Agenda and draft minutes

To approve and sign the minutes of the Special Strategic Scrutiny Committee held on 3 November 2025 and the ordinary meeting of the Strategic Scrutiny Committee held on 20 November 2025. 

The minutes of the special meeting held on 3 November 2025 were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair as correct, subject to an amendment to insert the word ‘have’ on minute no. 18 – “Section 151 officers must sign off a financial model and therefore couldn’t have put this forward ethically if it was not believed to work”

The minutes of the ordinary meeting held on 20 November 2025 were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair as correct, subject to the following amendments, with additions in italics:

·        Minute No. 23 - Each yellow sign had the number of the nearest camera on them in order that people didn’t need to say where they are and locations of cameras could be shared with councillors on request but would not be made public;

·        Minute No. 24 - views of those in the current area at East Wonford Hill that had in previous years not been below the government objective were important to the action plan;

·        Minute No. 24 spelling corrected – butadiene;

·        Minute No. 25 addition of - The Chair brought Members' attention to the fact a wrong version of the Motion referred by Council had been included in the Agenda Reports Pack. The correct version was tabled and is appended to the minutes; and

·        Minute No. 25 amended to read - the draft Devon and Torbay Local Transport Plan, LTP4, transport plan had no reference to Air Quality until Exeter City Council’s feedback had been responded to.

Councillor Wetenhall asked that Democratic Services consider numbering rather than bullet points to aide situations such as amending minutes.

The Chair updated the committee with regard to Air Quality stating that the Strategic Director for Operations anticipated that following the likely appointment of a consultant in early February a timeline would be designed and shared.

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 committee.services@exeter.gov.uk email by 10.00am at least three working days prior to the meeting. For this meeting any questions must be submitted by 10.00am on Monday 12 January 2026.

For details about how to speak at Committee, please click 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 reporting to this Scrutiny Committee are:

Councillor Bialyk -       Leader

Councillor Patrick -     Portfolio Holder City Development

Councillor Vizard -      Portfolio Holder Climate, Ecological Change and Communities

Councillor Wood -       Portfolio Holder Leisure Services and Healthy Living

Councillor Wright -      Portfolio Holder Corporate Services, Community Safety & City Centre

Councillor Foale -       Portfolio Holder Arts, Culture and Tourism

Advance questions from Members relating to the Portfolio Holders above should be notified to the Democratic Services Manager.

In accordance with Standing Order No. 20, the following question was submitted by Councillor Moore in relation to the Portfolio of Councillor Bialyk who attended the meeting. The question was circulated at the meeting to Members of the Committee. The question and response are set out below:

Question: Please provide an update on the Bus Station Wider Options project including the works that have been undertaken and why it went over budget.

Response: The Council has engaged Avison Young to undertake a market and deliverability assessment across the former bus station and the civic centre site. This assessment has also examined high level architectural layout and massing options together with scheme viability and associated deliverability constraints. In order to ensure that a comprehensive regeneration approach had been undertaken, the Council re-engaged Avison Young to undertake a further linked phase 2 assessment which included the Sidwell St retail frontage properties (Eastside row opposite John Lewis). This additional work generated a further fee commitment resulting in an overspend, which will be covered by a virement from the wider Liveable Exeter budget.

Once this assessment has been fully reviewed a report will be brought to the Executive.

Supplementary Question and Response

Does the feasibility only cover housing and retail of feasibility for open spaces and other things such as a market square?

Response: The Leader responded that he would take this back to Directors and supply a written answer.

The Chair invited questions for other Portfolio Holders present.

Councillor Moore asked the Portfolio Holder for Climate, Ecological Change and Communities, Councillor Vizard how the Adaptation Strategy would be incorporated into city council work? Councillor Vizard responded that he would request an update from officers as he had not been directly involved.

