Agenda item

The minutes of the Executive of 29 November 2022 were presented by the Leader, Councillor Bialyk, and taken as read.  

 

In respect of Minute No.119 (Members’ Allowances), the Leader moved and Councillor Wright seconded the recommendations and following a vote, the recommendations were carried unanimously.

 

In respect of Minute No. 120 (Amendment to the Terms of Reference for the Joint Consultation and Negotiation Committee), the Leader moved and Councillor Wright seconded the recommendation and following a vote, the recommendation was carried unanimously.

 

In respect of Minute No. 121 (Working Towards Net Zero - Exeter City Council’s Corporate Footprint Report and Carbon Reduction Action Plan), the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change, undertook to respond to a Member’s question in respect of the requirement for a detailed investment plan based on costed proposals to achieve Net Zero 2030.

 

The Leader moved and Councillor Wright seconded the recommendations and following a vote, the recommendations were carried unanimously.

 

In respect of Minute No. 122 (The Local Household Support Fund - Scheme 3), the Portfolio Holder for Customer Services and Housing commended the scheme which would assist those households struggling during the Cost of Living Crisis, the awards to range between £100 and £650, with payments to be made in January.

 

The Leader moved and Councillor Wright seconded the recommendation and following a vote, the recommendation was carried unanimously.

 

In respect of Minute No. 123 (Mary Arches Street Car Park Re-development), the Leader, in response to a Member’s question, advised that there was no intention to include properties outside of the indicative red line boundary and that the purpose of the report was to agree a budget for the demolition of the Car Park and requirements for making the demolition possible. He added that there would be a consultation process and that Members could raise issues in advance with the Director City Development.

 

The Portfolio Holder for Climate Change stated that the cost of the solar canopy arrays had been fully met and that they would be relocated to an appropriate site to continue to generate energy.

 

The Leader moved and Councillor Wright seconded the recommendations and following a vote, the recommendations were carried.

 

In respect of Minute No. 124 (Community Infrastructure Levy - Partial Review consultation), the Leader, in response to a Member’s question, confirmed that the public consultation on the draft Charging Schedule would follow the Council’s Consultation Charter.

 

Councillor Wood declared a non-pecuniary interest and left the meeting during consideration of the following item.

 

In respect of Minute No. 125 (Annual Infrastructure Funding Statements 2022), the Leader, in response to Members’ questions, provided the following responses:-

 

·         although he understood that it was not a requirement for 25% of a CIL contribution to be allocated to a Neighbourhood Plan area, he would seek further clarification from the Director City Development;

·         with regard to the Exeter wide distribution of CIL monies, he recognised the differing demands from the city’s wards, some of which had pressing needs in terms of deprivation but that it was important to achieve consensus on the distribution of funds. As it was difficult to discuss issues with all Ward Members, it was appropriate for this matter in particular, to be raised at a Leaders’ meeting; and

·         the Quay and Water Lane area could also be raised at a Leaders’ meeting. Although proposals for the Water Lane Retail Park development might provide an opportunity for funding in the area, the ideas for replacing the former Mallison Bridge had included a wider boardwalk proposal, the cost of which was prohibitive at present. Ultimately, any plans would require inclusion in future capital programmes.

 

The Deputy Leader apologised for the delay in re-arranging a planned meeting referred to by a co-leader of the Progressive Group.

 

Councillor Wood having declared a non-pecuniary interest in the previous item had already left the meeting prior to the consideration of the following item, on which he had also declared a non-pecuniary interest. He therefore remained outside the meeting.

 

In respect of Minute No. 126 (Pinhoe Community Hub), and during the discussion the following points were made:-

 

·         new community facilities were particularly needed in Pinhoe following the significant amount of new housing built in the area in recent years. As well as Pinhoe residents, it was anticipated that the wider community, including the St James and Polsloe areas, would also benefit from the facilities and events;

·         the Pinhoe Community Hub incorporated an extension to the library and a café overlooking the play area which would enable parents to supervise their children; and

·         the value of CIL contributions to communities across the city, as well as the Pinhoe Hub, was recognised.

