Agenda, decisions and minutes

The Leader welcomed Councillor Patrick to the Executive as the Portfolio Holder for City Development.

The Leader also welcomed Councillor Darling as the new Member Champion for Culture and City Centre and Councillor Miller-Boam as the Member Champion for Community Safety & Engagement.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 1 April 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on 1 April 2025, were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

Councillors are reminded of the need to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests that relate to business on the agenda and which have not already been included in the register of interests, before any discussion takes place on the item. Unless the interest is sensitive, you must also disclose the nature of the interest. In accordance with the Council's Code of Conduct, you must then leave the room and must not participate in any further discussion of the item.  Councillors requiring clarification should seek the advice of the Monitoring Officer prior to the day of the meeting.

No declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests were made.

To receive questions relating to items on the Agenda from members of the public and responses thereto.

Details of questions should be notified to the Democratic Services Manager by 10.00am at least three working days prior to the meeting. Further information about speaking at a committee can be found here: Speaking at a Committee

No questions from members of the public were received.

To consider the report of the Strategic Director of Operations.

Agreed:

RESOLVED that the Executive approves that:

(1) the proposals be put out to public consultation to run from 27 May 2025 until 8 July 2025 (6 weeks);

(2) a public notice containing the proposed variation table be published in one local newspaper during the consultation period; and

(3) where there are representations made, that the matter be brought back to Executive on 23 September 2025 for determination.

Reason for Decision: As set out in the report and as amended at the meeting.

The Executive received the report on a request from the Chair of Exeter St Davids Hackney Carriage Association, to increase the Hackney Carriage Fare Tariff and determine whether to proceed to public consultation based on the proposed tariff table included with the report.

Particular reference was made to:-

·         the variation of Hackney carriage charges was the only licensing matter requiring Executive approval, under primary legislation and required periodic review;

·         the proposed public consultation was double the minimum requirement  of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act to allow full public input;

·         the fare-setting formula used was a nationally recognised system, originally devised by Guildford Borough Council. Local figures had been input into the formula; and

·         detailed information and a comparison of current and proposed fares was outlined in Appendix B of the report.

During the discussion, Executive Members raised the following points and questions:-

·         there had been a seven-year period where there had been no Hackney fare increases until more recently;

·         the current proposal was considered to be a fair and necessary adjustment, especially for the area;

·         Appendix B was praised for its clarity, and highlighted that although certain tariffs appeared large, they were offset by increased distance units, meaning passengers travelled further for the same cost;

·         issues for Hackney drivers included longer waiting times and short fares, which had impacted on drivers’ earnings;

·         the inclusion of a luggage cost was supported as being fair, given the additional service provided by drivers;

·         the legal basis for the four-week consultation period was questioned, and whether it should be extended to six weeks to align with the Council’s consultation charter;

·         there was an emphasis on including disability and age-related groups in the consultation due to medium negative risk identified in Equality Impact Assessment;

·         the service provided by Hackney Carriage drivers was considered to be excellent and the proposed increase was welcomed;

·         the proposed fare figures were based on actual local costs;

·         Exeter’s Hackney fleet was approximately 50% wheelchair accessible, reflecting strong local control and commitment to accessibility; and

·         the quality and presentation of Exeter taxis were praised, notably their reliability and being compliant with Euro 6 or better environmental standards.

An opposition group leader supported the supported the recommendation and noted that the proposed fares would place Exeter in the top quartile nationally. He also highlighted that the proposals had been benchmarked against other authorities and noted the reduction in fuel costs which had also supported making savings.

In response to questions raised, the Head of Service - Environment and Waste advised that:-

·         after the first mile, a flat rate was applied. The calculation in combined the first mile and running mile, with an example being the two-mile fare being £7.60;

·         the consultation period was set by Section 65 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976; and

·         extending the consultation period to six weeks would be difficult to meet the Executive meeting deadlines for August, however, it was within the gift of the Executive to amend the recommendation.

The Leader moved and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for People and Communities.

Agreed:

RECOMMENDED that Council approve the adoption of the revised Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Policy.

Reason for Decision: As set out in the report.

The Executive received the report which sought approval for the adoption of the revised Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Policy, which had been updated to reflect organisational changes and feedback following the EDI Mini Peer Review undertaken in 2024.

The Leader highlighted a recently circulated email regarding the recent Supreme Court judgment, clarifying its implications for the policy.

During the discussion, Executive Members raised the following points and questions:-

·         the report highlighted that each Councillor had a personal responsibility to comply with the policy under the Equality Act 2010 and the Public Sector Equality Duty;

·         the EQIA showed the Council workforce data showed a 50:50 make female gender spilt across the Council.

·         was there variation between different departments of the council?

·         it was noted that the People Management system ‘iTrent’ was not currently set up to allow for non-binary input from users, and it was asked whether there been any staff feedback on this issue?

