Agenda and draft minutes

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 10 June 2025.

The minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Council held on the 10 June 2025 were moved by the Lord Mayor, taken as read, approved and signed as correct.

The Lord Mayor advised that she had attended the following:

·         Exeter College Apprentice & Employer Awards;

·         Topsham St James Cricket Club 150^th Anniversary;

·         “A New Creation” at Exeter Cathedral;

·         Northcott’s production of Romeo & Juliet;

·         Riding for Disabled’s Exeter Group;

·         Armed Forces Day;

·         the installation of the new Bishop of Crediton;

·         raising of the Windrush Flag at Devon County Council;

·         Redmayne and Bentley’s 150^th anniversary;

·         Devon and Exeter Institution’s Midsummer Festival;

·         Macmillan’s 150^th Anniversary;

·         Vice Chancellor’s Garden Party;

·         Science Park’s 10^th anniversary; and

·         the opening of the Climate Change Forum at the University.

The Lord Mayor also highlighted the success of the Lammas Fair celebration, and that both she and the Deputy Lord Mayor were looking forward to the upcoming Women’s Rugby World Cup.

Details of questions should be notified to the Democratic Services at least three working days prior to the meeting - by 10am on Thursday 17 July 2025 via email: democratic.services@exeter.gov.uk Details about speaking at Council can be found here Public Speaking at Meetings.

The Lord Mayor reported that one question had been received from a member of the public.

The individual who had submitted a question was not in attendance, and the Lord Mayor advised that the question and response would be published on the website within five working days.

The minutes of the Exeter Harbour Board held on 12 June 2025 were presented by the Chair, Councillor Ruth Williams, and taken as read.

In respect of Minute No.18 Chair’s Announcements, Councillor Moore asked for clarity regarding the floating restaurant and why it continued to be on the agenda. Councillor R Williams clarified that it had remained on the agenda as it remained an ongoing issue for the Harbour Master and other relevant parties.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Exeter Harbour Board of 12 June 2025 be received.

The minutes of the Strategic Scrutiny Committee held on 5 June 2025 were presented by the Chair, Councillor Pole and taken as read.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Strategic Scrutiny Committee held on 5 June 2025 be received.

The minutes of the Special Executive Committee held on 19 June 2025 were presented by the Leader, Councillor Bialyk and taken as read.

In respect of Minute No. 45 Pendragon Road Councillor Moore asked for clarification regarding access points to the site, and the expected greenspace that would be connected to this development. Councillor Banyard asked the Leader to provide information on the guarantees the Council could offer to ensure the enforcement on the ransom strip around the site. Clarification was also sought from Councillor Harding regarding how the land between Savoy Hill Valley Park and Mincinglake Valley park could be joined as soon as possible.

In response the Leader stated that the report had covered the disposal of land and had not been a planning application, that the number of access points was still being discussed by planners with the developers. Discussions surrounding the land at the edges of the site were subject to ongoing work between legal and planning teams. Regarding the land between Savoy Hill Valley Park and Mincinglake Valley Park it would be good to see this provide better and useable amenity space for residents and visitors.

RESOLVED that the minutes of Special Executive Committee held on 19 June 2025 be received.

The minutes of the Special Executive Committee held on 24 June 2025 were presented by the Leader, Councillor Bialyk and taken as read.

In respect of Minute No. 48 Closure of Northbrook Swimming Pool, Councillor Palmer raised concerns about information suggesting that Northbrook Swimming Pool would be demolished by the Council and whether if asked by the Northbrook Trust for the swimming pool to be returned to them in its original condition, the closure would be reconsidered. Councillor Miller-Boam asked the Leader to provide clarification on what work had already been done regarding community ownership of the pool, as recommended by the Customer Focus Scrutiny Committee.

In response the Leader stated that there had been no proposal for the Council to demolish Northbrook Pool as the asset was not ours, and that there was an upcoming meeting with the Legal team regarding the lease, but there would be no reconsideration beyond that.

Councillor Bennett submitted the following question under Standing Order No. 8:

“At the Executive on the 24^th June, over 4 weeks ago, the Leader said with regard to Northbrook Swimming Pool. If agreed tonight, the closure process could take up to 12-weeks. This will give officers time set up focus groups, talk with teachers and engage leisure members to work out ways to help people transition to St Sidwell’s and Riverside pools. We are fortunate in having committed and knowledgeable staff at our leisure centres, who can facilitate this process.”

Please can a full update on these focus groups, transition arrangements and provision made for schools be explained to Council?.” 

