Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive apologies for absence from the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors R Hicks, D Brenton with P Hackett substituting, and L Bright with C Cottle-Hunkin substituting.

Due to the absence of Councillor R Hicks who is the Chair of Community & Resources, Vice-Chair, Councillor T Tinsley took the Chair for this meeting.  

It was proposed by Councillor K James, seconded by Councillor L Piper                    and -

Resolved:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 8^th September be signed as a correct record.

(Vote:  For – 8, Against – 0, Abstentions - 2)

Matters Arising 

The Chair raised the minutes should read Pollyfield not Pollyfields. Minutes to be corrected.  

Public contributions in accordance with the current scheme. (The deadline for registering to speak is by 2pm Thursday 9^th October 2025. To register please email dem.services@torridge.gov.uk).

There were no public contributions.

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 Community Engagement Officer.

Resolved:

That the proposed recreational cycle route through Victoria Park be approved.

(Vote: For – 6, Against – 4, Abstention – 1)  

The Community Engagement Officer presented the report, the purpose of which was for the committee to decide if ‘promoting a recreational cycling route through Victoria Park, Bideford (using existing pathways) is still favourable with a new route avoiding the paddling pool area.

A discussion took place.

Councillor C Leather opened the discussion expressing strong opposition to the new route, highlighting the risks that could arise.  He argued the scheme was unnecessary, conflicted with Park Run, and that a safer, existing route along the river (Landivisiau Walk) was available and therefore recommended refusal of the new route.

The Chair confirmed that the Active Travel Group had investigated alternative routes.   

Following Councillor C Leather, Councillor P Hames, Chair of the Active Travel Group, supported the proposal, noting the extensive work done on the revised route. He highlighted that informal cycling already occurs and emphasised benefits such as carbon emission reduction, encouraging safe cycling for children, and taking cyclists off roads.

Members were advised that no public consultation had taken place.

The Community Engagement Officer advised members of the signage that would be erected to inform the public of the new cycle route. Discussions had also taken place with the organiser of the Park Run who were encouraging of the new route.

Councillor L Piper advocated the new route and signage, seeing it as beneficial for children learning to cycle. He moved the recommendation in the report, which was seconded by Councillor P Hames.

Councillor P Pennington raised concerns about rugby club traffic and reiterated support for an alternative route east of the park. In doing so he seconded Councillor C Leather’s proposal to refuse the recommendation in the report.

Next, Councillor P Hackett addressed the committee, referencing national guidance (LTN 120) and ministerial statements suggesting conflict between user groups is exaggerated. When addressing the committee he also declared interests as he is a member of the Institute of Public Rights of Way and Access Management and is also an Access Field Officer of the British Horse Society. The Community Engagement Officer responded to queries raised by Councillor P Hackett, explaining that this route would be more for the leisure users rather than those more experienced riders that are commuting.

Councillor C Cottle-Hunkin joined the meeting at 10.30am.

In response to a query relating to ramification for the Council following an accident, the Head of Legal and Governance (& Monitoring Officer) clarified the Council’s liability and accidents would not necessarily increase due to the new route.   

The Community Engagement Officer re-iterated that appropriate signage would be secured for the new route.    

Resolved:

That the proposed recreational cycle route through Victoria Park be approved.

(Vote: For – 6, Against – 4, Abstention – 1)  

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

To receive the report of the Planning Manager.

Resolved:

That the draft Planning Enforcement Plan be adopted and that delegation be given to the Head of Communities & Place, in consultation with the Lead Member for Planning, to make minor amendments to the Planning Enforcement Plan be approved.

(Vote: For – unanimous)  

The Planning Manager presented the report, the purpose of which was for members to consider a proposal to adopt a new Local Enforcement Plan.

A discussion followed the presentation of the report.

Members raised concern to adequate resources, the need for better communication and the poor state of some listed buildings.

Councillor P Pennington proposed an amendment to elevate "development with significant impact on the natural environment" from Medium to Highest Priority, arguing for immediate action on rural encroachments. Helen clarified that Highest Priority (24-hour response) is reserved for immediate legal breaches (e.g., listed buildings, protected trees), while Medium Priority (15 working days) covers significant harm.

This amendment was seconded by Councillor T Elliott.

The Planning Manager addressed concerns raised by members relating to staff resources, explaining time allocated purely for enforcement and referred to the monitoring project in the report.

The Chair enquired about the public accessibility of the plan and the implications of "lower priority" cases. The Planning Manager confirmed the plan would be public and that lower priority still entails investigation.

Following questioning, the Head of Legal & Governance (& Monitoring Officer)  explained the legal process surrounding long-standing enforcement cases and the effectiveness of court action. Members noted that prosecution does not always resolve on-site issues.

When discussing enforcement cases, Councillor P Hackett asked if the meeting could enter Part II to discuss cases in more detail. The Chair responded by advising this was not the correct platform to discuss enforcement cases in detail. 

Members raised concern to the 15 day response time and worried that it would enable illegal cases and occupants to further secure sites. The Planning Manager provided assurance that this was not an issue officers found and that 15 days is the maximum threshold.

Following further concern regarding resources, the Chief Executive supported advice given earlier by the Planning Manager and explained that the new plan's implementation would first be assessed to determine future resource needs. The Enforcement Plan would also be scrutinised by the Internal Overview & Scrutiny Committee regarding the need for further resources. In addition to this the Planning Manager advised that the new administration assistant would provide extra help.

Councillor K James moved the recommendations in the report, which was seconded by Councillor A Dart.

Following questioning the Planning Manager explained in detail how the priority level had been established.

