Decisions

Councillors Asvachin and Begley declared an interest in this item they are both trustees of the Wonford Community Hub. Both Councillors left the room and did not return for the remainder of the meeting.

 

The Leader moved, and Councillor Wright seconded the recommendations.

 

The Strategic Director for Place presented the report, making the following points:

 

·        the project had been paused due to insufficient funding previously;

·        Sport England had had a major contribution in the design process;

·        a variety of options have been looked at, and all costed between four and seven million pounds;

·        only two of the proposed options were considered supportable by Sport England;

·        the proposed design was not too different from previously granted planning permission;

·        pictures created with CGI showed the outlook through the development onto Ludwell Valley Park;

·        no new planning permission was required, but amendments to the existing planning permission would be needed;

·        the business case could not be completed without the design being confirmed;

·        to receive the funding agreement, Exeter City Council needed to match funding provided and deliver the project by Summer 2028;

·        this was a critical project, and is eligible for CIL funding;

·        after four years, the income generation would break even, which would be helped by not using capital borrowing;

·        the process could not be started until funding was secured,;

·        they would be looking for opportunities to limit carbon emissions;

·        the gateway to Ludwell Valley Park was a key part of the design; and

·        there was potential for broader community use, which could help to improve health outcomes.

 

In response to questions from Members, the Strategic Director for Place provided the following responses:

 

·        there would be minor amendments to the planning permission which would be delegated to officers;

·        the recommendation for this report had not changed following the funding announcement last week;

·        he would be meeting with the Place Partnership (Sport England) Manager to finalise decisions;

·        transport for the site would be dealt with through the planning process;

·        the application to amend the planning permission had yet to be submitted but there had been lots of engagement with the planning team;

·        s106 funding was included in the overall funding  of the scheme;

·        in order to complete the project, part of the building needed to be demolished so the lease needed to be ended;

·        a business plan would include the leisure services, and community element;

·        conversations would be had with the community to establish how this would work for them;

·        the tender process and costs would be dealt with as part of the next stage of the project;

·        5% contingency was the industry norm and the risk would be managed through the design process;

·        a risk remained in the procurement process but ultimately costs could be revised if necessary;

·        Devon County Council would be involved in the conversation about the lease;

·        Exeter City Council offered a subsidised leisure service to try and ensure that leisure was accessible; and

·        there were not a large number of external sources for funding, but there was still an opportunity for grant sources, however, this funding had been identified with no additional cost or borrowing.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 19:16 and resumed at 19:24.

 

Councillor Moore, seconded by Councillor Read, moved an additional recommendation:

 

·        To ensure future local community involvement in the use of the building, a partnership agreement is signed with the community organisation stakeholders of the new centre, and this is reported to Council.

 

The Lord Mayor advised Councillor Moore that this was an inappropriate amendment in accordance with Standing Order 10(6).

 

During debate, Councillor Moore made the following points:

 

·        she clarified that she had not said there was a lack of community engagement;

·        she wanted to commitment from the Leader on the levels of community involvement and the partnership between the Council and the community;

·        the community needed a real say in how the project would work in the future; and

·        she would like real commitment about how this community involvement was going to be managed in a transparent way.

 

During debate Members made the following comments:

 

·        the community were fully behind the project and Members could be assured that there would be community support;

·        there were concerns about the constraint of the application and that the Council may end up contributing more than £6 million;

·        there was no guarantee that it would be possible to find someone that could take on the work and also deliver it by summer 2028;

·        residents in Wonford, and wider Exeter, deserved the type of facility that was being discussed;

·        this project had evolved over a number of years, and the community had been engaged throughout;

·        a soft entry into a more active lifestyle through community and shared spaces could be provided with this project;

·        funding was being used in the right way and this money was exactly for this purpose;

·        Sports England liked this project and wanted it to happen;

·        this was a high risk project and it was important to get it right, even if that meant losing the funding from Sports England;

·        it was the Councils statutory duty to ensure public money was being well used;

·        a change in trustees could be a risk to the project;

·        this project was an example of great piece partnership working;

·        officers had work extremely hard on this project and the work with Sports England had required a large amount of work;

·        this project spoke to key ambitions of the community support in the city, and to health and wellbeing through sport and leisure;

·        the community of Wonford had been waiting for this for a very long time and it had been years in the making;

·        it was important to find local contractors;

·        it was heart-warming to hear about the aim for future commitment and community involvement;

·        this needed to deliver real community involvement and benefit;

·        the only alternative to this project was for the building to remain as was and need to be closed eventually; and

·        Wonford Community and Leisure Centre was built in the 1980s and something needed to be done.

 

In summing up, the Leader, Councillor Bialyk, made the following points:

 

·        Wonford Community and Leisure Centre had been built in the 80s to address a need in that area;

·        residents were looking forward to this happening;

·        this was a joint venture, and the community would still be running their community services;

·        10.25 of the report made it clear how this would be dealt with; and

·        approving this would show that it was worth putting money into Exeter because it would go where it was needed.

 

Following a vote the recommendations were CARRIED.

 

The Leader moved, and Councillor Wright seconded the recommendations.

 

The Strategic Director for Place presented the report, making the following points:

 

·        this was a community project and was rooted in the community;

·        it was in line with Exeter’s Corporate Plan, particularly People and Health;

·        approval would unlock significant external funding;

·        this project would support grassroots football;

·        the current facility was aging and many of the turf pitches were unusable in poor weather due to drainage;

·        the Council was working closely with Exeter City Community Trust;

·        planning permission for improvements had been granted in 2025;

·        significant improvements would be made in the pitches, accessibility, environment, and the experience of people using the facility;

·        there was also a commitment to biodiversity improvements;

·        £464,948.02 would be from s106;

·        this project had been identified as meeting the requirements to use s106 funding;

·        extensive community engagement with residents, clubs, school leagues and community groups had been carried out by ECCT;

·        feedback on this project had been overwhelmingly supportive;

·        one of the key hopes for this project was development of youth football, and football for women and girls;

·        close attention had been paid to the building design, and it would be up to BREEAM Excellent Standard;

·        the 3g pitch is a priority, and meetings would be had with Sport England and the Football Foundation; and

·        replanting of an orchard, and hedgerows and trees would take place.

 

In response to questions from Members, the Strategic Director for Place provided the following answers:

 

·        all the funding identified was from completed developments and had been received already;

·        there were currently no set performance objectives, but the Council were working with ECCT as part of the project;

·        using existing parts of the building was more cost effective than demolishing and starting again;

·        the infill of the artificial playing surface would be dealt with through the planning process; and

·        the disposal of the artificial playing surface at the end of its life span would be dealt with through the planning process.

 

During debate, Councillor Moore, as Leader of the Green Group made the following comments:

 

·        she was pleased to see this but wanted her concern about the material being used for the artificial pitch to be recorded;

·        the materials being used wouldn’t be taken out of use until 2031; and

·        this project was important for the community and was a good example of the community working with the Council.

