Agenda and minutes

To sign the minutes of the meeting held on 5 June 2007. 

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 June 2007 were taken as read and signed by the Chair as correct. 

Councillors are reminded of the need to declare personal and prejudicial interests, including the nature and extent of such interests, in relation to business on the agenda, before any discussion takes place on the item. Councillors requiring clarification should seek the advice of the Monitoring Officer prior to the day of the meeting.  

A Member declared the following personal interest:-

To receive questions from Members of the Council to appropriate Portfolio Holders.

Details of questions should be notified to the Assistant Chief Executive at least three working days prior to the meeting. Further information and a copy of the procedures are available from Member Services (Exeter 265115) 

In accordance with Standing Order 20, the following question from Councillor Shiel had been submitted. The Chair and the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Leisure had agreed that it would be appropriate for Chief Inspector Brigden, who was in attendance at the meeting, to respond. The question is set out below:-

“Given the indisputable need for Exeter City Council to work ever more closely in partnership with the Police why is more not being done in practical ways such as inviting the Chief Constable to increase the powers of the Community Patrollers - which he tells me he is able to do if asked - or Community Support Officers being encouraged rather than discouraged over initiatives to set up play parks ? Could we have a briefing from Adrian Brigden or even Stephen Otter.”

Chief Inspector Brigden reported that the Police over the past 12 months had introduced 24 Community Support Officers who worked in conjunction with the City Council’s Community Patrollers through the sharing of information and intelligence and the targeting of problem areas. The Police were also fully involved with the City Council’s new Neighbourhood Engagement Pilots - “My Neighbourhood” which aimed to increase citizenship participation at neighbourhood level in four areas in the City - Exwick, St. David’s, Newtown/Polsloe and Kings Heath/Clyst Heath. He referred to a pilot scheme introduced by the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary in Teignbridge where the Community Patrollers were able to issue fixed penalty notices for certain offences on behalf of the Police. A report on this scheme would be considered by the Police in the New Year regarding the possibility of extending it across Devon and Cornwall.

With regard to play initiatives, the Constabulary was seeking closer links with communities through participation in sporting events. A “Quick Cricket” event had been held in the west of the City and a football match had been held between representatives of the Wonford community and Community Support Officers. It was hoped that such events would improve links with the community and hopefully diffuse future possible flash points such as at Halloween and Bonfire Night. Evidence suggested that criminal damage in these areas had decreased of late.

The Head of Environmental Health Services confirmed that there was good joint working between Community Patrollers and the Police and that authorising Police officers to serve fixed penalty notices in respect of litter was also being explored.

To consider the report of the Head of Housing Services – report circulated. 

Councillor Choules declared a personal interest in this matter as he was an employee of the University of Exeter.

The Head of Housing Services presented the report seeking Members’ views on the content of the revised Housing Strategy 2007-12 and briefed Members on the results of the Exeter and Torbay Housing Market Assessment.

The report identified the future housing requirements for different types of properties and tenures in the City and set out the steps proposed within the Strategy to accommodate predicted growth in housing demand. It was noted that 5,256 additional dwellings, across all tenures, would need to be provided in Exeter over the five year period to sustain the existing supply and demand balance. Because of high house prices and as Exeter was an economic hub the total requirement for the Exeter travel to work area was 8,000. It was noted that the some 4,000 extra dwellings were required in the Torbay area.

Responding to a Member he advised that, although the Council did have the power to purchase private properties from householders who wished to downsize, extending this policy to the re-purchase of former Council houses would be very expensive. There would also be an impact on the overall amount of Government grant available for housing purposes.

The Housing Market Assessment study had been undertaken to support bids, in association with housing association partners, for Government funding. It was hoped that it would lead to a better share of the regional allocation.

He explained that the working group delivering the strategy comprised the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Social Inclusion and relevant officers. He also advised that Torbay had been included in the survey to reduce the overall cost and because a significant number of people lived and commuted to and from both areas. The survey had encompassed the Exeter Travel to work area which incorporated Mid Devon, East Devon and Teignbridge as required by the Regional Housing Body.