The Leader provided the following response in response to Councillor Bennett’s question:

“Following the Executive meeting on 24 June, I am pleased to provide a full update on the progress  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

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

The Leader, Councillor Bialyk presented the Corporate Plan Report and during debate Members made the following comments:

• there was concern that residents feedback about nature was not reflected in the outcomes of the corporate plan, and that there was a duty towards nature and decarbonisation;
• the introduction to the plan mentioned heritage but there was no corresponding outcome;
• the Council needed to enable a greater voice for the community as they wanted to have a say on issues that affected them;
• further discussion in the future with opposition groups would be welcomed when drafting new plans;
• drafting amendments would be made to change the wording to ‘Net Zero’; and
• operational detail had been provided regarding managing green spaces which could help clarify some biodiversity concerns.

The Leader responded to Members comments in the following terms:

·         the corporate plan had been based on the manifesto of the Labour group;

·         drafting recommendations would be delegated to the chief executive as would issues surrounding heritage, which would be discussed at the leaders next meeting with the chief executive; and

·         cutting of grass was under contract with highways, and the information could be found online.

The Leader moved and Councillor Wright seconded the recommendations of the report, which following a vote were CARRIED.

To consider the report of the Chief Executive.

The Leader, Councillor Bialyk introduced the report and during debate Members made the following comments:

• the council might not exist in the same way following Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) therefore the aim of this project could be in vain;
• the investment in IT raised concerns that infrastructure was becoming a larger portion of what the council was focusing on;
• learning and development was a large amount of work for one role;
• the council’s responsibility was to the people of Exeter to ensure that the council was ready for LGR;
• it was important to be up to date digitally and to relieve stress on members of staff where possible as well as ensuring readiness for LGR;
• the council could fall behind unless investments in staff were made;
• this could provide impetus to assist LGR, and we should not stop because there was change on the horizon;
• the council should make sure whatever changes were made were compatible with neighbouring authorities they could be working with; and
• there were significant number of staff who maybe concerned with what the future looks like after LGR and it would be important to acknowledge and reassure where possible.

Members asked the following questions:

• was this suitable given the context of LGR and that everything may be different in the future;
• where would corporate health and safety be sourced;
• would it help to know what central government would provide for restructure;
• could the council be informed of discussions with neighbouring authorities given the amount of investment in infrastructure;
• would the council look to upskill and prepare officers rather than training new staff.

The Leader and Section 151 Officer responded to Members questions in the following terms:

• the council would make sure there was good communication with other local authorities;
• the request was for funds to develop staff;
• business rates reset would take place this year; and
• these funds would address budget challenges over the next two years.

The Leader moved and Councillor Wright seconded the recommendations of the report, which following a vote were CARRIED.

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

The Leader, Councillor Bialyk, introduced this report and during debate members made the following comments:

• an email from the Head of Service - Operations had been circulated to every councillor;
• two partners, Teignbridge Council and East Devon District Council had already approved this strategy;
• Exeter was fortunate to have easy access to two vital European sites, Dawlish Warren and the Pebblebed Heaths, and it was important to protect those;
• would like to see a similar plan for Exeter;
• there was no biodiversity strategy for the city, and this level of detail was needed across all green spaces; and
• Members were sceptical due to the Government’s reputation of regarding the environment.

The Leader responded in the following terms: -

• this strategy had cross party support at both Teignbridge and East Devon District Council; and
• support for this strategy was welcomed.

The Leader moved and Councillor Wright seconded the recommendations as stated in the report, which following a vote unanimous were CARRIED.

Motion: Supreme Court Motion

Council notes that: 

The Supreme Court, in the case of For Women Scotland v the Scottish Ministers, ruled that the terms “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to ‘biological sex’, and that the Scottish Government’s effort to increase women’s representation on public boards therefore did not entail representation by trans women with a Gender Recognition Certificate, as it had intended.

A Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) allows trans people to change their birth certificate and their sex marker with HMRC. It is an illegal practice under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 for an employer to ask for an employee’s GRC.

Repeatedly misgendering someone, particularly a transgender person, could be considered a form of harassment and direct discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, although the law is still evolving around this and is currently still complex.

Interim guidance published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has suggested that trans women should not be permitted to use women’s facilities, and trans men should not be permitted to use men’s facilities, in workplaces and services open to the public. This interim guidance is currently in the process of being challenged by way of a claim for judicial review by the Good Law Project. If the claimants are found to be incorrect, then the submission is that the EHRC interim guidance is incompatible with articles 8 and/or 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

The Supreme Court judgement, and following interim guidance from the EHRC, has caused great anxiety, uncertainty, and fear for the trans, non-binary, and intersex communities. It has also encouraged open bigotry, and a further removal of safety measures for trans and non-binary people in workplaces and public spaces due to a lack of understanding of what this Supreme Court judgment actually means.

