Agenda item

The minutes of the Executive of 8 July 2021 were presented by the Leader, Councillor Bialyk, and taken as read.

 

In respect of Minute No. 68 (East Devon, Exeter, Mid Devon and Teignbridge Joint Strategy : Scope, Resourcing Timetable and Governance) and during discussion the following points were made:-

 

·        the proposal to co-ordinate action across the authorities was sensible;

·        the timetable for the consultation should be lengthened as a short period across the summer holidays on key matters was insufficient. A minimum period of eight weeks should be implemented with the timing of the consultation period reviewed;

·        welcome the explanation of the carbon footprint implications and the consultations proposed within the joint strategy will contribute to the emerging Devon Carbon Plan; and

·        need to clarify which target year the joint strategy is working towards given that each authority have different net zero climate dates.

 

The Leader advised that the City Council continued to work to its Net Zero target date of 2030 and with its three partners in bringing forward the joint strategy and that the City Council would also seek to learn from any lessons gained from Teignbridge District Council whose target date was 2025.

 

The Leader moved and Councillor Sutton seconded the recommendation and following a vote, the recommendation was carried. 

 

In respect of Minute No. 71 (Exeter Civic University Agreement)) and during discussion the following points were made:-

 

·        whilst supporting the strategic objectives, the report was premature as the public consultation survey would not close until 14 August. As the survey would help shape the Agreement, the results of the consultation should be analysed first;

·        practical actions should be identified, for example the University should underline its commitment to net zero by preventing students from bringing cars within the next couple of years unless required for mobility or academic reasons; and

·        request deferral of the report.

 

The Leader responded that any amendments to the Agreement were to be delegated to the Chief Executive & Growth Director in consultation with himself and that he would liaise with the Group Leaders on any changes should they wish to discuss them with him. He welcomed and valued the active engagement of the University in the life of the city and looked forward to further improved connectivity. He also referred to the five world leading climate scientists currently working at the University.

 

The Leader moved and Councillor Sutton seconded the recommendations and following a vote, the recommendations were carried. 

 

In respect of Minute No. 72 (Consultation Charter) the Leader moved and Councillor Sutton seconded the recommendation and following a vote, the recommendation was carried.

 

 

Councillors Morse and Vizard declared non-pecuniary interests and left the meeting during consideration of the following item.

 

 

In respect of Minute No. 73 (Parliamentary Constituency Boundary Review), the Leader moved and Councillor Sutton seconded the following motion to amend the minute to read as follows:-

 

(1)        the Pinhoe Council ward should be suggested for inclusion in the revised Parliamentary Constituency to the east of the City, instead of Priory Council ward, as contained within the Boundary Commission’s initial proposals;

 

(2)        the name of any new Parliamentary Constituency to the east of the city include a reference to the fact that it included a significant proportion of the city within its boundary, with the suggested name of Exmouth and East Exeter; and

 

(3)        instructs officers to inform the Boundary Commission for England of its views on the proposals.

 

The Boundary Commission had recommended in its latest review, that each constituency must have an electorate as at 2 March 2020, that was no smaller than 69,724 and no larger than 77,062. Legislation was intended to put into place by late 2023. The Exeter Constituency had a current electorate of 80,676 and was therefore deemed too large in the latest comparator figures. The current East Devon Constituency had an electorate of 75,387.The Boundary Commission had reviewed the current boundaries of both these parliamentary constituencies and had proposed that the existing arrangement be extended to include all of the Priory, St Loyes and Topsham city wards, thereby ensuring that the new Exeter Parliamentary Constituency electorate falls within the range set by the Boundary Commission, and does not continue the current practice of splitting City Council wards.

 

The Leader set out the wider historical and geographic background to the Boundary Commission proposal and stated that it would be more appropriate for the existing Pinhoe ward to be included in the new parliamentary constituency instead of the Priory ward. This would ensure that all three of the most easterly City Council wards, which border the East Devon administrative area, would be included in the new constituency, allowing for there to be a contiguous boundary between the two authorities. Furthermore, Pinhoe retained some of its rurality which would sit better with the more rural constituency of Exmouth. The Leader stated that Pinhoe was a vital and integral part of Exeter, the parish having been brought into the city in 1966 and emphasised that it would not be moving Pinhoe into East Devon but that it would remain as part of the city of Exeter.