Inward migration was a significant element in increasing housing demand. Net migration into Exeter during 2000-2005 had been 4,620 and, of these, 3,500 had been in the 16-24 category. Members were concerned therefore that some of the pressures for increased housing came from the influx of students into the City and that the University should seek to maximise the use of its large campus to house these increasing numbers. One Member remarked however that the provision of student houses in the City was in some cases developer led.

The target of 35% affordable housing was considered to be realistic and had been reached in consultation with planning officers and following a viability study. He confirmed that it was not the intention to seek developments within Valley Parks.

He explained that an Equalities Impact Assessment had been undertaken in line with Government requirements to seek greater diversity, equality and accessibility.

Scrutiny Committee supported the report and requested Executive to:-

(1)        adopt the revised Housing Strategy Document 2007-12; and

(2)             approve the submission of an annual report outlining progress against  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

To consider the report of the Head of Leisure and Museums – report circulated. 

The Head of Leisure and Museums presented the report seeking approval in principle for Exeter Mencap to create a new inclusive play area at King George V Playing Field in Countess Wear and to agree to a temporary disposal at less than best consideration to facilitate the scheme.

In response to a Member, he advised that the site had been chosen because of good access, ease of reach to likely client groups, parking and suitable land conditions.

He advised that the cost implications to the Council would be an under valuation of £1,500 per annum of the annual rental through the setting of a peppercorn rent and annual maintenance of £1,500. It was hoped that the latter could be absorbed within the general grounds maintenance budget as a Member was anxious that the cost of the scheme should not fall on Exeter Mencap. It was understood that the Countess Wear Community Association were supportive of the proposal.

Scrutiny Committee - Community requested Executive to:-

(1)            approve in principle leasing the area as shown on the circulated plan to Exeter Mencap for a period of 10 years at a peppercorn rental, representing an undervalue of £1,500 per annum and offering to maintain the play area during that period;

(2)        in the event of Exeter Mencap’s lottery application being successful, agree to the necessary consents being sought for the disposal to go ahead and, if necessary, to fund the cost of maintaining the play area; and

(3)             authorise the Heads of Leisure and Museums and Estates Services, following prior consultation with the Portfolio Holders for Environment and Leisure and for Economy and Tourism, to consider and address any representations received following public consultation on the disposal.

(Report circulated)

To consider the report of the Head of Contacts and Direct Services - report circulated. 

The Head of Contracts and Direct Services presented the report proposing the introduction of fees and charges for events in parks and open spaces. The fees had been calculated to cover costs occurring in respect of events on Council owned land with other terms and conditions applying such as specifying insurance cover. Fees for longer-running events would be by negotiation. The three categories were commercial, community and charitable.

Members supported the introduction of charges for commercial events. Many were uncomfortable with charging for community and charitable events. One Member was totally opposed and asserted that the proposal was excessively bureaucratic and felt that seeking to reduce any public confusion as to which events were chargeable was an unacceptable argument. Another Member referred to the importance of encouraging community events to develop community cohesion and suggested that the proposed charges could discourage such activity at a time when the Council was piloting its neighbourhood engagement project.

The Chair remarked that some very small community groups such as play schemes, might possess budgets of less than £100 and would therefore be unable to afford the refundable deposit. It was noted that deposits were required for larger events to ensure that cleansing costs were met. Members therefore felt that introducing refundable deposits only for events could be an acceptable compromise in preference to flat charges. They also recognised that even refundable deposits might be unacceptable to very small organisations and that scope for these to be excluded at officers’ discretion should be examined.

Members asked that the possibility of not seeking refundable deposits from small- scale groups be put to Executive.

Scrutiny Committee - Community requested that the above views be taken into account in developing the charging scheme for events in parks.

(Report circulated)

To consider the report of the Head of Environmental Health Services – report circulated. 

The Head of Environmental Health Services presented the report seeking approval for the provision of a trade waste re-cycling collection service in order to meet legal and customer requirements.

He confirmed that the service would be tailored to the needs of the trade with twice weekly collections offered to larger producers of pre-treated materials and smaller traders offered the option of collections every 2 or 4 weeks. The cost would be £3 per collection. As with household collection it was not mandatory for businesses to participate. Members noted that Paperchain also provided a valuable service in the collection of waste paper and cardboard - a precise breakdown of the volume and numbers of traders served by the organisation was not known.