The law requiring respect for trans/non-binary rights has not changed. The provisions of the Equality Act 2010 on protected characteristics, associated case law, plus the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that trans people’s rights must be respected under the law.

A recent Galop survey found that two-thirds of LGBT+ respondents had experienced anti-LGBT+ violence or abuse, and abuse is particularly severe for trans people.

The LGBT+ community are more likely to experience disproportionately poor health outcomes, workplace conflict, homeless, and difficulties accessing public services. This includes the LGBT+ community in our city of Exeter.

Council believes:

• Trans women are women, trans men are men, and non-binary and intersex people exist and deserve recognition. 
• Everyone should be safe and free to be themselves, without fear of hostility or violence, and the erosion of trans rights threatens everyone’s rights – especially women and girls.
• Nobody’s life chances should be limited or determined because of their sexual orientation or gender identity or gender expression.
• The trans community deserve clarity and reassurance on how their rights will be protected.
• Parliament must act to clarify how Gender Recognition Certificates interact with the Equality Act 2010, ensuring that Gender Recognition Certificates recognise trans people’s  ...  view the full agenda text for item 65a

Councillor Hughes moved, and Councillor K Mitchell seconded a Notice of Motion in the following terms: -

NOTICE OF MOTION BY COUNCILLOR HUGHES UNDER STANDING ORDER NO.6

Council notes that:

The Supreme Court, in the case of For Women Scotland v the Scottish Ministers, ruled that the terms “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to ‘biological sex’, and that the Scottish Government’s effort to increase women’s representation on public boards therefore did not entail representation by trans women with a Gender Recognition Certificate, as it had intended.

A Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) allows trans people to change their birth certificate and their sex marker with HMRC. It is an illegal practice under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 for an employer to ask for an employee’s GRC.

Repeatedly misgendering someone, particularly a transgender person, could be considered a form of harassment and direct discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, although the law is still evolving around this and is currently still complex.

Interim guidance published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has suggested that trans women should not be permitted to use women’s facilities, and trans men should not be permitted to use men’s facilities, in workplaces and services open to the public. This interim guidance is currently in the process of being challenged by way of a claim for judicial review by the Good Law Project. If the claimants are found to be incorrect, then the submission is that the EHRC interim guidance is incompatible with articles 8 and/or 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

The Supreme Court judgement, and following interim guidance from the EHRC, has caused great anxiety, uncertainty, and fear for the trans, non-binary, and intersex communities. It has also encouraged open bigotry, and a further removal of safety measures for trans and non-binary people in workplaces and public spaces due to a lack of understanding of what this Supreme Court judgment actually means.

The law requiring respect for trans/non-binary rights has not changed. The provisions of the Equality Act 2010 on protected characteristics, associated case law, plus the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that trans people’s rights must be respected under the law.”

An amendment to the motion was proposed by Councillor Wright calling to remove point 5 and to remove “are women”, “are men”, “and” from the first sentence of the motion. Councillor Hughes accepted the amendment.

In presenting the motion, Councillor Hughes made the following points:

• this motion was important in the current climate;
• 47% of transgender people had been sexually assaulted at some point in their life, and 78% had experienced sexual harassment;
• 35% of transgender people had experienced physical assault;
• 12% of transgender and non-binary individuals had experienced sexual violence;
• 57% had experienced mistreatment by Police;
• the Supreme Court had been very clear that there was no legal requirement for single sex facilities where there are cubicle toilets;
• regulations were separate from Equality Act 2010, and there was no need for establishments to change their  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65a

Notice of Motion - Student Council Tax Gap

“Council notes that:

·         The Student Class N Council Tax exemption is a national policy that helps to support the accommodation costs of full-time students during their studies.

·         It receives some reimbursement from the DCLG via the Settlement Funding Assessment to compensate for the loss of Council Tax income, but that the student adjustment was fixed in 2013/14 and has not been updated since.

·         With the rise in Council Tax rates since 2013/14 and growing student numbers, the current cost of N exemptions within Exeter is estimated to be £10.12m of which £0.8m would be payable to Exeter City Council.

·         In response to a recent parliamentary question, HMG has indicated that they intend to use the consultation on the Fair Funding Review 2.0 to review the adjustments to the funding formula for local authorities with higher student- exempt properties.

Council believes that:

·         The review of the funding formula is a welcome first step, but that local authorities with high student populations, like Exeter, should not disproportionately bear the costs of student Council Tax exemptions. 

Council resolves to:

·         Participate fully in the consultation process on the Fair Funding Review 2.0, making the case for the funding gap caused by Class N exemptions to be filled and that future funding assessments should reflect changes in Council Tax rates and student numbers.

