Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive apologies for absence from the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor L Piper, with Councillor C Cottle-Hunkin substituting.

Matters Arising

Minute 515 and 509 – Councillor P Hames questioned communication from the Head of Communities & Place regarding Beach Hut guidance. The Head of Communities & Place responded by reminding Councillor P Hames of email communication, however was happy to discuss further following the meeting.

It was proposed by Councillor R Hicks, seconded by Councillor C Leather                     and -

Resolved:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 14^th April be signed as a correct record.

(Vote: For – 9, Against – 0, Abstentions - 2)

Nothing discussed as all actions are now complete.

Public contributions in accordance with the current scheme. (The deadline for registering  to speak is by 2pm Thursday 3^rd July 2025. To register please email dem.services@torridge.gov.uk).

There were two public contributions.

Firstly, Mr John Puddy, the Chair of Trustees for the SS Freshspring addressed the committee requesting to waive the mooring fees for the SS Freshspring in Bideford. He emphasised the vessel's historical significance, its role as an educational tool and tourist attraction, and its charitable ownership. He highlighted the Trust's work with deprived individuals, students, and retirees, including Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) projects for local schools. Mr Puddy argued that waiving fees would allow the Trust to allocate limited funds to community benefit and support heritage, tourism, and education and highlighted the vessel's Heritage Harbour status and its contribution to the regeneration of Bideford and the River Torridge.

Secondly, Emma Marston, Chief Executive of The Plough Arts Centre, requested financial assistance to keep the centre open. When addressing the committee Ms. Marston described the Plough as a vital cultural hub addressing social isolation, deprivation, encouraging disabled adults, young people, and children to attend and highlighted how poor public transport in the region has an impact. Ms. Marston outlined a five-step recovery plan implemented by the new Board of Trustees to address financial challenges, including cost reductions and increased income generation. She reported a 50% reduction in monthly losses and a small surplus in the first quarter of the new financial year, along with a 35% increase in ticket sales.         The request for a short-term buffer was intended to allow longer-term revenue plans to take effect.

Following on from Ms. Marston, Inca and Jake from the Plough Youth Theatre also addressed the committee in support of the request for financial assistance. They shared a more personal experience stating how the Plough has boosted their confidence and personal growth. Inca described it as a safe space that helped her speak publicly, while Jake valued the social and work experience it offered, especially as a home-educated student. Both expressed how they had benefited enormously from being members of the Plough Youth Theatre and wished for their involvement to continue.  

The Forward Plan was noted. 

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

Declarations of interest were made when the specific agenda items to which they related were under discussion.

There were no urgent matters brought forward.

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

Resolved:

That the exceptional award of £45,000 of emergency financial assistance to the Plough Arts Centre be approved, and delivered in two payments of £22,500 (one in July for the financial year 2025/26 and one in April for the financial year 2026/27) and that the Plough Arts Centre should report twice a year for the next two years to External Overview and Scrutiny Committee in order that progress on the delivery of their recovery plan can be monitored.

(Vote: For – 11, Against – 1, Abstentions – 0)

The Chair commenced this item by inviting Members to make comment.

Councillor T Tinsley opened the debate and stated that the report highlighted relevant points successfully, as did the slides circulated. Continuing with her statement Councillor T Tinsley described the importance of the Plough Arts Centre aligning with the re-generation of the Globe Project. She thanked officers for all the work contributing to the report and moved the recommendation in the report.

Councillor C Cottle-Hunkin seconded the proposal and as Lead Member for Culture and Community, reiterated support for the Plough Arts Centre, highlighting its cultural significance and recent improvements in financial performance. She declared an interest as a customer of the Plough.

The conversation continued with Members speaking in support of the application for financial assistance.

In response to a query, questioning whether financial assistance had also been sought from North Devon District Council, it was confirmed that Barnstaple Town Council are contributing, however North Devon District Council are not.

Following questioning, Councillor C Cottle-Hunkin confirmed she is working hard within her Devon County Councillor role to improve the public transport network for Torrington.

Next, Councillor P Pennington congratulated all speakers however, questioned the increase in employment costs, other Members also highlighted this as a concern. The Chair of the Plough, Fran Hardiman, addressed the committee explaining how these increases had occurred and the measures in place to negate this from reoccurring. She also addressed concerns regarding the impending National Insurance Contribution increase which satisfied Members.

Following a query from the Chair regarding previous grants received by the Plough Arts Centre, Ms. Hardiman explained how this was now being spent succeeding match funding by the Plough Arts Centre.

As the discussion progressed, Councillor P Pennington proposed an amendment to the recommendation in the report, that the Plough Arts Centre report to External Overview & Scrutiny Committee once a year, not twice. There was no seconder for this proposal.

It was proposed by Councillor T Tinsley, seconded by Councillor C Cottle-Hunkin and –

Resolved:

That the exceptional award of £45,000 of emergency financial assistance to the Plough Arts Centre be approved, and delivered in two payments of £22,500 (one in July for the financial year 2025/26 and one in April for the financial year 2026/27) and that the Plough Arts Centre should report twice a year for the next two years to External Overview and Scrutiny Committee in order that progress on the delivery of their recovery plan can be monitored.