 

Councillor Holland, as Leader of the Conservative Group, made the following comments:

 

·        he supported this with no reservation;

·        the Exeter City Community Trust were a fantastic partnership;

·        he welcomed the biodiversity that this project would bring; and

·        he hoped that thought would be put into the placement of the proposed orchard.

 

During debate, Members made the following comments:

 

·        this development could not come soon enough;

·        there was a shortage of football pitches in the city, and the use of 3g pitches would extend playability;

·        the 3g pitch would extend the capacity;

·        using s106 funding was fantastic, and provided an opportunity to use funding that might be lost;

·        this project was a testament to hard work over a number of years;

·        concerns had been raised by players about the quality of the existing pitches;

·        this was a good example of local authority working in partnership with community groups;

·        greater capacity for matches should be welcomed;

·        developments to playing surfaces should be minded, and the playing surface should be kept under review;

·        the increase in football offered to women and girls was particularly positive;

·        the women’s Euros last summer inspired more people to start putting together girls football teams;

·        Exeter City Community Trust was a great asset to the city;

·        artificial surfaces were almost never rendered unusable due to weather;

·        it was important that we educate young people on staying safe in nature;

·        lots of positive comments had been received from residents on social media; and

·        the report made it clear that this was positive, there had been good partnership work, and it was able to attract funding from elsewhere.

 

In summing up, the Leader, Councillor Bialyk, made the following points:

 

·        the collaboration that had happened in bringing this forward needed to be remembered;

·        this highlighted that the Council were able to work in a collaborative manner with other organisations;

·        it was important that rubber crumb was remembered, but this was a planning issue;

·        participation from all age groups was important; and

·        every councillor should be proud of what was happening here.

 

Following a unanimous vote, the recommendations were CARRIED.

 

Proposal to undertake the refurbishment of the car park to ensure it is health and safety compliant and in a condition to be fully operational. In addition the proposal will also consider transitioning the existing Parking Tariff Band from Zone 2 to Central.

Reason for being Council Decision: The Report is a request to:
i) approve the refurbishment proposals
ii) supporting capital funding budget.

The Leader moved the recommendations, seconded by Councillor Wright, and invited the Strategic Director for Corporate Resources to introduce the report

 

The Strategic Director for Corporate Resources in presenting the report made the following points:

 

·        the report was requesting approval for a £2.5 million capital budget to enhance and improve the Cathedral Quay multi-storey car park;

·        the car park had required improvements for some time and a recent intrusive structural analysis confirmed the car park was structurally sound, contrary to earlier concerns;

·        given the concerns of the structural analysis had been alleviated, the budget would be used to improve appearance, lighting, and overall user experience as well as upgrading the surrounding landscape;

·        the budget would also enable the re-opening of two and half decks which had been closed for an extended period of time;

·        the site had experienced ongoing antisocial behaviour issues and the proposal sought to outsource the day-to-day operation to a specialist car park managing agent to address operational and safety issues;

·        the Council would retain full control of decisions and all income from the car park;

·        the estimated borrowing cost would be around £158,000 per year and additional revenue was expected from re-opening of the closed decks; and

·        the projected additional income was expected to offset both the borrowing costs and operator fees.

 

The Strategic Director for Corporate Resources and Head of Service for Commercial Assets responded to Members questions as follows:

 

·        the recommendation was seeking Council approval to outsource the management of Cathedral Quay car park only and the decision would be made by Council;

·        the recent structural report included an intrusive structural analysis, unlike the report from two years ago and the latest findings were considered more reliable;

·        consultants had confirmed that the car park was structurally sound and met the required standards, even in the unlikely event that it was fully occupied by heavier electric vehicles;

·        the refurbishment works could require the car park to be closed for six months’, though this was not yet confirmed. A phased refurbishment option may allow parts of the car park to remain open, but this would be more complex;

·        it was likely there would be some disruption to nearby businesses during the works but the Council would consult and engage with local traders to minimise disruption as plans developed;

·        although a private operator would be managing the car park, the Council would retain full control over all operational decisions and requirements;

·        the refurbishment provided an opportunity to improve the carpark layout and usability of its spaces, taking into account larger modern vehicles;

·        the aim was to maximise usable spaces and create one of the city’s best multi-storey car parks;

·        to confirm, Members were being asked to approve a £2.5 million capital budget, with the borrowing decisions being delegated to the section 151 officer in consultation with the Council Leader, with updates reported back through normal reporting processes;

·        the main measures proposed to address anti-social behaviour were - installing CCTV, re-opening and providing full usage of the car park, increasing natural surveillance and providing an outsourced operator presence, with staffing and active management on site;

·        KPIs would be included in the contract to ensure proper staffing, maintenance, and a high-quality user experience;

·        the operator would be appointed through a formal competitive tender process in line with procurement regulations and Council approval would enable officers to negotiate commercial terms;

·        Council would be consulted again if there were any significant changes or if costs become unaffordable;

·        the Council currently managed multiple surface and multi-storey car parks across the city using existing council staff;

·        currently staff were capacity stretched, particularly due to the need for requiring an on-site presence at John Lewis, Guildhall, and Mary Arches, in the event of machine failures;

·        by outsourcing management at the Cathedral and Quay car park, it would support existing staff capacity and act as a trial to assess effectiveness and maximize that that benefit of improving the car park;

·        initially, outsourcing arrangements would be for a three to five year period, though a shorter contract was preferred. This was the first time using this approach, and having flexibility was important in case that it did not work as intended;

·        the Council would retain responsibility for parking enforcement and would not be outsourced to the private operator;

·        cameras could be installed on site, and enforcement would still require Council officers to check vehicles and issue Penalty Charge Notices on site;

·        the existing Council enforcement team would continue to manage enforcement at the Cathedral Quay car park and would operate to the same standards and processes used across all council owned car parks;

·        the debt servicing included repayment of the principal and interest and borrowing for the project would be repaid over 50 years, reflecting the expected lifespan of a building asset;

·        borrowing periods typically aligned with the asset life span;

·        the Council’s car park service would manage the contract, with oversight from the Head of Commercial Assets, with clear KPIs being established to ensure service quality and accountability;

·        performance would likely include regular monitoring with monthly records covering cleaning, security, and maintenance and formal reviews would occur annually or biannually depending on contract terms; and

·        the agreement would include a termination provision, allowing the Council to end the contract if performance issues arose and persisted.

 

The meeting was briefly adjourned between 20:05 and 20:15.

 

The Leader proposed an amendment to recommendation 2, which was seconded by Councillor Knott to read as follows:

 

·        the outsourcing of the management function of the Cathedral and Quay MSCP park on terms to be agreed shall be delegated to the Strategic Director in consultation with the Portfolio Holder,  to enable it to re-establish itself as a premier car park for the city.