·         Engage with similar authorities and others, locally and nationally, to jointly lobby HMG on this issue.”

Proposer – Cllr Kevin Mitchell

Seconder – Cllr Tammy Palmer

Councillor K Mitchell moved, and Councillor M Mitchell seconded a Notice of Motion in the following terms:

“Council notes that:

The Student Class N Council Tax exemption is a national policy that helps to support the accommodation costs of full-time students during their studies.

It receives some reimbursement from the DCLG via the Settlement Funding Assessment to compensate for the loss of Council Tax income, but that the student adjustment was fixed in 2013/14 and has not been updated since.

With the rise in Council Tax rates since 2013/14 and growing student numbers, the current cost of N exemptions within Exeter is estimated to be £10.12m of which £0.8m would be payable to Exeter City Council.

In response to a recent parliamentary question, HMG has indicated that they intend to use the consultation on the Fair Funding Review 2.0 to review the adjustments to the funding formula for local authorities with higher student- exempt properties.

Council believes that:

The review of the funding formula is a welcome first step, but that local authorities with high student populations, like Exeter, should not disproportionately bear the costs of student Council Tax exemptions.

Council resolves to:

Participate fully in the consultation process on the Fair Funding Review 2.0, making the case for the funding gap caused by Class N exemptions to be filled and that future funding assessments should reflect changes in Council Tax rates and student numbers.

Engage with similar authorities and others, locally and nationally, to jointly lobby HMG on this issue.”

In presenting the motion Councillor K Mitchell made the following points: -

• Exeter had become an attraction for students as the University was a top university in the country; and
• this issue was not anti-student or anti-university.

Councillor M Mitchell, as seconder, spoke in support of the motion, making the following points:

• this was similar to the business rates on PBSA in 2019;
• all councillors in inner city wards had a high density of students;
• arrangements had previously been made in 2013/14 for extra allowance for cities with high numbers of students and Exeter believes we meet the high criteria threshold and would like the system reviewed; and
• as Exeter was a low wage area, this makes council tax a burden for those who are paying.

Following a unanimous vote this motion was CARRIED      .

To receive questions from Members on any matter for which the Council has powers, duties or affects the city.

In accordance with Standing Order No. 8, the following question was put by Councillor M Mitchell to the Leader:

“Can the Leader confirm that neither he or his administration will be placing before Council a request to the Secretary of State to cancel the local elections due to be held for Exeter City Council in May 2026?”

The Leader responded stating that he had no intention of cancelling the local elections due to be held in May 2026 and neither did this council.

In accordance with Standing Order No. 8, the following question was put by Councillor Wetenhall to the Leader:

“Your administration has committed to completing the roll-out of food waste collections by the end of this financial year and I and my fellow Green Councillors warmly welcome this. Can you please confirm that this roll-out will include flats in the city centre area, covering both St David’s and Newtown and St Leonard’s wards?”

Councillor Ruth Williams, Portfolio Holder for City Management responded stating that flats would be included, as they had been with all areas of the roll out that had been conducted to date.

In accordance with Standing Order No.8, the following question was put by Councillor Moore to the Leader:

“Exeter’s baseball team, the Exeter Spitfires, have won Regional League and we wish them well as they go to the National Finals. However, at the moment they are unable to train anywhere as King George V Playing Fields have reverted back to the football team. When will the Exeter Spitfires be able to move onto their permanent home of Bromham’s Farm playing field?”

Councillor Wood, Portfolio Holder for Leisure Services and Healthy Living responded to this question, stating that “Exeter Spitfires current licence agreement for KGV ends on the 3^{rd of} August 2025. The field will continue to be maintained, and they remain able to play up to and including that. The commencement of the use of Brohmams is subject to current and ongoing discussion with the club regarding their terms of occupation. It is anticipated that terms will be in place prior to the start of the April 2026 formal baseball season. No interim training facilities have been requested.”

In a supplementary question, Councillor Moore stated that there had been discussions about interim arrangements and the need to spend their grant by September to ensure it could be spent, she asked Councillor Wood if he would be able to have an urgent conversation with Exeter Spitfires about these issues.

Councillor Wood stated in response that if Exeter Spitfires made an approach the council would engage in discussion.

In accordance with Standing Order No. 8, the following question was put by Councillor Banyard to the Leader:

“The Government is currently consulting on proposed changes to the way planning committees operate, in its “Reform of planning committees: technical consultation”, which closes on Wednesday 24^th July 2025. Has the Council responded, or does it intend to respond, to this consultation?”

Councillor Patrick, Portfolio Holder for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.