It was proposed by Councillor P Pennington, seconded by Councillor T Elliott and –

Resolved:

That the amendment to elevate the ‘development that has a significant impact on the natural environment’ from medium to high priority be approved.

(Vote: For – 5, Against – 6, Abstentions – 0)

The motion was lost.

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

Resolved:

That the draft Planning Enforcement Plan be adopted and that delegation be given to the Head of Communities & Place, in consultation with the Lead Member for Planning, to make minor amendments to the Planning Enforcement Plan be approved.

(Vote: For – unanimous) 

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

Resolved:

That Community & Resources Committee note and approve for publication the 2025 update of the carbon footprint for Torridge District Council and that Community & Resources recommend that TDC’s climate commitments are re-examined by the Council.

(Vote: For – unanimous)   

The Sustainability & Climate Officer presented the report, the purpose of which was to put forward for approval by Committee the 2025 update of TDC’s Carbon Footprint.

As Lead Member for Climate, Councillor P Hames addressed the committee. He provided context on the climate emergency, global impacts, and the Council's performance. He praised new energy-efficient buildings and initial electric van purchases but criticised the lack of further investment in electric vehicles.

Next, the Sustainability & Climate Officer clarified the difference between carbon neutral and net zero.

Councillor C Leather moved the recommendation in the report.

In response to a query, the Sustainability & Climate Officer explained the impact of leisure sites on the data and reiterated the poor progress towards the target, emphasising the need for Full Council to review commitments and required funding.

Following Councillor P Hames’ reference to the proposed increase in the Climate Change Budget at last year’s Full Council meeting, the Chief Executive explained in detail that the proposal was not approved as a project plan and would first need to be developed and submitted through the formal budgetary process.

Councillor K James added that the Climate Change Working Group need to make recommendations to Committee & Resources Committee. He seconded Councillor C Leather’s proposal to approve the recommendation in the report.

During the discussion it was agreed that the Council’s climate commitments need to be re-examined.

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

Resolved:

That Community & Resources Committee note and approve for publication the 2025 update of the carbon footprint for Torridge District Council and that Community & Resources recommend that TDC’s climate commitments are re-examined by the Council.

(Vote: For – unanimous)  

Following the resolution it was confirmed that there had been no suggestion from officers to abandon the 2030 target.

The Head of Communities & Place left at 12.08pm. 

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

Resolved:

That the Community and Resources Committee note and approve for publication the 2025 update of the Carbon, Environment and Biodiversity Plan for Torridge District Council.

(Vote: For – unanimous)

The Sustainability & Climate Officer presented the report, the purpose of which was to put forward for approval by Committee the 2025 update of the Carbon, Environment and Biodiversity Plan for Torridge District Council.

It was proposed by Councillor C Leather, seconded by Councillor P Pennington and –

Resolved:

That the Community and Resources Committee note and approve for publication the 2025 update of the Carbon, Environment and Biodiversity Plan for Torridge District Council.

(Vote: For – unanimous)

The Chair thanked officers for the report.

To receive the report of the Councillor Climate Emergency Working Group.

Resolved:

That the purchase of HVO to use in TDC’s Operational Services fleet be referred back to the Councillor Climate Emergency working group for further investigation and then make a recommendation to the Community & Resources Committee to consider.

(Vote: For – unanimous)

Councillor P Hames presented the report, the purpose of which was to inform Councillors of the advantages and disadvantages of using hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) to replace diesel in the Council’s owned fleet so that they can decide if HVO is an option they wish to purchase.

Following the presentation of the report, Councillor P Hames moved to purchase HVO fuel after securing satisfactory evidence of sustainability.

A discussion took place.

Councillor C Leather raised concerns about the significant cost increase, potential damage to vehicles and the rebranding of palm oil. He suggested waiting for Full Council's policy review.

The Chief Executive clarified that any budgetary impact would require a recommendation to Full Council.

Councillor T Elliott cited National Trust experiences and insurance company nervousness. He recommended refusal to use HVO oil.

Members noted concern raised in relation to palm oil and deforestation. It was also suggested that further investigation work take place with other councils. The risk of using HVO on the vehicle fleet was raised as a concern by Members.

The Operational Services Manager was in attendance to answer any queries raised by Members, and explained that a small-scale trial was not feasible due to depot fuelling logistics and the need for a dedicated bulk storage tank.

It was proposed by Councillor P Hames, seconded by Councillor C Cottle-Hunkin and -

Resolved:

That the purchase of HVO to use in TDC’s Operational Services fleet be referred back to the Councillor Climate Emergency working group for further investigation and then make a recommendation to the Community & Resources Committee to consider.

(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 by virtue of paragraph 2 of Part I and paragraph 10 of Part 2 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

It was proposed by Councillor K James, 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:

That the recommendation from Internal Overview & Scrutiny be rejected and a report be presented to Full Council for consideration.

(Vote: For – unanimous)

The Chief Executive presented the report, the purpose of which was for the Committee to receive the recommendation from Internal Overview & Scrutiny (02/09/25) in relation to the decision of the Community & Resources Committee on the 7^th July 2025.

The Committee debated the recommendation from Internal Overview & Scrutiny Committee.

Councillor K James addressed the committee and proposed to reject the recommendation from Internal Overview & Scrutiny Committee on 02/09/25 and refer the matter to Full Council. This was seconded by Councillor T Elliott.

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

Resolved:

That the recommendation from Internal Overview & Scrutiny be rejected and a report be presented to Full Council for consideration.

(Vote: For – unanimous)

It was proposed by Councillor C Cottle-Hunkin, seconded by Councillor P Hackett and –

Resolved:

That the press and public be readmitted.

(Vote: For – unanimous)