Agenda and draft minutes

To approve and sign the minutes of the Customer Focus Scrutiny Committee held on 5 February 2026.

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 February 2026 were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair as correct.

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 interest were made by Members.

Details of questions should be notified to the Democratic Services Manager via the democratic.services@exeter.gov.uk email by 10am at least three working days prior to the meeting. For this meeting any questions must be submitted by 10am on Monday 16 March 2026.

For details about how to speak at Committee, please use the following link: https://exeter.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/councillors-and-meetings/public-speaking-at-meetings/overview/

There were no questions submitted by the public.

To receive questions from Members of the Council to the relevant Portfolio Holders for this Scrutiny Committee. The Portfolio Holders are:-

Councillor Bialyk         – Leader of the Council

Councillor Asvachin    – Housing, Homelessness Prevention & Customer Services

Councillor Vizard        – Climate, Ecological Change and Communities

Councillor Williams     – City Management

Councillor Wright        – Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder Corporate Services and City Centre

Advance questions from Members relating to the Portfolio Holders should be notified to Democratic Services via democratic.services@exeter.gov.uk

The Chair invited Councillor Haigh to the table to ask her question of the Portfolio Holder for City Management, as detailed below.

“I would like to ask the Portfolio Holder regarding Heavitree Pleasure Grounds Play Area for a clear explanation for residents on the current position.

In particular, could the Portfolio Holder clarify:

1. Why did the tender process receive no bids from contractors?
2. What does this mean in practice for delivery timescales given how long Heavitree residents have been waiting and that most equipment is no longer fit for purpose.
3. Will Heavitree Ward Councillors be kept proactively briefed of developments, rather than relying on informal conversations or committee papers?
4. Will the Council commit to issuing a clear public update setting out the current status of the play area renovations and the next steps?

I welcome the progress on the Heavitree splash pools and the commitment to keeping facilities open this year, but there is growing frustration locally, and clear communication will be essential in maintaining residents’ confidence.”

The Portfolio Holder for City Management, Councillor Ruth Williams responded that she would undertake to keep ward councillors informed and that an update would include the park and pools as one tender was complete and the other outcome was awaited. In response to part 4, the Portfolio Holder stated that a clear update would be issued and that the Head of Service Operations may be able to give a more detailed response.

The Head of Service – Operations explained that in response to there being no applicants to the tender the responses had been that this was not due to price but organisations having no capacity to bid as they were undertaking works for other local authorities. The Head of Service understood the frustration but the process must comply with procurement rules and go through a competitive process. The team were in the process of identifying a strategy to minimise the procurement timeframe in order to provide for residents with a resolution.

To hear evidence from the petition organiser and a verbal update from the relevant Head of Service.

The Chair explained to the committee that that petition organiser was not present and invited the Democratic Services Manager to detail the variety of methods used to make contact, which included email, letter and through a ward councillor.

The Head of Service Operations explained that the bin had been moved at residents request, after the petition submission. There had been no change in litter levels and therefore no change to the recommendation. The residents clearly took pride in their green space.

During discussion it was proposed that officers were thanked for responding to residents in moving the bin and for work undertaken on the report and that residents were thanked for upkeep of the area.

The Chair confirmed that there were other processes available to address individual bin issues.

The Chair moved the recommendation as amended, seconded by Councillor Cookson which following a unanimous vote was CARRIED.

To receive the report of the Portfolio Holder for Arts, Culture and Tourism.

The Portfolio Holder for Arts, Culture and Tourism presented his report which was taken as read and responded to Members’ questions in the following terms:

·        RAMM had been a constant source of change and when an officer had left a team had been put in place but this had not been as effective as expected. The independent review had given a way forward and he had been consulted, as Portfolio Holder, on the chosen way forward;

·        there were people employed at the museum with great skills and the curator was a huge loss but he had had individual conversations with staff;

·        benchmarking of ‘staying spend’ was vital and Cambridge, Chester and Norwich were comparable. 79% were satisfied with the museum and other attractions. He would discuss with the Strategic Director, whether any other areas had increased their staying spend, where the Council may be able to learn;

·        there had been an extensive public survey which informed the City of Culture expression of interest. 600 artists and others had responded to the Council however the 14 January deadline to apply had been a quick turnaround;

·        it was disappointing not to make the long list, he hoped it was not home counties centric and would learn from the process and look to apply again in future; and

·        the best event he had attended in the last year was an archaeological dig in Princesshay. 2-300 children were able to enjoy this experience and he was aware that the museum outreach team would go into primary schools which he encouraged having worked in primary education. He hoped that this would attract children to the museum and broaden horizons.