 

The Leader moved and Councillor Wright seconded the recommendations and following a vote, the recommendations were carried unanimously.

 

In respect of Minute No.127 (Overview of General Fund Revenue Budget 2022/23 – Quarter 2), the Leader moved and Councillor Wright seconded the recommendations and following a vote, the recommendations were carried.

 

In respect of Minute No. 128 (2022/23 General Fund Capital Monitoring Statement – Quarter 2), the Leader moved and Councillor Wright seconded the recommendations and following a vote, the recommendations were carried.

 

In respect of Minute No. 129 (HRA Budget Monitoring Report - Quarter 2), the Leader, in response to a Member’s question, undertook to request the Director Net Zero Exeter and City Management to provide an update on the position in respect of the allocated budget for replacing trees lost as a result of Ash Dieback.

 

The Leader moved and Councillor Wright seconded the recommendations and following a vote, the recommendations were carried.

 

In respect of Minute No. 130 (Treasury Management 2022/23 Half Year Update), the Leader, in response to a Member’s question, undertook to request the Director Finance to provide an update on the impact of climate change on the City Council investments, in particular in relation to banking activity.

 

The Leader moved and Councillor Wright seconded the recommendation and following a vote, the recommendation was carried.

 

In respect of Minute No. 133 (Live and Move Strategy and Governance Proposals), the Chair of the Strategic Scrutiny Committee, in response to a Member’s question, advised that the Strategy fell within the Portfolio for Leisure Services and Physical Activity and that progress on the Strategy would be reported to the Committee. 

 

The Leader moved and Councillor Wright seconded the recommendations and following a vote, the recommendations were carried unanimously.

 

In respect of Minute No. 134 (The Exeter Community Lottery), Councillor Read moved and Councillor D. Moore seconded the following amendment:-

 

“to remove recommendations (1) to (4) and to replace with two recommendations:-

 

(1)to produce, prior to a decision being taken to proceed, a feasibility report on the financial impact for the Council, impact on the voluntary sector, and the likely impact of gambling on those people and households who buy tickets; and

 

(2)if deemed feasible, to then consult with the public and voluntary sector on the establishment of a local lottery for Exeter in line with the Consultation Charter and report back to Council on these findings.”

 

In presenting the amendment, Councillor Read stated that the proposal for an Exeter lottery could drive a wedge between communities as some would be unable to access the lottery fund, whilst others could. It was also incompatible with a Notice of Motion passed by the Council on 18 October 2022 (Min. No 56 refers) on the Cost of Living Crisis as lotteries take a higher percentage of their income from low income families. She asked if there had been any research on the impact on existing lotteries such as those of the Royal Devon and Exeter, NHS Trust and schools and whether smaller organisations who run lotteries would also be compromised. She also enquired if there had been any modelling undertaken on multiple members of a household purchasing tickets and how much the scheme would cost the Council?

 

The Portfolio Holder for Communities and Homelessness Prevention made the following points:-

 

·         he had offered to share research through a briefing, but it had been unfortunate that not all Members had been able to attend, the briefing in effect being part of a consultation process;

·         there were 163 organisations in the city who had benefitted from funding such as Exeter Cathedral via the Heritage Lottery Fund and Exeter Communities Together who supported a wide range of organisations across the city which indicated that there was widespread knowledge of lottery opportunities;

·         the proposal was a sustainable way of getting extra community funding for organisations in the city and it was not a barrier, but an additional way of grant supporting bodies, allied to the Council’s existing grants scheme;

·         significant consultation had already taken place and there was ongoing discussions with Exeter’s community partners such as Exeter Community Initiative and St. Sidwell’s Community Centre, all of whom were excited with the planned Exeter lottery;

·         it was an incentivised giving scheme offering the public the opportunity to contribute to good causes which, in turn, would help those organisations, large and small alike, to combat the cost of living crisis; and

·         it was not a ground breaking initiative as other local authorities had been able to set up community lotteries and there were now over 115 local authority managed lotteries in the UK. Research had shown that 82.5% of those participating came from the ABC 1 social category and not lower income groups.