Scrutiny Committee - Community supported the report and requested Executive to:-

(1)            approve the provision of a separate re-cycling collection service to trade customers as part of a six month pilot commencing in October 2007, the service to initially include the weekly collection of paper and cardboard only, and, if successful, the service to be expanded to include other recyclables;

(2)            approve the hire of a vehicle for six months and the appointment of two temporary crew members for a six-month period;

(3)        agree a provisional charge of £3 a week per customer as an across the board fixed fee for the collection of recyclables once a week, with every additional collection charged at the same rate for the purpose of the pilot scheme;

(4)            authorise the Head of Environmental Health Services, subject to prior consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Leisure, to alter, if necessary, the provisional charge during the pilot;

(5)        subject to the pilot proving successful following review in Quarter 4 2007/08 and the approval of a suitable budget, to authorise the Head of Environmental Health Services, subject to the prior consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Leisure to purchase either:-

(a)        a new purpose built kerbside sorting vehicle at a capital cost of £100,000 and annual revenue cost of £50,000 (two person crew); or

(b)        purchases two smaller vehicles at a total capital cost of £100,000 and an annual revenue cost of £100,000 (2 x two-person crew);

            dependent upon the demand from trade customers and sufficient income being derived to support the option; and 

(6)            approve the appointment of a temporary administrative support officer at Grade 3, subject to job evaluation, for a six month period to input necessary data changes to trade customer records at a cost of £10,112. 

(Report circulated)

To consider the report of the Head of Housing Services – report circulated. 

Councillor Hannaford attended the meeting and spoke on this item having given notice under Standing Order No. 44.

The Head of Housing Services presented the report seeking a declaration that a parcel of Council owned land off St. Andrews Road, Exwick, as set out in the circulated plan, was surplus and seeking approval for the disposal of the land to Sanctuary Housing Association at less than best value with any capital receipts to be ring fenced to grant aid an affordable housing scheme on the site and to cover the cost of enabling works both on and off the site.

Councillor Hannaford welcomed the proposal but asked that detailed consideration be given to maximising safety around the access onto St. Andrews Road from the site particularly as many of the occupants of this social housing facility would comprise young families with children. Referring to the alternative access onto Station Road he suggested that it would be helpful if the provision of the proposed cycle route could be brought forward and combined with a footpath with adequate lighting also provided.  The Head of Housing Services advised that the details of the access would be fully assessed to maximise safety as part of the consideration of the planning application. He also advised in response to the Member that all 27 properties to be provided as part of the scheme would be included in the Homechoice Scheme.

Scrutiny Committee - Community supported the report and subject to obtaining planning permission to include the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Agreement and to 100% nomination rights being granted to the City Council in perpetuity, requested Executive to declare the Council owned land off St. Andrews Road, Exwick, as set out in the circulated plan, surplus and to authorise the Head of Estates Services, subject to prior consultation with the Leader, the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Leisure and the Heads of Treasury Services, Housing Services and Contracts and Direct Services to dispose the land at St Andrews Road at or below market value for affordable housing.

 (Report circulated)

To consider the report of the Community Safety Partnership Co-ordinator - report circulated. 

The Community Safety Partnership Co-ordinator presented the report on the progress of the Exeter Community Safety Partnership in delivering the actions in the Community Safety and Misuse of Drugs Strategy 2005-8.  He also detailed the contents of the 2006/07 Annual Report. He advised that difficulties had been experienced in 2006/07 in securing adequate funding through the Local Area Agreement and the Devon Wide Safer Devon Partnership.  He reported that the Home Office focus for measurement of partnership performance was likely to change in 2008.

The themes of the strategy were:-

Alcohol and alcohol-related crime            Anti-social behaviour

Domestic Violence                                    Drugs and drug-related crime                       

Prolific and other priority offenders            Vulnerable victims

The national target was to reduce crime in specific categories by 15%, which translated into a target of 16.9% for the South West and 17.5% for Exeter.  This overall target was then sub-divided into targets for the specific crime types being measured by the Home Office. 