 

The Leader in speaking to the amendment advised:

 

·        the amendment highlighted that he had listened to concerns raised and had previously held discussions with the Head of Service regarding the proposal;

·        he clarified the proposal related to outsourcing the management of the car park, rather than full privatisation;

·        he clarified that external operators could bring additional capacity, expertise, and resources, while recognising there would be financial considerations;

·        there were examples from other cities such as Liverpool and Manchester, where modern systems (including number plate recognition and controlled access) provided a safe, efficient, and welcoming parking experience;

·        the Cathedral and Quay car park was an important asset to the area and should be improved for visitors and residents;

·        the current car park condition and management could be significantly improved, particularly with safety and environment;

·        the intention was not to outsource all civic car parks immediately, but to trial the approach first and assess outcomes;

·        proportionate enforcement was needed to ensure drivers were not penalised for minor issues while addressing persistent misuse and antisocial behaviour;

·        details of enforcement, expectations, and service standards must be clearly defined in any agreement;

·        a forthcoming meeting with the Strategic Director was planned to refine the tender offer, expectations, and financial arrangements;

·        contract terms, including break clauses and review periods, would be carefully considered; and

·        the primary aim of the report was to improve the quality and management of city car parks, ensuring they provided a good service and supported the attractiveness of the area.

 

During the debate on the amendment, the following points were raised:

 

·        the amendment, provided greater oversight by Members regarding the proposed outsourcing of car park management;

·        Portfolio Holders routinely brought issues from their areas to the Executive informally, and this matter could also come to the Executive formally in the future if required;

·        the amendment provided reassurance that decisions would not be taken without proper consideration, particularly given concerns raised by residents;

·        the clarification that parking enforcement would not be outsourced was welcomed;

·        the Leader’s amendment was welcomed but considered not going far enough;

·        concerns were raised about the principle of outsourcing a public sector function and lack of detailed reporting, evidence, and discussion prior to the proposal;

·        there was a significant policy shift from in-house provision to outsourcing should be supported by clear evidence and fuller debate;

·        given the timescale for capital work, there would be sufficient time for further review of the management arrangements before any implementation and the matter needed to come back to a future Council meeting for further consideration;

·        concerns were raised regarding the employment conditions of staff working for any external operator, including wages, pensions, and working conditions;

·        employment standards could potentially be addressed through contract requirements or KPIs;

·        more detailed evidence, scrutiny, and discussions were required before proceeding and there was no need to rush the decision;

·        any outsourcing arrangements needed to include ongoing feedback mechanisms from both car park users and nearby residents;

·        live performance data linked to KPIs should be made available, using digital tools such as QR codes to gather feedback;

·        there was support for the amendment, given the alternative options were less favourable;

·        clarification was sought on how the proposal aligned with the Council’s procurement processes, including the role of the Procurement Board;

·        no best value or cost–benefit analysis had been presented, particularly comparing outsourced management with in-house provision;

·        a Member enquired how outsourcing would integrate with existing Council services, including community safety priorities and initiatives to protect women from violence;

·        funds potentially used for contractor profit could instead be reinvested in council teams;

·        there was a need to demonstrate best value for money;

·        the proposal to restore the car park to full operation was welcomed, the amendment provided reassurance on outsourcing issues, and the approach ensured outsourcing would only occur if it represented best value and was the most practical solution; and

·        a Member considered that the wording of the amendment still assumed that the management function would be outsourced, albeit subject to delegated approval.

 

In summing up the amendment, the Leader advised that

 

·        delegation to the Strategic Director in consultation with the Portfolio Holder would not make outsourcing a foregone conclusion, and allowed for further consideration before any final decision;

·        he acknowledged the point raised regarding the need for a cost–benefit analysis, which would be discussed with the Strategic Director;

·        he noted the need to clarify operational details, including the potential use of number plate recognition technology for entry and exit, and confirmed further questions would be addressed with officers;

·        the Council’s reputation and service standards would be protected in any arrangements made;

·        re-iterated that the amendment followed standard Council practice of delegating decisions to officers in consultation with the relevant Portfolio Holder;

·        appropriate safeguards, guidance, and contractual conditions would be put in place, including consideration of issues raised during the debate;

·        confirmed that outsourcing the management function remained the proposed direction, subject to delegated decision-making;

·        further delays or additional lengthy council processes would be unnecessary, as the matter could be progressed through delegated authority;

·        it was important to move forward with improvements and investment in the car park, noting that local traders and the public wanted improvements to be made; and

·        the intention was to listen to contributions in the debate and ensure concerns raised were addressed in the implementation process.

 

Following a vote the AMENDMENT was CARRIED. 

 

 

Councillor Fullam proposed an amendment to recommendation 1, which was seconded by Councillor K. Mithcell to remove the word “estimated” to read as follows

 

·        a budget of £2,500,000 for undertaking the refurbishment and upgrade works at Cathedral and Quay MSCP.

 

Councillor Fullam in speaking to the amendment advised:

 

·        the minor amendment was to solely remove the word “estimated” from £2,500,000 budget, and he expressed his support for the figure provide that it was a fixed figure;

·        any additional funding should be requested through a future supplementary budget if needed;

·        he welcomed the redevelopment as an opportunity to improve a problematic area of the city;

·        he acknowledged general scepticism toward large capital projects but expressed confidence that the officers’ financial projections were robust;

·        he highlighted the potential for increased revenue from improved car park facilities, benefiting wider city spending; and

·        expressed support for the proposal, subject to the requested wording amendment.

 

The Lord Mayor advised that removal of the word “estimated” would not alter the substance of the motion and the Leader accepted amendment to remove “estimated” from the substantive motion to assist procedural clarity.

 

 

Councillor K. Mitchell proposed an amendment to recommendation 2, which was seconded by Councillor M. Mitchell to read as follows:

 

·        that a further report be brought back to Council on the outsourcing of the management function of Cathedral and Quay MSCP versus retaining the service in-house.

 

Councillor K. Mitchell in speaking to the amendment advised:

 

·        he had reservations after reviewing the report and listening to the debate;

·        expressed support for recommendation 1, agreeing that the car park required additional funding and improvements, including addressing anti-social behaviour;

·        he was not able to support recommendation 2 due to concerns about outsourcing the management function and there was a lack of sufficient evidence or justification that the service could not be delivered in-house; and

·        he raised concerns about maintaining staff standards and protecting employee terms, including pensions, under outsourcing and further information was needed;

 

 

The Leader advised that he would be deferring the report to allow for further work to be carried out and explained the following:

 

·        he acknowledged the concerns raised during the debate and confirmed he had listened to Members’ views;

·        a revised report would be brought back to a future Council meeting which would provide clearer detail on the proposed outsourcing/management arrangements;

·        he emphasised the need to address key issues, including understanding of what was being proposed, ensuring strong governance, oversight, and performance measures and maintaining control over pricing and service standards;

·        he referenced past issues with outsourced services to highlight the importance of proper controls and accountability; and

·        reiterated that the intention was to ensure any future proposal was robust, transparent, and compliant with the Council’s constitution.

 

RESOLVED that the report be deferred.

 

The Leader moved the recommendations, seconded by Councillor Wright, and invited the Strategic Director for Corporate Resources to introduce the report.

 

The Strategic Director for Corporate Resources introduced the report making the following points:

• the term of the current Independent Persons would end on the 26 February;
• this report sought to approve the appointment of two new Independent Persons; and
• they were required by law to give a view in the event of investigations into Members Code of Conduct complaints.