(Vote: For – 11, Against – 1, Abstentions – 0)

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

Resolved:

That a loan of £100,000 to the Atlantic Racquet Centre with the following terms be recommended to Full Council:

a)    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.

b)    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)

The Head of Communities & Place presented the report, the purpose of which was to consider a loan request from the Atlantic Racquets Centre for £100,000 to help them complete their facility at Caddsdown.

Councillor P Pennington declared a personal interest as some of his family are members of the Atlantic Racquet Centre.

Following the publication of the report, Members were made aware of comments from Councillor L Piper, as Lead Member for Leisure and Recreation and noted his full support for the loan.

Councillor J Whittaker expressed concern about the impact that advancing the loan could have on S106 contributions. The Head of Communities & Place reassured Members that the loan would not impact the S106 contributions and the Atlantic Racquet Centre would still receive the S106 contributions under the correct legislation. It would  not be deemed as the Atlantic Racquet Centre already receiving the S106 contributions.

Councillor D Brenton expressed his support and moved the recommendation in the report, which was seconded by Councillor T Tinsley.

Following a question on the proposed size of the new village hall at the facility, Andy Lobato, a Trustee of the Atlantic Racquet Centre, was in attendance and was available for questioning. Mr. Lobato confirmed the new village hall would be 25m squared.

It was proposed by Councillor D Brenton, seconded by Councillor T Tinsley and –

Resolved:

That a loan of £100,000 to the Atlantic Racquet Centre with the following terms be recommended to Full Council:

a)         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.

b)         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)

To receive the report of the Economic Development Manager.

Resolved:

That the Estuary Strategy be adopted and that a year 1 action plan be submitted to Members by January 2026 to ensure delivery of key actions within the adopted strategy.

(Vote: For – unanimous)

The Economic Development Manager presented the report, the purpose of which was to adopt the Torridge Estuary Strategy.

A slide presentation was delivered, highlighting the following salient points:

·         Background

·         Progress made

·         Initial Review form Internal Overview & Scrutiny Committee

·         Additional Requirements

·         Public Consultation

·         Letter from Crown Estate in support of the Strategy.

·         Next steps

A discussion proceeded to take place with the following comments made and questions addressed.

·         Dredging was being carried out in conjunction with the Harbour Master and the Harbour requirements. External advise and partnership working was ongoing regarding this specific topic.

·         Water quality was highlighted as a major concern through the public consultation and it was confirmed that collaborative working was ongoing with both the Biosphere and the Crown Estate to address this issue.

·         Blank responses on the action plan were an oversight on behalf of the Economic Development Manager. At the meeting he provided a response and advised the strategy would be updated.

Amidst the discussion Councillor T Tinsley moved the recommendation in the report.

·         Following suggested changes and additions to the Estuary Strategy, it was determined that the Estuary Strategy was too far evolved for any changes, however the action plan would be brought forward again in the new year for Members to view.

·         The Estuary Strategy would be used as evidence in the formulation of the Local Plan.

It was proposed by Councillor T Tinsley, seconded by Councillor D Brenton and –

Resolved:

That the Estuary Strategy be adopted and that a year 1 action plan be submitted to Members by January 2026 to ensure delivery of key actions within the adopted strategy.

(Vote: For – unanimous)

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

Resolved:

That the draft Street Naming and Numbering policy be adopted as included in the report with two further amendments;

·         that streets should not be named after deceased persons that have died within the last 10 years;

·         that within the Parish Councils section of the Policy, the paragraph stating - Where it is not required by this policy, the Council strongly recommends that applicants consult the local Parish Council before submitting an SNN Application that will require the allocation of a new street name. Street Naming Proposals that have been pre-approved by the local Parish Council (subject to compliance with this policy) will be processed with greater expediency, due to the reduced time required for consultation – be made more prominent.

(Vote: For – unanimous)

The Head of Communities & Place presented the report, the purpose of which was to request that the committee adopt a new Street Naming & Numbering Policy.

The Chair invited committee Members to comment.

A discussion then proceeded to take place.

Councillor L Bright referred to the paragraph in the report that stated;

where it is not required by this policy, the Council strongly recommends that applicants consult the local Parish Council before submitting an SNN Application that will require the allocation of a new street name. Street Naming Proposals that have been pre-approved by the local Parish Council (subject to compliance with this policy) will be processed with greater expediency, due to the reduced time required for consultation - and requested this be made more prominent in the policy and subsequently, proposed this be an amendment to the recommendations in the report.

The Estates Support Officer joined the discussion to answer queries from Members.

Following a query, the Estates Support Officer confirmed that TDC had previously agreed that streets should not be named after a deceased persons that have died within a 10 year period, however this was agreed before Geoplace LLP issued national guidance for a 20 year period. 

Councillor C Leather proposed an amendment, to the recommendations in the report, that the period of time to name a street following the death of a person should remain at 10 years not 20 years. This was seconded by Councillor J Whittaker.