·         thanks were made to the Chief Executive and officers for report and the work that had been undertaken;

·         the review and update of the EDI policy was welcomed and was progressing positively to be accessible for all; and

·         whether there was any work being undertaken to support women in the workplace with pre-menopausal or menopausal symptoms?

The Leader highlighted the positive speeches of both the outgoing Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor at the Annual Council meeting, which reflected the city's positive attitude towards EDI.

Opposition group leaders raised the following points and questions:

·         what arrangements would be made for Councillor EDI training, and would that training be compulsory?

·         the public support expressed by Members at the Annual Council was welcomed and was appreciated by the non-binary community; and

·         with the EQIA was it possible to reconsider the specific impact assessment for gender reassignment in the light of the Supreme Court judgment.

In response to questions raised, the Strategic Director for People and Communities advised that:-

·         further details on the 50:50 split could be provided at a departmental level and the main variations in the male female ratio could be seen in front line services where more manual workforces operated;

·         as part of the EDI review work, a new EDI training programme had been agreed for implementation this year and within the HR Improvement Plan recruitment strategy was being reviewed and this work would be informed by the information provided by staff on their protected characterises to help the Council to become more reflective of the community;  

·         through the HR Improvement Plan the Council was engaging with the ‘iTrent’ system provider to explore options for more inclusive data collection on protected characteristics;

·         no specific feedback had been received from staff regarding the inability to select non-binary options, partly because the system currently did not ask;

·         the Council was always open to alternative methods for staff to indicate non-binary identity if system changes were not possible;

·         HR had run two successful staff campaigns to encourage sharing of personal information regarding sharing information on protected characteristics, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

To consider the report of the Strategic Director of Corporate Resources.

Agreed:

RESOLVED that the Executive agree:

(1) the sale of the Former Clifton Hill Leisure Centre site to Preferred Homes Limited for £3.375 million at an undervalue of £425,000, conditional upon planning approval being granted for the delivery of 100% Affordable Rent Extra Care housing scheme for older people; and

(2) that the Head of Commercial Assets, in consultation with the Strategic Director of Corporate Resources (s.151 officer) and the Leader, be granted delegated authority to approve the final terms of the sale.

RECOMMENDED that Council approve a budget for £50,000, funded by anticipated capital receipts to cover disposal costs (including external agency and legal fees) associated with this sale.

Reason for Decision: As set out in the report.

The Executive received the report which sought approval for the disposal of the Former Clifton Hill Leisure Centre site to the highest bidder for the delivery of a 100% Affordable Rent Extra Care housing scheme for older people, following receipt of tenders.

Particular reference was made to:-

·         Exeter City Council had originally sold the site to Exeter City Living (ECL) for £2.4 million which was considered at that time, to be a significant undervalue compared to the independent market value for best consideration purposes;

·         Secretary of State approval had been granted for the sale, enabling the Council to buy back the site back from ECL for approximately £3.03 million;

·         the site had since been gone out to tender, and had received a number of bids, in which the highest bid recommended for approval was £3.375 million. Another higher bid submitted was received, but was withdrawn;

·         the bid would deliver a 72-unit affordable rent extra care scheme on the site and an independent valuation had been undertaken for best consideration purposes;

·         the current sale was deemed to be an undervalue of £425,000;

·         due to changes in procurement rules and new subsidy controls, the subsidy control report included in the agenda would be sent to the Government for formal registration as an undervalued sale; and

·         a letter of support had been received from Devon County Council for the development of an additional extra care facility in the city.

During the discussion, Executive Members raised the following points and questions:-

·         although the report refers to an undervalue, the Council had foregone £425,000 in potential receipts by not permitting student accommodation, demonstrating the Councils commitment to delivering 100% affordable rent, extra care housing and prioritising community needs and a balanced use of the site;

·         the letter of support from Devon County Council highlighting the need for extra care schemes was welcomed;

·         the preferred buyer was acknowledged for their sustainable building practices, including the use of air source heat pumps and solar PV;

·         the approach maintained a balance of maintaining both green spaces and delivering homes;

·         there was interest in further community engagement, particularly with residents around Portland Street, regarding the development and planning application process;

·         the development would help free up NHS beds, as evidenced by the success of the similar Edwards Court facility;

·         the location was in a scenic area adjacent to Belmont Park, and would be a highly desirable living area for future residents; and

·         the development would reduce pressure on other facilities and support independent living for residents.

The Leader advised that following an enquiry received that day, that recommendation 2.2 of the report sought delegated authority to the Head of Commercial Assets in consultation with the Strategic Director of Corporate Resources and himself, and that the final terms would be considered appropriately, notably the safety aspects. He further advised that he would notify ward Councillors and the Executive of the outcome of any further discussions with the developer.

Opposition group leaders raised the following points and questions:

·         the Leader was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.