 

The Leader stated that Priory and Pinhoe had exactly the same numbers of electorate of 6,399 but Pinhoe, with a boundary with East Devon, had room to expand, was expanding and was likely to continue to do so, whereas Priory was reasonably static and part of urban Exeter. The Priory ward was important historically with no connection or boundary to the East Devon constituency. The Boundary Commission proposal would mean the parliamentary boundary stretching too far into the urban heart of the City and, as a result, the following would be included in the new boundary - the RD&E Hospital, Wyvern Barracks, Exeter and Devon Crematorium, St Loyes Chapel, Wonford House, Wynstream Primary, Countess Wear Village, ISCA Academy and the West of England School for the Partially Sighted. Wonford, within the urban Priory ward, had its own history with housing built for the working class in the 1930’s and 1940’s and also included the Ludwell Valley Park.

 

The Leader asked Members to support the proposition of including the Pinhoe ward, and not Priory ward, in the new Parliamentary Constituency.

 

Councillor Leadbetter, speaking as an opposition leader, supported the proposition and stated that, whilst the whole of the St Loyes and Topsham wards would move into the new constituency, they too were still very much part of Exeter.

 

Councillor Wood, speaking as a Pinhoe ward Councillor, and as a Pinhoe resident stated that Pinhoe was part of the Exeter City Council area as well as the city of Exeter with its residents feeling a strong allegiance to the city itself and that, as such, he could not support its inclusion in the new constituency. 

 

Councillor Sparling supported the retention of the Priory ward within Exeter, with the Pinhoe ward moved to the new parliamentary constituency which she believed should be known as Exmouth and East Exeter, emphasising that Pinhoe would remain a part of the city. Pinhoe had a separate identity from the city and residents already had links to East Devon such as the village of Broadclyst and would be suitable for a mixed urban and rural constituency. Moreover, the inclusion of Priory would result in the boundary extending too far into Exeter.

 

Councillor Mrs Henson felt that, given Exeter’s history, its name should receive prominence in the name of the new constituency.

 

Councillor M. Mitchell stated that the Boundary Commission sought to have regard to geographic factors in identifying and naming constituencies and that, even with adding the whole of the Boundary Commission’s suggested three wards, Exeter would not possess the majority population. Members noted that representations were sought from other interested parties and the general public and that there was unlikely to be wide support in East Devon for a minority area being the first name of a constituency.

 

Councillor Mrs Henson moved and Councillor Holland seconded an amendment to the motion that the name of the new parliamentary constituency should read Exeter East and Exmouth. The amendment was put to the vote and LOST.

 

Councillor Wardle, speaking as a Priory Ward Councillor, stated that the Boundary Commission had largely undertaken the consultation as a paper exercise and had not taken into account the history of the area and the nature of the communities within the Priory ward. Wonford, an integral part of the Priory ward, possessed long standing links with the city of Exeter going as far back as the 10^th Century and the Domesday Book. Furthermore, Priory residents felt that the ward was an integral part of the city of Exeter and considered linkage to East Devon as absurd.

 

Councillor Harvey, speaking as a Pinhoe ward Councillor, supported the retention of Pinhoe within the Exeter constituency. Pinhoe, as well as the East Devon boundary area, were experiencing considerable growth which was likely to continue. Ultimately, the statistics of the new constituency would not match the comparator figures of other constituencies across the country and, as a result, a further review would be necessary. He also referred to the confusion much of the electorate were likely to experience as a result of the proposals.

 

The Leader, in concluding, re-iterated that Pinhoe would remain as part of the city’s family of wards and estimated that, if Pinhoe would become part of the new constituency, the electorate split could be approximately 73,000 in Exeter and 75/76,000 in the new constituency.

 

The Leader moved and Councillor Sutton seconded the substantive motion and it was RESOLVED that:-

 

(1)        the Pinhoe Council ward should be included in the revised Parliamentary Constituency to the east of the City;

 

(2)        the name of any new parliamentary constituency to the east of the city to include a reference to the fact that a significant proportion of the city lies within its boundary, with the suggested name to be Exmouth and East Exeter; and

 

(3)        officers be instructed to inform the Boundary Commission for England of its views on the proposals.

 

 

In respect of Minute No. 74 (Food Law and Health and Safety Enforcement Service Plan 2021-2022), the Leader moved and Councillor Suttonseconded the recommendations and following a vote, the recommendations were carried unanimously

 

In respect of Minute No. 75 (Funeral Service Provision Review 2021), a Member referred to future land use and space requirements for whole body burials especially on religious grounds where cremation might not be considered suitable.

 

The Leader undertook for a response to be provided to Members on this issue.

 

The Leader moved and Councillor Sutton seconded the recommendation and following a vote, the recommendation was carried unanimously.

 

In respect of Minute No. 77 (Members’ Training), a Member raised issues around on-line training and difficulties that had occurred during the Pandemic and to any implications if sessions could not be attended by Members. The Leader explained the importance of training and that all training sessions were recorded and archived. Any concerns or anxieties could be examined by the Councillor Development Steering Group.

 

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Executive held on 8 July 2021 be received and, where appropriate, adopted.