Councillor L Bright left the meeting at 11.42am.

Councillor L Bright’s above amendment was seconded by Councillor P Pennington.

Councillor K James moved the recommendations in the report with Councillor L Bright’s amendment. This was seconded by Councillor A Dart.

Councillor J Whittaker seconded Councillor C Leather’s amendment that the period of time to name a street following the death of a person should remain at 10 years not 20 years.

Both Councillors K James and A Dart were satisfied to included Councillor C Leather’s amendment within their proposal to move the recommendations in the report.

The Chair was ready to proceed with a vote on Councillor K James’ proposal, which included two amendments. However, Councillor T Tinsley objected to one of the amendments — specifically, the change to allow streets to be named after a deceased persons who died within the last 10 years instead of the 20-year rule.

Following this objection, the Head of Legal & Governance (Monitoring Officer) advised that this particular amendment must be removed from Councillor K James’ proposal. If it were to be considered separately, it would require a new proposer and seconder.

It was proposed by Councillor C Leather, seconded by Councillor J Whittaker and –

Resolved:

That streets should not be named after deceased persons that have died within the last 10 years instead of 20 years be approved.

(Vote: For – 9, Against 2, Abstentions – 0)

It was proposed by Councillor K James, seconded by Councillor A Dart and –

Resolved:

That the draft Street Naming and Numbering policy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 536.

To receive the report of the Senior Electoral & Democratic Services Officer.

Resolved:

That the FOI and EIR Policy be adopted.

(Vote: For – unanimous)

The Senior Democratic & Elections Officer presented the report, the purpose of which was to seek approval for adoption of the attached FOI & EIR Handling Policy.

A brief discussion took place where it was clarified how the template of the policy had been created.

The Head of Legal & Governance (Monitoring Officer), confirmed that exemptions are laid out under FOI legislation and information is available to Councillors for the necessity of their job role.

It was proposed by Councillor T Elliott, seconded by Councillor K James and –

Resolved:

That the FOI and EIR Policy be adopted.

(Vote: For – unanimous)

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

Resolved:

That the submission of a planning application for the expansion of existing emergency accommodation (changing the use from E(G) to Sui Generis) & the provision of 4No. modular emergency accommodation units, energy centre, smoking shelter & associated landscaping at Sully House, Bideford be approved.

(Vote: For – unanimous)

The Head of Communities & Place presented the report, the purpose of which was to request that the committee authorises the submission of a planning application for the expansion of existing emergency accommodation (changing the use from E(G) to Sui Generis) & the provision of 4No. modular emergency accommodation units, energy centre, smoking shelter & associated landscaping at Sully House, Bideford.

Councillor D Smith joined the meeting at 11.55am.

It was proposed by Councillor D Brenton, seconded by Councillor C Leather and -  

Resolved:

That the submission of a planning application for the expansion of existing emergency accommodation (changing the use from E(G) to Sui Generis) & the provision of 4No. modular emergency accommodation units, energy centre, smoking shelter & associated landscaping at Sully House, Bideford be approved.

(Vote: For – unanimous)

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

Resolved:

That the implementation of the Household Support Scheme 7 be approved.

(Vote: For – unanimous)

The Head of Legal & Governance (Monitoring Officer) presented the report, the purpose of which was to approve the implementation of Household Support Fund 7.

Councillor C Cottle-Hunkin declared an interest as her County Councillor position. 

A brief discussion took place.

Following questioning regarding Torridge District Council administering all the applications, the Head of Legal & Governance (Monitoring Officer) advised due to the amount of applications received Torridge District Council do not have the resources to process them unaided.

Resolved:

That the implementation of the Household Support Scheme 7 be approved.

(Vote: For – unanimous)

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.

It was proposed by Councillor R Hicks, seconded by Councillor P Pennington and –

Resolved:

That the public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting because of the likely disclosure of exempt information by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 and paragraph 10 of Part 2 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

(Vote: For – unanimous)

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

Resolved:

The recommendations in the report were proposed and seconded, but the motion was lost

Prior to the commencement of the item and due to the confidentiality of the next item, all members of the public were asked to leave.

Councillor T Tinsley proposed that Councillor D Smith substitute on this item for Councillor L Bright as she had left the meeting prematurely. The Chief Executive explained that substitutions had to be advised at the start of the meeting, therefore Councillor D Smith was unable to substitute. 

The Head of Communities and Place presented the item, the purpose of which was for Members to consider the contents of the report.

Councillor D Brenton proposed a recommendation which was seconded by Councillor T Tinsley with an amendment. Councillor D Brenton agreed to the amendment.

During the debate Councillor C Leather proposed a further recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor J Whittaker.

It was proposed by Councillor D Brenton, seconded by Councillor T Tinsley and -

Resolved:

That the proposal with amendment be approved, however the motion was lost.

(Vote: For – 4, Against – 7, Abstentions – 0).

As the above motion was lost, no vote was taken on Councillor C Leather’s proposal.