The focus over the past year has been on reducing violent crime offences which had been successful as had been a reduction in vehicular crime.  Figures for burglary had increased from last year, largely due to sprees by a couple of individuals.  Criminal damage remained a concern, which was reflected nationally and there had been a recent diversion of resources to this area.

Chief Inspector Brigden confirmed that the Government target of a reduction in crime figures of 17.5% by March 2008 would be challenging. The introduction of Police Community Support Officers would, it was hoped, go some way to reduce crime figures. Exeter’s continued economic growth and the forthcoming opening of Princesshay would also provide challenges.

In response to a Member, he reported that the Devon and Cornwall Police major crime team had investigated recent serious crimes in the City and that local officers had not therefore been diverted from their normal duties. A recent murder had been rapidly solved and a Member stated that a number of members of the public who lived in the vicinity of this event had praised the Police for their handling of this case.

In response to a Member, Chief Inspector Brigden stated that the Community Safety Partnership was a strategic group and that contact and liaison with offenders was therefore inappropriate at this level. Many of the member agencies of the Partnership had however established appropriate channels for liaison with their clients.

The Scrutiny Committee - Community noted the report.

(Report circulated)

To consider the report of the Head of Legal Services – report circulated. 

Councillor Hannaford attended the meeting and spoke on this item having given notice under Standing Order No. 44.

The Head of Legal Services presented the report advising Members as to the progress in enforcing the requirements for open space and other community facilities required by agreements under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to new development and outlining the role of the working group established to progress this matter. The group met every two months to consider the various sites in rotation. During the lifetime of the group, facilities on several of the sites had been completed and these were set out in the report. Also set out were those sites which were either still under construction or where problems remained.

Councillor Hannaford commended the work undertaken by officers in seeking to ensure that the developers met their full obligations under the Section 106 Agreements. He referred to areas where there remained a failure by developers to fulfil the requirements set out in the agreements such as a fully functioning drainage system, retaining wall at the new Exwick Hall and redressing incidents of vandalism where trees and shrubs had been removed. He asked for information on how other Councils addressed these issues and whether representations could be made to Central Government. Another Member, referring to the problems at Kings Heath, asked if it was correct that the developer had agreed to pay the Council to undertake the required works rather than fulfilling the obligations themselves. The Head of Legal Services advised that the Council had not assumed responsibility for works at Kings Heath and detailed the background to the Council’s threat to the developer of seeking an injunction which had led to a marked improvement in the company’s response to Council requirements. She updated Members on the latest position in respect of this site. She would look into the problems reported by a Member in respect of a linking path from the new Wyvern Barracks development to Shakespeare Road that had not been provided and advise him accordingly.

She stated that, as far as she was aware, there were no loopholes in the legislation and that it was up to local authorities to ensure that developers abide by the terms of the contract. She advised that the Council had finite resources to commit to these problems. A Member advised that he understood that Newcastle City Council included in Section 106 Agreements a 2% levy to be used purely for monitoring and enforcement purposes. The Head of Legal Services agreed that it would be appropriate to investigate this option.

Scrutiny Committee - Community:-

(1)        noted the report; and

(2)            requested the Planning Committee to endorse the actions of the Head of Legal Services in applying for an injunction in relation to the Kings Heath development, as set out in the report.

(Report circulated)

To consider the report of the Head of Environmental Health Services – report circulated. 

The Head of Environmental Health Services presented the report setting out the review of Peter Rogers into priority areas of local authority regulatory enforcement and placing it within the context of the Government’s drive for better regulation.

In response to a Member, he advised that the increase in complaints in noise related to both an increase in numbers of individual cases of noise disturbance and an increase in the volume of complaints from individuals affected by those cases. He also stated, in response to another Member about dog fouling enforcement by the Dog Warden, that a number of other officers within the Environmental Health Unit multi-tasked and undertook enforcement work in respect of dog control and pest control. He reported that around 150 fixed penalty notices relating to dog fouling had been issued since October 2006 and that prosecutions were pursued in respect of those failing to pay. With regard to the proposal for the Police Community Support Officers to be authorised to issue fixed penalty notices he felt that there should be an initial focus on litter enforcement.