The Strategic Director for Place responded to Members’ questions in the following terms:

·        the independent review had been carried out by an expert in museums and had been commissioned with a broad scope of looking at the museum function and one recommendation was to review the leadership structure. The cost of the study had been £25,000 excluding VAT and was a fixed fee;

·        an organisational change process had been undertaken by the Council. The Culture Service restructure was considered, including all cultural assets. The process had taken several months and detailed consultations had taken place with staff across all cultural assets, in accordance with the organisational change process. As part of that process all staff were consulted, including management within the RAMM and decisions were made by the Strategic Management Board and the Portfolio Holder was aware and unions had been involved in the process; and

·        the criteria for judging City of Culture applications did not include consultation therefore Exeter had been in a good position to express interest given that a review of the Cultural Strategy was already underway.

During discussion the following points were made:

·        a member believed that museum staff had ideas for cost-cutting which they felt had not been given able to be shared within the process’

·        it was sad not to make the long list for City of Culture;

·        Exeter  ...  view the full minutes text for item 111.

To receive the report of the Strategic Director for Operations and a verabl update.

The Chair thanked the Head of Service – Operations for her report, which was taken as read.

The Head of Service – Operations responded to questions from Members in the following terms:

·        there was a clear process around dog fouling whereby there would be increased site visits where an issue was reported. Education and/or signage or stencilling could be utilised so that residents were aware that the authority was aware of the issue. There were no Public Space Protection Orders to allow fixed penalty notices therefore an education approach must be taken;

·        there was no feedback loop for reports of dog fouling, on firmstep at present but this was being worked on as it was in place for graffiti;

·        on the subject of weeds there were 4 mechanical sweepers with one being an HGV and the others able to be used on pavements where parking allowed. There was often detritus on the kerb line which was inaccessible but every street was on a 4-8 week rotational schedule. Where vehicles had an off-road instance this timescale could extend. These were large hoovers which did breakdown often but a maintenance contract was now in place which included replacing vehicles where there were substantive periods off-road. Weed removal was not the primary focus. There were new brushes in place which were designed to pull up weed growth. Arterial route clearance would be the focus. Reports of areas with a significant problem with weeds would be welcome. The brushes were designed for areas where the deep-clean teams could not make impact. The public could use the Contact Us form and councillors the Member Enquiry Process;

·        the report recognised that there had been a shortage of team leaders during the year and they were responsible for carrying out inspections. The statistics provided related to the inspection programme issues rather than an endemic issue in an area;

·        the team had very good working relationships with the university, who had fantastic litter wardens. There were historic issues but there was now a good working relationship with students as well as the university;

·        potholes did not cause issue to team vehicles as these travelled at 10mph or less in sweeping mode;

·        there was an holistic 3-pronged programme in place of enforcement, operation and education but resource levels dictated the level of educational delivery. Community Builder’s were encouraged to educate where possible;

·        recruitment had improved this year and there were only 2 vacancies currently which were advertised and expected to be filled. It wasn’t possible to achieve full budgetary spend due to vacancies. New recruitment approaches had not been utilised as they had not been required;

·        the litter bin request process was manual and team leaders collated and monitored but there could be gaps. If members were roads which required inspection they could alert the Head of Service; and

·        Recycling on the Go contents would still be delivered to the MRF and be sorted at source. The predominant capacity was paper and card but it was often so contaminated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

To receive the report of the Portfolio Holder for City Management.

The Portfolio Holder for City Management presented her report which was taken as read and responded to Members’ questions in the following terms: 

• teams monitored the number of food waste bins presented each week; 

• certain parts of Exeter were more difficult with students and HMOs requiring annual educations given the change of residents and she had personally visited many. Some students came from areas where food waste was not collected; 

• the Devon Strategic Waste Committee had heard from Teignbridge District Council that they had run a pilot scheme where waste operatives had smart-watches to log where bins weren’t presented; 

• she and officers continued to work closely with the university to see how they encouraged students to deal with waste and also worked with housing officers to enable tenants to participate; 

• she thanked officers who had worked extremely hard to roll out food waste collection in the face of a number of challenges; 

• she would look to the minutes of the Strategic Waste Committee and report back on what else could be done to encourage more participation in food waste recycling but home composting was acknowledged as a reason for some households not participating; 

• there were a number of areas with flats where adjustments would be considered; 

• the Devon Strategic Waste authority would lead any studies and had last carried out a bin analysis in 2023 which showed that 40% of waste in black bins was food waste, before the roll out of collections. Of this. One third had been opened but was still edible, one third hadn’t been opened and the remainder included vegetable peelings which were appalling findings but interesting to see; 

• Denis the Dustcart could remain anonymous; and 

• there had been teething problems with food waste collection such as residents thinking that the same crew would collect at the same time and also dark mornings making it difficult for crews to spot the small bins. Mitigation had been put in place with more reflective stickers being provided to residents. 