The Chair gave an update on Item 10 stating that she had met with Councillor Read as author of the motion and that South West Water had declined to attend and declined to use the proposed template. They had however provided links to where information was held which would be included in the minutes. With support of Councillor Read the Chair proposed that this item be put on the work plan to be timetabled at a later date as scrutiny was unable to satisfy the intentions of the motion. The Chair suggested that external agencies be invited to give wider evidence and also informed the committee that the Portfolio Holder had met with South West Water who had agreed to attend Harbour Board, of which Councillor Read was a member and that they would welcome an invitation to scrutiny at another time.

The Chair proposed the moving of this item, seconded by Councillor Atkinson and following a unanimous vote was CARRIED.

To receive a report from Councillor Bialyk, the Leader of the Council.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Bialyk presented his report drawing attention to the following points:

a)     a provisional finance presentation last evening had been provided by the Strategic Director for Corporate Resources and Head of Service - Finance and the council looked to be in a good position for the next two to three years;

b)     strategic partnerships continued with the Exeter Partnership being collegiate and areas being discussed were set out in the report. He would speak to officers about sharing notes from the meetings with members;

c)     members would hear more in due course about the City of Culture bid;

d)     the council was a partner in the Exeter Civic University Agreement and there was a link to a video in the report. He would speak to the university with regard to circulating the minutes to members;

e)     the matter of moving the site of the Materials Reclamation Facility would come before the Executive in due course;

f)       Senate Court would be the subject of an item at a special council meeting in February;

g)     there were a number of commercial and social asset issues but Laings had progressed. Finance must be considered. The accommodation at Whipton Gardens was first class and the residents he had met were pleased and it was hoped that phase B could be brought forward soon;

h)     Trews Weir was being dealt with;

i)       he would visit the city wall at the City Gate the following day with a team and inspect that and a number of other sites;

j)       contractors had been engaged at Clifton Hill which would bring forward affordable housing for over 55s which was at a cost but was the most appropriate way forward;

k)     Mary Arches would come to planning committee in due course;

l)       office relocation would be coming to council at a special meeting in February;

m)   as a non-constituent and non-voting member of the Combined Authority he represented the districts along with the Leader of Torridge Council. A peer review had been completed which had looked at governance and making it relevant to people. A Strategic Mayoral Authority was being considered as this was the direction of travel from government and where investment would come into the county;

n)     with regard to Local Government Reorganisation he believed that this would happen and a strong bid had been put forward with support from all parties in the room as well as Plymouth. A letter in response to the Minister had been sent and the minutes of the council meeting would be sent when prepared and he had directed those who had asked to make representations to the Minister.

The Leader responded to Members’ questions in the following terms:

a)     he was not unhappy to meet with St David’s ward councillors about Mallinson Bridge but wanted to speak to Directors first so as not to raise false hope. He was convening a meeting with the Leader of Devon County Council about a number of issues and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

To hear evidence from the petition organisers and receive the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

The Chair invited the petition organiser to present the petition.

The petition organiser presented the petition making the following points:

a)     he had seen the report and looked at the supplementary planning documents, policy and National Planning Policy Framework(NPPF), paragraph 54;

b)     he wished to paint a picture of who the petitioners were, a community right on the edge of the university and welcoming of students who were part of the community;

c)     this was a walking route and the entrance to the Belvedere estate;

d)     they welcomed the pedestrian linkage being added when East Park was developed;

e)     the roads in question had housing which was suitable for families and in an affordable price bracket but sadly a target for student landlords;

f)       there was a high proportion of bungalows which were suitable for the elderly or those with limited mobility;

g)     Hillcrest Park was very narrow, private and single track which presented issues such as restricted width and 40% of residents had to park on the street which made access difficult for emergency vehicles;

h)     Doriam Close had more issues with turning for vehicles;

i)       the NPPF focused on local amenity and well-being and there had been issues with refuse facilities, access and parking;

j)       more students would means more parking issues and likely more refuse; and

k)     last year refuse had not been collected for 6 weeks due to access.

The Chair invited Councillor Palmer to the table to speak as she had registered under Standing Order No. 44.