 

A Member stated that the opportunity for a briefing had been welcomed but had been called at short notice. She emphasised that it was important for additional time to be made available for a scrutiny process to be undertaken prior to any commitment being made.

 

Councillor D. Moore, in seconding the amendment, raised the following points:-

 

·         whilst the Portfolio Holder had offered a briefing, it was not a consultation and a report should have been brought first to the relevant Scrutiny Committee;

·         it was important to respect the relationship with the voluntary sector and they should be consulted in accordance with the City Council’s Consultation Charter as a number of these organisations had received support from the National Lottery and could therefore make a valuable contribution to this issue;

·         some organisations in the city had not been able to participate in lottery funded projects because of their values and beliefs, one organisation having pulled out of a project for this reason;

·         there was a need to be fully inclusive, as some organisations have not been aware of this scheme;

·         the proposal had not been fully costed and there was a need for information on how it would be funded, what the financial return would be each quarter and an understanding of how the scheme would work with the City Council’s grants system. It was important to ensure that funds would be available to those organisations who do not wish to benefit from the scheme;

·         a significant amount of money would go to the organiser and there should be other ways to incentivise many in the city who were very generous by offering alternative opportunities to give, such as through Trusts; and

·         request a full feasibility study to understand the true cost to the Council and a fundamental consultation with the voluntary and community sectors to help shape the proposed lottery.

 

During discussion the following points were raised:-

 

·         the scheme was self-funded and there was no cost to the Council as it was being undertaken by an outside provider. It would offer the opportunity for people to give back to their community;

·         the opposition to the proposal would only lead to delay in its implementation when many other Councils had been running such schemes for years;

·         it was not a regressive taxation or big scale on-line gambling;

·         data showed that it was not the most deprived in the community who took part and there would be safeguards in place; and

·         there were creative ways to ensure that certain communities who had reservations with lotteries could still benefit.

 

The Portfolio Holder responded further with the following comments:-

 

·         the money would be separate to the grants scheme and it was not the intention for those who had benefited from the grants scheme to receive further support from the new scheme; and

·         costs would be £1,173 to cover the Lottery Gambling fees and, as estimated in consultation with other Councils, two to three hours of officer time per week. External lottery managers would be used as they would bear the risk in relation to the prize fund.

 

Councillor Read, in exercising her right of reply, stated that there had been insufficient consultation as a number of community organisations were unaware of the proposal and she called for the proposal to be properly scrutinised.

 

The amendment was put to the vote and LOST.

 

Councillor Jobson, as an opposition group leader, spoke on this item stating that the briefing session provided had been useful. She was also concerned that there would be multiple member households participating, potentially spending over £20 a week, at a time, when families were economically stretched in other areas. She did not feel that assurances had been given that there were adequate safeguards in place. Similarly, it was unclear how to stop under 16’s joining the scheme.

 

During further discussion, the point was made that it was unclear how much of the lottery fund would be used towards administration, how much would go to the lottery provider and whether there would be any contribution to Gambling Aware.

 

The Leader moved and Councillor Wright seconded the recommendations and following a vote, the recommendations were carried.

 

In respect of Minute No. 135 (Major Capital Projects Budgets : Edwards Court Extra Care Scheme and Exeter Bus Station and St. Sidwell’s Point Programme 3), the Leader, in response to a Member’s question, stated that the total cost of the Bus Station and St. Sidwell’s Point Leisure Centre project was £54.8 million. He added that St. Sidwell’s Point had been upgraded since the initial stages in 2014 and that the target of 10,000 members across all of the Council’s Leisure facilities within three years of the opening of St. Sidwell’s Point had already been exceeded, with 12,000 members now signed up.

 

The Leader moved and Councillor Wright seconded the recommendations and following a vote, the recommendations were carried.

 

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Executive held on 29 November 2022 be received and, where appropriate, adopted.

 

The meeting adjourned at 8.10 pm and re-convened at 8.18 pm.