The Head of Service – Environment and Waste responded to Members’ questions in the following terms: 

• the methodology for food waste collection was different from that of the green and black bins. People had become conscious of food waste but changes of habit and purchasing were required; 

• for food waste to be collected in the same way as other waste would require 9 extra staff and 3 extra vehicles therefore the approach taken had been to get the collections rolled out and the next stage would be to look at what Teignbridge had piloted, as they used the same software as the Council; 

• it has been a logistical challenge to deliver all the food waste caddies; 

• where there were believed to properties that had not received food waste caddies, Members should submit a through the Member Enquiry Process as this could be an error to be addressed; 

• compostable bags cost money and reusing bags kept costs down. The plastic would be taken out at the plant. Compostable bags did  ...  view the full minutes text for item 113.

To hear the presentation of the Head of Service – Environment and Waste.

The Head of Service – Environment and Waste and the Resource Recovery Manager gave a presentation, slides attached, making the following points: 

• this was the most high-risk area for local authorities, having vehicles, manual handling, waste itself as well as the MRF team sorting items; 

• the team were out in all weather and temperatures and achieving 99.88% success rate with collections; 

• there had been an increase in garden waste customers; 

• the Resource Recovery Manager ensured the best return for the city for the waste and was always looking at new opportunities to sell to the market; 

• Exeter was one of the lowest in the country for waste production and the service topped the satisfaction chart at 79% in the residents’ survey; 

• this was the only service other than Royal Mail to visit every property once a week and now this was increased to twice a week meaning it had a visible presence in the city; 

• the recycling rate in the city was increasing but packaging was getting lighter and garden waste had been impacted by the weather; 

• introduction of food waste collection meant the biggest behaviour change in 25 years for the service which was a challenge to deliver; 

• agreed significant investment in a new MRF and proposed envirohub was welcomed and an aspirational date for the new operation to be commissioned would be July 2027; 

• this was a dangerous industry and fires did occur but the team acted professionally to deal with these and the fire service had attended in less than 5 minutes when called recently. Lithium batteries were a risk and were in many household items and a simple mitigation had been put in place at the depot with fire sand buckets available in a number of areas; and 

• the A-Z of recycling was always being updated and members’ should direct residents to it - A - Z of recycling, waste and materials - Introduction - Exeter City Council 

The Head of Service – Environment and Waste and the Resource Recovery Manager responded to Members’ questions in the following terms: 

• an officer had spent a lot of time liaising with external organisation regarding road works and proactive works but much was sub-contracted which made this difficult. A banner had been placed on the Council website but this was a particularly difficult time due to the amount of works currently being undertaken in the city; and 

• vapes were not the only risk, greetings cards and wearable technology also contained lithium batteries which were a major safety issue and HSE were looking at the issues. These items were in homes not just the waste industry and ethical purchasing was required as global slavery was utilised in producing some items. 

During discussions the following points were made: 

• an online solution where roadworks were planned could be to enable communities to share messages about where to put bins; 

• re-purposing was great, for example, seats at the football club and sea waste being made into kayaks; and 

• Exeter Canal and Quay Trust  ...  view the full minutes text for item 114.

Please see for noting a link to the schedule of future business proposed for the Council which can be viewed on the Council's website. This online document is a source for Members to raise issues at Scrutiny on forthcoming Executive agenda items:

https://exeter.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/councillors-and-meetings/forward-plan-of-executive-decisions/

Attached is a draft work plan of future scrutiny items.

Should Members wish to raise issues in respect of future business please notify the Democratic Services Manager in advance of the meeting.

The Chair explained that the items in blue on the work plan were the proposed timings for recurring items.

Following a vote the plan as amended was AGREED.

A vote of thanks to the Chair was made, thanking her for her service as well as to Councillors Read and Holland, whose last Customer Focus Scrutiny Committee meeting this was.