Councillor Palmer spoke on the item making the following points:

a)     she thanked residents for raising the matter;

b)     she was surprised by the report which she believed showed little understanding or empathy for the impact on the St James ward;

c)     entire streets were depleted of permanent residents and other streets spent half the year in isolation and the other half suffering from noise and anti-social behaviour(ASB);

d)     there was no evidence that PBSA returned properties to residential use in article 4 areas;

e)     outside Article 4 areas there was creep and residents were selling their homes after decades due to volume of cars and noise,

f)       Cowley bridge Road had suffered the same as half the road given Article 4 status and half was not;

g)     older residents had lost their community and gained a huge PBSA;

h)     the method for calculating the number of HMOs was flawed;

i)       she had campaigned for HMO licensing;

j)       there was a HMO in Hillcrest, 6 further in Patricia Close which were not highlighted here. The Office for National Statistics says council tax records should not be used for this purpose;

k)     Article 4 was often too late and reactive;

l)       2^nd and 3^rd year students wanted to live out of the university so this demand would not end. Landlords would continue to buy properties in non-restricted areas;

m)   the community welcomed students but wanted a preventative long term solution with community balance; and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

To receive the report of the Strategic Director for Corporate Resources.

The Chair invited the representative from Isca Bowling Club to present their evidence, which they did making the following points:

a)     the club had an elderly demographic who were quite concerned when they could not get through between caravans, dogs were running look or when there were greater numbers of travellers in the car park;

b)     there had been 7 or 8 caravans in the smaller car park beside the bowls centre and sometimes it had not been possible to get through due to excrement;

c)     there had been a lot of rubbish and some abuse;

d)     one member of the bowling club had been bitten by a dog and children had thrown eggs;

e)     during the Ladies World Cup there had been an order in place preventing parking there as the gym had been used by rugby players and he asked why that order could not remain and why a special order was required each time;

f)       his priority was the welfare of club members;

g)     he was aware that height restriction barriers were coming but they were not in place as yet but he wondered if travellers would then park on the road leading to the arena;

h)     it would be good to have better communication with the council to know what was happening as they were only aware of the current issues from discussion with the travellers on site; and

i)       he didn’t wish to put club members through these issues and believed that it was the Council’s responsibility to tell them they were able to park there.

The Bowling Club representative answered Members’ questions in the following terms:

a)     he didn’t think that welcoming travellers and discussing their needs would work as there was currently the option to park in the large arena car park yet the small one was used;

b)     the club would like the council to contact their secretary who liaised with the council over other matters;

The Strategic Director for Corporate Resources commented that the Council’s position was not to tolerate and that this was the first time. He stated that in every other instance an immediate decision had been made not to tolerate but time was often taken to go through the process which had caused delays.

The Chair stated that she was aware that the height restriction barriers had been ordered and would likely be installed in the first half of this year.  There would be four barriers, two at the entrances to the car park and the other two perhaps at Exhibition Way.

The Chair invited TravellerSpace to the table to present their evidence.

TravellerSpace presented making the following points:

a)     that the organisation had twenty years of experience supporting gypsies and travellers;

b)     the issues heard had been around for decades and different approaches had not worked therefore everyone must work together;

c)     it was understood that everyone found it difficult people appeared on their doorstep;

d)     there was a list of reasons why unauthorised encampments were negative  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

To receive the motion referred by Council at the meeting held on 2 September 2025, details of which can be found: Agenda for Council on Tuesday 2nd September 2025, 6.00 pm - Exeter City Council

As explained by the Chair at the beginning of the meeting, this item was deferred.

Please see for noting a link to the schedule of future business proposed for the Council which can be viewed on the Council's web site. This on-line 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/

Also attached is a draft work plan of future scrutiny items.

Should Members wish to raise issues in respect of future business please notify Liz Smith in advance of the meeting.

Members commented on the work plan.

It was agreed that a Portfolio Holder update on City Development would be taken in the new municipal year, that the bike parking item would be scoped at the meeting in April and that the Rivers item would be added back onto the work plan for timetabling.

Following a unanimous vote the draft Scrutiny Work Plan as amended was AGREED.