 

Following a unanimous vote the recommendations were CARRIED. 

 

The Leader moved and Councillor Wright seconded, the resolution as set out in the agenda and circulated papers in respect of the Council Tax and the budget for Exeter for 2026/27.

 

In moving the resolution, the Leader proposed, and Councillor Wright seconded additional wording to the resolution:

 

(1)   On 27 January 2026 the Licensing Committee:

RESOLVED unanimously that the Licensing Committee recommends the following:

That Council approves for the period from 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2027 that the fees shall be set as specified in Appendix B.

 

Minutes of the above meeting have been published and will be received by Council on 3 March.

 

These fees can be found on pages 228-230 of the agenda pack and form part of the budget before you today.

 

(2)   That the following, as submitted, be approved:

(a)   the Revenue estimates for 2026-2027 with an additional budget added of £130,000 for tidying, cleaning and improving the public realm, to be funded from the General Fund Working Balance.

 

Councillor Moore proposed, and Councillor Rees seconded, the Green Group amendments to the budget in the following terms:

 

Green Group Budget Amendment 2026

To reduce the General Fund Surplus by £255,000 the Council’s already agreed minimum of £3.1m.

 

To fund:

1.     Securing Community Assets – a community Asset Transfer programme:

As part of the Local Government Reorganisation programme undertake a review of Council assets (property and land) to identify property which has previously been, currently is in or suitable for community ownership and community benefit.

To ensure that community assets can be protected and improved by the Council and communities ahead of LGR, to enable a programme of Community Asset Transfer (CAT) upon request and in line with the Councils CAT policy (adopted 2022), to support local (appropriated constituted) community organisations take on assets in Exeter’s neighbourhoods and secure them for the long term as community owned and run assets.

The programme would provide revenue funds for capacity building for the organisations and funding expertise (e.g. Surveyors, business planning); and small capital grants to act as ‘first funder in’ to underpin and attract external capital funding for the project or fund the Council to undertake essential and urgent repairs to the building before disposal.

Disposal may include all the methods that the Council has used to date, including: freehold sale at less than best consideration (allowed under government guidance), long leases at less than best consideration or peppercorn.

Note: It is noted that the approach might generate some capital receipts - which can be used to continue the programme (revenue or capital).

The programme will be funded as follows:

Revenue grants: £155,000 reduction to General Fund min reserves levels.

Capital funding: An amount, allocated from the non-neighbourhood portion of the Community Infrastructure Levy, to be decided by the Executive once the review has been complete.

 

2.     Nature Towns and Cities Accreditation:

The Accreditation demonstrates a “commitment to transforming green infrastructure to benefit people, place and nature. By achieving the award, you’ll have shown that you have good leadership, are involving and engaging communities and building effective partnerships. Together, you will have developed ambitious plans to improve the natural infrastructure of your town or city. You will also have considered how to secure funding and developed new ways to deliver with communities and partners.”

This budget amendment will help support the proposal to seek accreditation and address feedback in the budget consultation for more support for parks and greens spaces.

The proposal is to fund infrastructure (beyond play equipment which has separate budget), support gardening (vs ‘maintenance’), planting (for plants - noting the separate tree budget), and fund community groups that are, or wish to, get involved in the accreditation to undertake this work.

Revenue funding £50,000 from a reduction to the General Fund minimum reserves level.

 

3.     Adapting to our changing climate:

To develop an adaptation and resilience action plan for the City of Exeter (not just Council services) which involves communities and partners in practical action.

This will sit alongside the Net Zero 2030 City Council’s Carbon Action Plan being developed by the Net Zero Project Board and help partners and communities really consider the impacts of the changing climate on communities. The Council attends Devon, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Climate Impacts Group (Climate Impacts Group - Devon Climate Emergency) meetings, which discuss climate resilience and adaptation.

The work will facilitate the co-development of a resilience and adaptation action plan and access to technical expertise to identify risks and how they can be reduced or managed. There needs to be a big emphasis on working with communities for this work to be effective. Community engagement can, in part, be covered by some of the £120k budget already identified in the budget book.

Funded by £50,000 adjustment to General Fund minimum reserves level.

 

In presenting the Green Group’s budget amendments, Councillor Moore made the following points:

• all aspects of the proposal were aligned with the Council’s policies and priorities;
• these were based on proposals from the Customer Focus Scrutiny Committee;
• the Council already had a policy on Community Assets and this would help move it forward;
• working alongside the community was necessary for a long-term and viable future;
• the parks and green spaces in Exeter were much loved and valued;
• the climate crisis was happening now and had already been recognised in the draft Local Plan;
• it was necessary to work with businesses and communities; 
• nature based solutions were needed to deal with the increases in rain and temperature; and
• the General Fund could be used and the minimum level was at the higher end for a Council.

 

During debate Members made the following comments:

• the UK Government Adaptation Research Framework had made it clear that climate change was already challenging and the challenges were increasing;
• the ability to adapt was critical and widespread action was needed for climate resilience;
• work needed to be done with communities to strengthen their response;
• £50,000 to the Parks and Open Spaces Team was completely in line with the Council’s policies and strategies;
• this was a win-win amendment with lasting outcomes;
• unusual was becoming usual because of climate change; and
• a pivot to adaptation was common sense.

 

In seconding the amendments, Councillor Rees made the following points:

• she was delighted to have completed the first full round of budget scrutiny;
• scrutiny was an evolving process that would hopefully be strengthened;
• the Strategic Director of Corporate Resources had welcome amendments from Members of the Customer Focus Scrutiny Committee;
• these discussions should be collaborative across all parties;
• these amendments supported wider council strategy and that was the spirit in which these proposals were made; and
• this amendment was not in opposition or contradictory in any way.

 

Councillor Moore responded to comments made in the debate, stating that it would be good to hear more debate on this matter as the issues raised were important for the residents, and there were only two years left for this Council to make these changes.

 

The Leader, as mover of the original motion, replied to the amendment, making the following comments:

• no one could disagree with the spirit of the amendments;
• there was a lack of detail in the amendment; and
• he would address the issues raised later in the meeting.

 

Councillor Michael Mitchell raised a point of clarification regarding Standing Order 30 and was advised by the Lord Mayor that this was not applicable when voting on an amendment.

 

Following a vote the amendment was NOT CARRIED.

 

Councillor Michael Mitchell proposed, and Councillor Palmer seconded, the Liberal Democrat Group amendments to the budget in the following terms:

 

2026/27 Budget Amendments proposed by the Liberal Democrat Council Group

Supporting local communities.

 

1.     In addition to support with office costs, a grant of £50,000.00 to support Citizens Advice Service whilst it develops alternative income sources and works to integrate with any proposed Unitary Authority structure implemented in Devon.

To negotiate a contract based on savings to Council because of CA’s work to bring in additional money to the council e.g. rents and council tax and other bad debts.

The cost of this grant to be met in in 2026/27 from General Reserves.

2.     HMOs – to review and adjust fees to ensure the service breaks even and provide support to improve standards in the HMO sector.