Scrutiny Committee - Community:-

(1)        noted the review carried out into national enforcement priorities for local authority regulatory services within the broader context of better regulations; and

(2)             supported placing greater emphasis on both those national priority areas which were the direct enforcement responsibility of the Council and the local enforcement priorities as set out in the circulated report.

(Report circulated)

To consider the report of the Head of Environmental Health Services – report circulated. 

The Head of Environmental Health Services presented the report setting out the main powers available to control statutory noise nuisance and commenting on the level of service requests about noise received by the Council in 2006/07 and the respective outcomes. It also considered whether alterations of the arrangements currently offered were merited.

For 2006 (January - December) the number of out of hours noise service requests received by the Council’s out of hours Control Centre had been 1,865, an increase of 397 (21%) from 2005, of which 228 were received after 11pm and before 7am the next morning. However, in October 2006, the system of recording noise complaints had been changed, which meant, for example, that noisy groups of youths, or youths playing football near a dwelling, were no longer recorded as noise incidents. From October 2006, all calls logged by the Control Centre were recorded on the Environmental Health M3 database, giving a more reliable picture of noise incidents from that date.

For 2006/07, the total number of noise requests received by Environmental Health Services as a whole numbered 2,147, compared to 2,083 and 1,368 for 2005/06 and 2004/05 respectively, showing an increase each year, although the latter numbers included noise from groups of youths, etc. for the whole year.

The Community Patrollers were on duty until 12 midnight but the last half hour involved returning to base and ending the evening shift. Thereafter, calls could be taken by the control centre with details recorded and advice given, but there were no officers able to make a visit after midnight currently. In response to a Member suggesting that the Police respond, the Head of Service advised that noise enforcement was not a Police responsibility and the peak time for night time noise (Fridays and Saturdays) were often peak times for the Police dealing with public order issues. Individual Members expressed concern that the proposed service improvements were insufficiently robust and sought improved suggestions.

Scrutiny Committee - Community did not support the suggested actions put forward and asked for a further report to a future meeting on more robust proposals for addressing problems of noise nuisance. 

(Report circulated)

To consider the report of the Head of Environmental Health Services – report circulated. 

Councillor Hannaford attended the meeting and spoke on this item having given notice under Standing Order No. 44.

The Head of Environmental Health Services presented the report updating Members on progress with the Re-cycling Plan since its approval in 2006 and seeking continuing support from this Committee for re-cycling initiatives.

Responding to questions from Councillor Hannaford, the Head of Environmental Health Services reported that:-

(a)        it was the intention to roll out across the City the recently launched Exeter Green Bag Scheme, although he was unable to advise precisely when it would be introduced into the shops in Cowick Street. The Express and Echo, EDF and the Exeter Tidy Group were very positive partners in supporting this Scheme;

(b)        the glass bring banks had proved very successful, somewhat lessening the need for a kerbside glass collection which would be very costly to introduce. However, such a collection would be examined as part of the Action Plan; and

(c)        there was no intention presently to introduce a separate scheme for the collection of old batteries. Most waste amenity sites, including Devon County Council’s, possessed facilities for the disposal of batteries.         

Responding to another Member who sought improved education in respect of waste disposal matters, he advised that refresher stickers were affixed to recycling collection bins to remind the public of which items were suitable for recycling. Translated material was afforded to users who did not possess English as a first language. In addition, he confirmed in response to another Member that the public could obtain additional recycling bins by application if the one was proving insufficient.

Scrutiny Committee - Community:-

(1)            acknowledged the positive progress made by the Council in implementing the Re-cycling Plan; and

(2)             supported the Re-cycling Plan and the accompanying action plan.

(Report circulated)

To consider the report of the Head of Environmental Health Services – report circulated. 

The Head of Environmental Health Services presented the report setting out information on the Council’s corporate environmental performance indicators for the period 2006/07. The specific indicators under consideration were:-

·                    the reduction in the total quantity of paper resources used by the Council;

·                    the purchase of recycled paper;

·                    the reduction in non-re-cycled waste produced from the Civic Centre;

·                    the reduction in energy consumption within Council premises;

·                    the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions at the Civic Centre; and

·                    the reduction in water consumption at the Civic Centre.

