified areas within the district is extended in line with the proposals in Appendix 1 be approved.

(Vote: For – 28, Against – 0, Abstentions – 1).

Councillor T Elliott entered the meeting at 5.40pm and therefore was not included in the vote.

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

The Head of Legal and Governance (& Monitoring Officer) presented the report, the purpose of which was to advise Members in respect of the delivery plan for the Local Authority Housing Fund (3).

A discussion occurred. Members questioned the absence of a four-plus bedroom property, to which the Head of Legal and Governance (& Monitoring Officer) explained that a four bedroom property was acquired 12 months ago and is currently undergoing renovations.

In response to a question, the Head of Legal and Governance (& Monitoring Officer) outlined that all of the properties are located in East-the-Water as the Estates Team considered it the best value for money.

Following on, Members sought clarity on the resettlement aspect. The Head of Legal and Governance (& Monitoring Officer) explained that the Council will inform the Government of available properties, but have no control over who is resettled as it could involve any government-administered resettlement scheme.

The Committee questioned the timeframe for when the properties can be used for local people after resettlement. Members noted that it is uncertain as it depends on how long the resettled families remain in the properties.

Members questioned if resettlement could apply to elderly relatives who relocate to the area. It was confirmed that this falls outside the scope of resettlement schemes for these properties.

Councillor C Cottle-Hunkin entered the meeting at 5.45pm.

In response to a question regarding asylum seekers, the Head of Legal and Governance (& Monitoring Officer) reiterated that the Council cannot control who is resettled, but outlined Community Sponsorship schemes.

Overall, Members noted the update.

To receive petitions (if any)

There were no petitions.

Torrington councillors have been made aware that the Plough Arts Centre is suffering an immediate financial crisis and is requesting emergency funding of £60,000. It has already implemented a recovery strategy but costs have increased while measures introduced to boost income like grant applications need longer to come to fruition. We understand that without immediate support, it will be forced to close within months and is also contacting other organisations for support as well as TDC.

The Plough is a vital hub for culture and creativity within Torridge. It is fundamental not only to the council's vision for culture but to our economic strategy, ambitions for Regeneration, and for the success of the Globe Hotel project for which government funding has just been achieved.

In the light of the importance of the Plough Arts Centre to Torridge, it is proposed that the Council take urgent action to assist the Centre in navigating this difficult financial period by investigating the situation and bringing forward a report to consider what element of support we might offer.

There was one Written Notice of Motion put forward by Councillor C Bright:

‘Torrington Councillors have been made aware that the Plough Arts Centre is suffering an immediate financial crisis and is requesting emergency funding of £60,000. It has already implemented a recovery strategy but costs have increased while measures introduced to boost income like grant applications need longer to come to fruition. We understand that without immediate support, it will be forced to close within months and is also contacting other organisations for support as well as TDC.

The Plough is a vital hub for culture and creativity within Torridge. It is fundamental not only to the council's vision for culture but to our economic strategy, ambitions for Regeneration, and for the success of the Globe Hotel project for which government funding has just been achieved. In the light of the importance of the Plough Arts Centre to Torridge, it is proposed that the Council take urgent action to assist the Centre in navigating this difficult financial period by investigating the situation and bringing forward a report to consider what element of support we might offer.’

Councillor A Dart entered the meeting at 5.50pm.

The Chair outlined that Councillor C Bright had three minutes to present the Motion.

Members noted the difficulties that The Plough faced during the pandemic and the changes that have been made in response.

Councillor C Bright explained that the Council previously agreed to provide £10,000 of funding over three years, ending in June 2025.

The Committee requested clarity on the Motion and the Chair reminded Members that, as per the Constitution, a Notice of Motion cannot be discussed.

The Chair expressed that, if carried, the Motion would be taken to the Community and Resources Committee for discussion.

It was proposed by Councillor C Bright, seconded by Councillor T Tinsley and –

Resolved:

That the Notice of Motion be approved.

(Vote: For – Unanimous).

The Motion was carried.

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.

It was proposed by Councillor C Hodson, seconded by Councillor D Bushby and –

Resolved:

That the meeting enter Part II.

(Vote: For – 30, Against – 2, Abstentions - 0).

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

The Major Projects Manager provided an update.

A lengthy discussion occurred.

It was proposed by Councillor C Leather, seconded by Councillor K James and –

Resolved:

That the Committee approve the recommendations in the report.

(Vote: For – 31, Against – 0, Abstentions – 1).

It was proposed by Councillor D Bushby, seconded by Councillor K James and –

Resolved:

That the meeting exit Part II and close.

(Vote: For – Unanimous).