 

3.     The council is requested to investigate a city-wide voluntary licensing scheme for properties in the rented sector. The scheme should aim to be self-financing.

 

In proposing the amendments Councillor Michael Mitchell made the following points:

• he was disappointed that the Council would be raising the Council Tax by the maximum allowed;
• the original business rate amounts were embedded in the budget;
• the elections would still be held on 7 May, so this was in many ways a temporary budget;
• the Liberal Democrat group only wished to make one minor change to the proposed budget;
• the needs of the Citizen’s Advice Exeter continued to grow, and they still had professional staff and support services that they needed to fund;
• Citizens Advice Exeter was only supported financially by Devon County Council;
• he believed that if this became embedded this year, this could be carried forward in the new unitary authority;
• without support the Citizens Advice Exeter was running at a deficit;
• there were issues with licensing charges in relation to Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMOs);
• properties in the rental sector in a voluntary licencing scheme should be self-financing; and
• he welcomed the government’s stance on the Renters’ Rights Act.

 

Councillor Moore, as Leader of the Green Group made the following comments during debate:

• she agreed about the importance of Citizens Advice Exeter;
• during the first quarter of this year, Citizens Advice Exeter had helped 1300 clients with 4844 issues;
• Citizens Advice Exeter brought income for the Council, and had secured a £1,000,000 gain for residents; and
• this would be a strategic investment for the Council.

 

During debate a Member highlighted that demand did not disappear when services were cut, and that people should be campaigning and canvasing Devon County Council to invest in services that people relied upon.

 

Councillor Palmer, as seconder, made the following comments in support of the amendments:

• she had a high concentration of HMOs in her ward;
• Exeter City Council was the only authority with such a high-level HMOs without a licensing scheme;
• residents were living in appalling housing conditions and a large number of students would not complain because they were worried about losing their housing;
• vulnerable people were living in unregistered, poorly maintained housing;
• political belief should not be considered in this matter;
• everyone had a right to live in a decent home;
• the Council could play their part by having these schemes; and
• they were encouraging that a legacy be left for residents in Exeter to have a safe place to live.

 

Councillor M Mitchell responded to comments made in the debate in the following terms:

• it was only a few years ago that Exeter City Council had been giving Citizens Advice Exeter £75k a year;
• the Council did not make a contribution, and charged Citizens Advice Exeter for the use of the building;
• Citizens Advice Exeter was a desperate service for people in extremely dire circumstances; and
• if Exeter City Council did not care, why should anybody else.

 

The Leader, as mover of the original motion, responded to comments made in the debate in the following terms:

• this Council had given support to Citizens Advice Exeter in the past;
• the Customer Focus Scrutiny Committee had been clear regarding peppercorn rent;
• the Chief Executive had written a letter to Citizens Advice Exeter and he could not see why this letter could not be shared with all Members; and
• they could not precondition the new Unitary Authority going forward.

 

Following a vote the recommendations were NOT CARRIED.

 

Councillor Moore and Councillor Read raised a Point of Order under Standing Order 10 (7) regarding the Leader’s additional wording added to the resolution, as she believed it had not been submitted in accordance with the Standing Order.

 

The Strategic Director for Corporate Resources advised Members that the Labour Group had proposed an acceptable amendment to the budget.

 

The Lord Mayor advised that additional wording had been added to the budget rather than an amendment.

 

In presenting his Budget speech, appended to this set of minutes, the Leader, Councillor Bialyk, covered the following themes:

• a balanced budget had been achieved through effective financial management;
• extensive consultation had ensured alignment with resident and community priorities;
• no frontline service cuts were anticipated for the next two years;
• the proposal for LGR had been developed with cross-party support, and was now out for public consultation;
• elections would now go ahead and the government were providing additional resources to support;
• the Community Safety Team (CST) had expanded citywide, contributing to notable reductions in ASB and city centre crime;
• 311 new high-definition CCTV had been installed, with additional cameras planned;
• a new City Centre Strategy was being developed using input from the Residents Survey, focusing on safety, accessibility, economy, housing, and travel and would go to consultation later in the year alongside the updated Safety of Women and Girls at Night Charter;
• over £526k had been distributed to low-income households through the Household Support Scheme;
• there was ongoing support for community groups, and Citizens Advice Exeter, including peppercorn rent, and access to future funding opportunities;
• the Exeter Plan had been submitted and was about to begin examination;
• there had been progress on new council housing at Vaughn Road, the St Thomas redevelopment, retrofit programme, and social housing partnerships;
• major regeneration was underway in a number of areas across Exeter, with 182 affordable homes secured via s106 funds;
• Newtown active-travel scheme was due to start, and significant engagement had been undertaken;
• a climate resilience plan was being developed, with long-term investment expected to fall to a future unitary authority;
• restoration of the Royal Clarence Hotel and the new Wonford centre had been approved;
• the Community Asset Transfer (CAT) policy would be reviewed for consistency and transparency;
• there would be no increase in parking charges and refurbishment was being planned at key car parks;
• the Leisure Service had seen a growth in membership and high participation levels;
• Exeter had submitted a bid for the UK City of Culture 2029; and
• major operational upgrades had been approved, including the new MRF purchase, waste hub development, and the proposed office relocation which would enable CityPoint redevelopment.

 

The Leader talked Members through the details of the Budget proposal making the following points:

• the government had provided a multi-year settlement for the first time in 10 years and funding for 2026/27 remained the same as that for 2025/26;
• Exeter City Council continued to set one of the lowest council tax rates in the country;
• the proposed increase was 2.99 percent, which was £191.31 for band D properties, around 11p a week;
• the total Band D charge for 2026/27 was £2,495.36
  • Devon County Council: £1,891.17
  • Police and Crime Commissioner: £303.20
  • Exeter City Council: £191.31
  • Devon and Somerset Fire Authority: £109.68
• the Labour Group had proposed the creation of a new “Pride in Exeter” neighbourhood improvement fund totalling £130,000, which could be used to support small-scale local improvements such as clearing overgrowth, minor repairs, and tidying work;
• the council had delivered against key commitments including cost-of-living support, climate action, homebuilding, green space protection, cultural investment, and a stable, well-led council; and
• this council would hand over to a new unitary authority in a strong, well-managed position.

 

During debate, Councillor Holland, as Leader of the Conservative Group, made the following points:

• there was much to be celebrated in this budget;
• the £2 million given by the Football Association for the development of King George V playing fields should be celebrated; and
• he was pleased that car parking charges had been frozen.

 

Councillor Moore, as Leader of the Green Group, made the following points:

• Passivhaus council houses were brilliant;
• she was concerned that the budget set out a continuation of doing, rather than working with;
• the CAT needed to be put into action, with money;
• the Council needed to work with communities,
• she wanted long term investment in the city’s parks and green spaces;
• the inequality gap in the city was growing; and
• core spending power had actually decreased by 16.7% when compared to 2010.

 

The meeting was adjourned for a break at 20:12 and resumed at 20:22. 