A Member suggested that the statement at the end of emails in green print - “please consider the environment before printing this email” should be standard throughout the authority.

Scrutiny Committee - Community:-

(1)        noted the results for paper use, purchase of re-cycled paper, energy consumption, carbon dioxide emissions and water consumption and noted the intention to communicate these results to staff and management with an emphasis on the need for all to contribute to reaching and maintaining the targets;

(2)        the targets be kept under review, particularly in light of the outcomes of the Carbon Management Programme; and

(3)        a further report be submitted to this Committee in 12 months time. 

(Report circulated)

To consider the report of the Director Community and Environment – report circulated. 

The Director Community and Environment presented the report advising Members of any major differences by management unit to the revised budget.

A Member suggested that the operators of the Clifton Hill Golf Range be reminded of the importance of preventative measures to reduce the number of golf balls landing in neighbouring gardens.

The Scrutiny Committee - Community noted the report.

(Report circulated)

To consider the report of the Director Community and Environment – report circulated. 

The Director Community and Environment presented the report on major differences by management unit to the outturn forecast for the first three months of the financial year up to 30 June 2007. During this period, the total of the variances indicated that there would be a net surplus of £6,960, which would be transferred to the working balance at 31 March 2008, increasing the working balance to £2,850,128.

The Scrutiny Committee - Community noted the report.

(Report circulated)

Councillor Newcombe has requested that an item be placed on the agenda in the following terms:-

“This Committee agrees that a modern, sustainable public toilet be considered an essential part of the canal basin regeneration, taking into account the increased public footfall of the development”

Members are requested to determine how they would like the matter to be pursued.

Councillor Smith attended the meeting and spoke on this item having given notice under Standing Order No. 44.

Councillor Newcombe had requested that an item be placed on the agenda in the following terms:-

“This Committee agrees that a modern, sustainable public toilet be considered an essential part of the canal basin regeneration, taking into account the increased public footfall of the development” 

She stated that the Quay area was increasing in popularity with a vibrant Piazza Terracina, various tourist attractions and walks along the River and Canal and would benefit greatly from the provision of a public toilet. Furthermore, the traders in the area were becoming increasingly annoyed with the public asking to use the toilets on the premises.

Councillor Smith stated that there had been a call for a toilet facility during discussions with stakeholders some 5/6 years ago on the development proposals for the Quay. The revised development plans for the area would still lead to increased public activity. The change in the Park and Ride bus route was also having an impact. He believed that enquiries regarding toilets was one of the most frequently made requests by tourists in any town or City and stated that Alphington was one of the few wards in the City without such a facility.  He added that the nearest toilet - on the opposite side of the bank beneath the cliff face - was seven and a half minutes walk across Cricklepit Bridge. They could be accessed approximately two minutes quicker by using the ferry but the cost was not insubstantial for a family of four. He also referred to the traders’ concerns. He suggested that funding of new toilets could be partly met through charges and sponsorship from the business community.

The Head of Environmental Health Services showed a plan with details of City Centre public conveniences which showed that the City was well provided with toilets. The nearest to the Canal Basin were beneath the cliff face and comprised two men’s, three women’s and one disabled. A new, modern toilet of a high design standard would however cost in the region of £140,000 with £20,000 annual maintenance costs.

The Cathedral and Quay Car Park and the St Thomas’ Station toilets were the closest toilets adjacent to the Quay. A Member remarked that an improvement was required to the cleanliness of the former.

A Member stated that in a recent West Country Tourist Board survey a recurring comment had been the absence of sufficient signage showing the location of toilets. He felt that an additional toilet facility on the Quay would be beneficial and remove the pressure on traders as well as serving future public events such as Festivals. He asked if cheaper public conveniences could be provided and whether sponsorship was an option. Another Member felt that signage should be addressed but also suggested, in support of a comment of another Member, that walking to public conveniences provided good exercise. Another Member also confirmed that many members of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.