 

During debate on the substantive motion, Members’ made the following comments in support of the proposed budget:

• it was incredible that Exeter was the fastest growing city in the UK;
• it was important to recognise retrofitted homes as there was still lots more work to do;
• there was lots of work to be done that was not in the remit of the council, such as flood prevention, transport, and roads;
• the Newtown scheme would make a huge impact on safety, use of green space, and active travel;
• the leisure service was not an optional extra;
• inactivity had been targeted through the Live and Move project;
• 1.7 million people had visited the leisure facilities in Exeter this year;
• money was being saved by building Passivhaus council houses;
• the extension of the Community Safety Team into Heavitree was very welcome;
• community asset transfer was challenging but was progressing;
• culture facilities across the city, such as the RAMM and the Phoenix were reaching wider audiences;
• students were welcome in the city and they should feel welcomed;
• the housing development work in St Thomas was very positive;
• public realm improvements were vital;
• the City Centre Strategy included improving climate resilience;
• planting more trees would become easier under the new Unitary Authority;
• the amendments couldn’t be accepted with a specific amount of money, as it was included as part of the City Centre Strategy;
• the Community Safety Team were not a massive team but were doing incredible work; and
• the Leader would be looking at the existing Community Asset Transfer policy.

 

During debate, Members’ made the following comments opposing the budget:

• community balance had been taken away in the local plan;
• the co-living policy was inadequate;
• residents wanted actual help;
• in 2003, Exeter was a debt free authority and this was no longer the case;
• it was really important to have nature-based solutions for climate change and these could have been done locally with small amounts of budget; and
• the Green Group amendment did not have figures because it was advised against.

 

Councillor Rees raised a Point of Order under Standing Order 10(15) and was advised by the Lord Mayor that this was only applicable for clarification on something they themselves had said.

 

In summing up, the Leader made the following points:

• he would write to the Leader of Devon County Council and would like to meet with him and the Leaders of the other parties;
• the Portfolio Holders had demonstrated their understanding of the portfolios and what they intended to do;
• the car parking did not go up as it had increased the previous year;
• decent public transport was necessary for getting around the city, and it was not possible to tell people to leave their cars at home until that was sorted;
• the leisure service had been brought back in house;
• he was not against asset transfer;
• he wanted transparency, not bureaucracy;
• local councillors needed to get involved with community builders;
• he was open to ideas on how to speed up the retrofit; and
• he did understand the concerns surrounding Citizens Advice, and he would circulate the letter from the Chief Executive.

 

In accordance with Standing Order 30, a named vote on the resolution including the additional wording proposed by the Leader, was recorded, as follows:

 

Voting for:

Councillors Asvachin, Begley, Bialyk, Cookson, Darling, Foale, Haigh, Harding, Holland, Hussain, Ketchin, Knott, Miller-Boam, Parkhouse, Patrick, Payne, Read, Rolstone, Snow, Vizard, Wardle, Williams R, Wood, Wright, and The Right Worshipful the Lord Mayor Councillor Jobson. (25 Members).

 

Voting against:

Councillors Banyard, Bennett, Mitchell M, Moore, Palmer, and Wetenhall. (6 Members).

 

Abstaining:

Councillors Fullam and Rees. (2 Members).

 

The Resolution was CARRIED:

 

RESOLVED:

 

 

1)     That the following, as submitted, be approved:

 

(a)   the Revenue estimates for 2026-2027;

(b)   the Capital programme for 2026-2027;

(c)   the Fees & Charges for 2026-2027;

(d)   the Treasury Management Strategy for 2026-2027;

(e)   the Prudential indicators for 2026-2027 (incorporating the Minimum Revenue Provision Statement); and

(f)     the Capital Strategy for 2026-2027

 

2)     that it be noted that, at the meeting of the Executive on the 16 December 2025, the Council calculated the figure of 40,186, as its council tax base for the year 2026-2027 in accordance with the Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base)(England) Regulations 2012 made under Section 33(5) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992;

 

3)     that the following amounts be now calculated by the Council for the year 2026-2027 in accordance with Sections 31A of the Local Government and Finance Act 1992:-

 

(a)   £127,722,990 being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(2)(a) to (f) of the Act;

 

(b)   £120,035,006 being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(3)(a) to (d) of the Act;

 

(c)   £7,687,984 being the amount by which the aggregate at (3)(a) above exceeds the aggregate at (3)(b) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 31A(4) of the Act, as its council tax requirement for the year;

 

(d)   £191.31 being the amount at (3)(c) above divided by the amount at 2 above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 31B(1) of the Act, as the basic amount of its council tax for the year.

 

(e)   Valuation Bands

 

 

                                                                                   

Being the amount given by multiplying the amount at (3)(d) above by the number which, in the proportion set out in Section 5(1) of the Act, is applicable to dwellings listed in a particular valuation band divided by the number which in that proportion is applicable to dwellings listed in valuation band D, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 36(1) of the Act, as the amounts to be taken into account for the year in respect of categories of dwellings listed in different valuation bands.

 

4)     That it will be noted that, for the year 2026-2027, Devon County Council, the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Devon and Cornwall and the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority have stated the following amounts on precepts issued to the Council, in accordance with Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2003, for each of the categories of the dwellings shown below:-

 

Devon County Council

 

 

 

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Devon and Cornwall

 

 

 

Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority

 

 

5)     That, having calculated the aggregate in each case of the amounts at (3)(e) and (4) above, the Council, in accordance with Section 30(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, hereby set the following amounts as the amounts of council tax for the year 2026-2027 for each of the categories of dwellings shown below:-

 

Valuation Bands

 

That the following, as submitted, be approved:

(a)   the Revenue estimates for 2026-2027 with an additional budget added of £130,000 for tidying, cleaning and improving the public realm, to be funded from the General Fund Working Balance.

 

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Bialyk, moved the recommendations, seconded by Councillor Wright, and invited the Strategic Director of Operations, Strategic Director of Corporate Resources, and the Head of Service – Environment and Waste to present the report.

 

The Strategic Director of Operations and the Head of Service – Environment and Waste presented the portion of the report on the Materials Reclamation Facility (MRF) making the following points:

• this supported all of the Councils’ corporate policies;
• progress was required now, despite uncertainty surrounding Local Government Reorganisation (LGR)
• the current (MRF) was over 25 years old and required a full refurbishment;
• increase processing volume capacity was needed;
• frequent machinery downtime was causing financial loss;
• the existing site was small and lacked sufficient capacity;
• installation of update fire suppression measures was required;
• the layout of the current MRF was complex due to multiple services operating there;
• survey work indicated that a sewer line ran close to the railway, creating constraints;
• the Environment Agency requirements were increasingly challenging to meet, and South West Water required 3-meter clearance on each side of the sewer line, which impacted usable space;
• this project concerned the entirety of the Operations service;
• Belle Isle was outdated, with temporary facilities, compliance issues, and restricted space;
• the welfare facilities at Belle Isle were porta cabins and this proposal aimed to provide proper facilities for all Operations staff; 
• there were concerns around the safety and security of machinery at the current site;
• this proposal sought the acquisition of the Envirohub site near the current MRF;
• the Envirohub was close to the Devon County Council recycling area, the weighbridge sites, and the ARC building, which increased the strategic value;
• moving to operations to the Envirohub would allow work to continue without disruption;
• an update assessment of the cost of refurbishment was £13,586,000, whereas moving to the Envirohub would cost £12,871,000;
• the Envirohub had an improved EPC rating and had capacity for additional solar panels; and
• there was office space available for approximately 50 members of staff, with room for the frontline teams, training facilities, and significantly improved toilet and shower facilities.

 

The Strategic Director of Operations and the Head of Service – Environment and Waste responded to Members’ questions on the new MRF in the following terms;

• the building was fully accessible and had passenger lifts;
• they were open minded for making improvements, and would look at it subject to agreement from Members;
• the Environment Agency feedback had been noted, and a report would be brought before Members regarding Belle Isle;
• increased facilities would decrease levels of rejected waste and secondary processing;
• a big challenge for increasing the recycling rate was changing behaviour, however there had been an improvement following better education and engagement surrounding food waste recycling;
• the existing permit was larger than needed, included mixed waste, and could be transferred easily;
• the focus had been focused largely on capacity in Exeter;
• they were confident that it would be possible to do two collection policies if it was needed after LGR;
• the building layout would be different, but the machinery would be the same;
• they were not yet at the point of purchase yet so it is possible the figures could change, however an external party had also been used to develop the figures;
• it would cost an estimated £2.5 million to resolve the issues at Belle Isle;
• the building had become available following the sale of the business that was previously working within the premises;
• the solar farm was not currently being used at full capacity, there were 11 electric vehicles, but it was not necessary to have a charger for each vehicle;
• Members would be offered the chance to visit the existing MRF;
• a secure tariff would be sought to ensure income on an annual basis;
• there would not be the capability for a textile collection service and this was not currently required as a district council, but this would need to be considered following LGR;
• £7.7 million had been approved for existing project but they were seeking to add £2.5 million for Belle Isle and £2.6 million from CIL funding;
• the cost had increased as there were greater levels of contamination that anticipated and the railway tracked was causing restrictions;
• technology was changing all the time, so it was difficult to predict future capacity;
• the figure for the renovation of the existing MRF and the figure for moving to the Envirohub was the same;
• the customers of Devon Contract Waste were now with a well-known national firm; and
• it was believed to be a 12 month programme if approved, the Council had been working was a consultant so it would be possible to move quickly.

 

The Strategic Director of Corporate Resources presented the portion of the report on Senate Court, making the following points:

• this had previously been discussed in September;
• the civic centre was old and needed repairs with an estimated cost of £5 million;
• this move would help to deliver part of the Liveable Exeter program and was in line with the local plan for housing;
• Senate Court was the most financially viable option, as the building was already owned by the Council;
• the report sought delegated authority for the Chief Executive for the final decision regarding the layout;
• the staff would be engaged with to understand what worked best for them and their service;
• moving to Senate Court would save the Council £164,000 a year moving forward, with an estimated benefit of £868,000 over ten years;
•  there were significant environmental benefits, with a expected change of EPC rating to B;
• Senate Court was much more accessible, with two lifts and accessible toilets;
• the committee rooms would be much larger and could accommodate up to 70 members of the public;
• there would be secure bicycle storage in the basement; and
• it would be possible to install focus areas for working, and pods to enable private conversations.

 

The Strategic Director of Corporate Resources responded to Members’ questions in the following terms:

• when looking at unitary authorities such as Plymouth, it was believed Senate Court would be a suitable size;
• the cost plan assumed an EPC B rating, to achieve EPC A further repairs and refurbishment would be needed;
• the travel to work plan was not part of this report but was being reviewed by Human Resources (HR);
• it was intended for the cycle storage to be secure;
• additional costing for unisex toilets on each floor was approximately £375,000;
• if the decision was delayed for 6 months the move date would be closer to Christmas 2027 and the Council would have to pay a holding cost for the empty building;
• there had been plans to move for a number of years, this was being done now as the building had become vacant;
• the Civic Centre would be sold by the new unitary authority;
• it was likely that a city centre location would be desirable for the new authority;
• there was a holding cost for Senate Court at the moment, but this was built into the cost moving forward;
• Senate Court was entirely electric, 25% from solar panels and the remainder from the grid;
• the implementation program needed to be updated;
• County Hall had not been considered due to the location and the size, the future authority was likely smaller than the existing Devon County Council, and would need to be easily accessible for residents;
• it was not envisaged that Senate Court would hold full council meetings;
• there was £3 million available from the Guildhall budget;
• the Council did not own the adjacent The Senate, only Senate Court;
• welfare facilities had been considered and were reflected in the drawings; and
• it was not yet known what would happen to assets owned by existing councils following LGR.

 

Meeting paused 19:30, resumed 19:40.

 

During debate, Councillor M Mitchell, as leader of the Liberal Democrat group, made the following points:

• the outcome of the LGR proposal would be known in 17 weeks;
• concerned for the duality of services offered by other authorities;
• he was satisfied that there would be an appropriate transition period;
• moving the MRF was a risk worth taking irrespective of LGR;
• the outcome of LGR would change the need for a new civic centre;
• the Minister could decide a different outcome to what was proposed; and
• he did not know what the rush was to move to Senate Court.

 

Councillor Moore, as leader of the Green group, made the following points;

• it was important that this decision was transparent;
• moving the MRF provided a real opportunity to improve the recycling rate;
• she would be supporting the move of the MRF;
• deferring or delaying the decision to move the Council to Senate Court would not increase the cost that much;
• she might support the move in a few months’ time, but could not support it today;
• Belle Isle was based in the corner of Belle Isle park, and it had previously been determined that there was a high risk of flooding and that a housing development was not suitable; and
• what did the Leader envisage would happen to the existing Belle Isle site.

 

During debate, Members made the following points about the Materials Reclamation Facility (MRF):

• the biggest problem when making a new space was construction costs, buying a new building eliminated that issue;
• the emphasis was on staff facilities at the MRF, it would help to recruit and retain staff if the conditions were improved;
• a new MRF was essential and would solve issues with Belle Isle;
• this offered opportunities to bring staff together and could provide improved cross departmental working;
• the Operations staff did an outstanding job and a new MRF was exactly what they needed;
• the new authority would need recycling handling facilities within the city;
• moving the MRF delivers the improvements at a lower cost than refurbishment of the existing site;
• the capacity and working conditions of the MRF staff were significant;
• this proposal met the Council’s climate change and net zero objectives;
• the figures for moving the MRF looked better than those for refurbishment, but they were an increase on the original figure of £8 million;
• moving the location of the MRF had been years in the making; and
• there would be learning and development space within the new building, which was pleasing to see.

 

During debate, Members made the following points about Senate Court:

• an estimated price of £375,000 for unisex toilets was dissatisfying and should be reconsidered by the Chief Executive;
• how could the Council plan for a future that they did not know about and could this leave the future authority with a financial burden;
• the meeting rooms should be big enough for the new authority;
• they were confident that following LGR a presence would be needed in the city centre for the new authority;
• County Hall was not practical for a number of reasons;
• delaying this decision would make it more expensive;
• there were lots of unknowns and that was uncomfortable;
• it was sensible to delay the decision by six months as there was little risk in doing so;
• moving to Senate Court met climate change and net zero objectives;
• officers had given clear reasons as to why this should be approved;
• residents would still need council services and it is unlikely that Exeter residents would be sent to other areas to deal with their issues;
• moving to Senate Court meant that residents would have access to accessible toilets when visiting the Council;
• the Civic Centre was not a healthy building to be in;
• the Civic Centre had poor accessibility and high CO2 emissions; and
• this was an opportunity to provide comfortable working conditions for all staff.

 

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Bialyk, made the following points in summing up:

• he was sure that the Council would ensure that relevant legislation regarding gender neutral toilets would be complied with;
• this was about the dignity and welfare of staff, and that needed to be remembered;
• doing nothing was not the better option and was not the answer;
• this needed to be done and there was a greater risk if it was not done;
• there had been no proposal about Belle Isle in the recommendations;
• moving to Senate Court made sense;
• the shadow authority would decide where they would want to base themselves, what this Council needed to do was to put themselves in a good position for moving forward; and
• the figures made sense and he hoped both recommendations would have support.

 

Councillor Moore raised a point of order under Standing Order 10 (15) and provided clarity on her previous comments:

• she wanted to defer the decision, rather than not make one; and
• asked for clarification from the Leader surrounding a nature and feasibility study for Belle Isle.

 

The Lord Mayor advised that she would be taking two votes on the recommendations, one for the Materials Reclamation Facility, and another on Senate Court.

Following a unanimous vote, recommendations 2.1 – 2.6 were CARRIED.

 

Councillor M Mitchell, called for a roll call vote on recommendations 2.7 – 2.10, and a named vote was recorded as follows:

 

Voting For:

Councillors Asvachin, Atkinson, Begley, Bialyk, Cookson, Darling, Foale, Harding, Hussain, Knott, Miller-Boam, Patrick, Pole, Rolstone, Snow, Vizard, Wardle, Williams M, Williams R, Wood, and Wright (21 Members).

 

Voting Against:

Councillors Banyard, Bennett, Fullam, Haigh, Ketchin, K Mitchell, M Mitchell, Moore, Palmer, Payne, Read, Sheridan, and Wetenhall (13 Members).

 

Abstentions:

Councillors Holland and The Lord Mayor Councillor Jobson (2 Members).

 

Absent:

Councillors Hughes, Rees, and Parkhouse (3 Members).

 

Following a vote, recommendations 2.7 – 2.10 were CARRIED.

 

Councillor Darling moved, and Councillor Cookson seconded the Notice of Motion as outlined in the agenda requesting that the Council resolves to:

 

·       Request that the Leader of the Council write to Devon County Council urging them to reconsider its proposed severe reduction in branch library opening hours that adversely affect Exeter’s residents, especially given the recently announced county council multiyear settlement.

·       Now that the survey consultation has closed, request that Devon County Council consult directly with the staff at Exeter’s branch libraries, before any decisions are made, to explore more modest changes to opening hours based on firsthand knowledge of the way the libraries are used.

·       Encourage Devon County Council to explore options to protect and/or enhance library access and services, for example, by drawing on existing case studies such as those published by Independent Mind. This should also involve an exploration of collaborative opportunities with existing public services, such as the arrangement St Thomas Library has with Theatre Alibi.

·       Request that DCC provide a full Equalities Impact Assessment to decision makers before the decision is made to cut this key public service. It is not enough to simply ask for views on the proposed changes, as stated in the introduction to the consultation.

 

As Seconder, Councillor Cookson spoke in support of the motion, making the following points:

 

·        he welcomed Devon County Council’s reversal of the proposed £650,000 library cut, driven by community pressure;

·        restoring funding did not guarantee restoration of access or opening hours;

·        he highlighted concerns over a lack of commitment to reverse reduced staff hours and library opening times;

·        commended the motion to urge for a reconsideration of cuts, direct consultation with staff, exploration of ways to protect/enhance access, and a full Equalities Impact Assessment;

·        he was disappointed with the shift in language from libraries to hubs;

·        he commended the local community efforts, particularly campaigners organising opposition and emphasised the  importance of libraries as essential safe and warm spaces for vulnerable residents; and

·        strongly supported the motion.

 

During discussion, Members made the following comments on the motion:

 

·        the motion was welcomed and reaffirmed the importance of libraries;

·        local councillors were credited for identifying funding and helping reverse proposed cuts;

·        the debate had shifted to consultation on opening hours, with significant public engagement;

·        libraries were evolving due to technology and changing community needs;

·        there was limited transition funding from Devon County Council, but was not sufficient for all libraries;

·        it was important to identify stable funding to maintain staffing and opening hours;

·        councillors needed to engage locally on how transition funding could best support libraries;

·        libraries now served as vital community hubs, providing a wide range of services to vulnerable groups, families, and elderly residents;

·        reducing hours would significantly impact community services and access;

·        Councillors Darling and Cookson were thanked for bringing the motion forward;

·        Pinhoe library was facing a reduction in operating hours from 15 to 6 hours ( around a 60% cut);

·        there was a community value with over 9,000 visits in less than a year;

·        there were concerns about reliance on volunteers, who could not replace trained staff;

·        the reversal of budget cuts were welcomed but the lack of commitment on restoring hours and staffing was a concern;

·        there was an absence of direct consultation with library staff;

·        libraries provided a wide range of services beyond books, including classes, story times, baby groups, breakfast clubs, board games, Wi-Fi, and computer access;

·        it was important to protect libraries as community hubs;

·        Devon County Council’s proposal to rely on volunteers to run libraries was criticised, noting volunteers often had other jobs and could not fully operate a library;

·        having experienced library staff managing the services, volunteers would provide assistance which was important;

·        the debate was welcomed but it would have been preferable during the formal consultation period so the Council could submit official views;

·        the previously proposed £650,000 cuts were efficiencies carried forward from last year and had been reinvested in library services;

·        an additional £1 million has been allocated for the library transformation scheme; and

·        there was an ongoing consultation, which had already received over 23,500 responses.

 

Councillor M. Mitchell proposed an amendment to the recommendations, which was seconded by Councillor Fullam to read as follows:

 

·        that the Leader of the Council writes to the Leader of Devon County Council requesting that the cabinet member responsible for library services be invited to a meeting of Exeter City Council to meet with interested Members and discuss both the current provision and future provision of library services in Exeter.

 

Councillor M. Mitchell in speaking to the amendment, advised that the amendment was a more proactive way for the council to engage and influence library services locally.

 

The Leader raised a protocol concern, noting that a local authority could not be summoned to a meeting and suggested the appropriate forum would be an invitation to a scrutiny committee meeting.

 

Councillor M. Mitchell agreed that an invitation to scrutiny would be acceptable, allowing discussion and public attendance without mandating participation. Councillor Darling as the mover of the Motion accepted this amendment as an additional recommendation to the motion.

 

Returning to the debate on the amended motion, the following points were made:

 

·        the motion was important particularly for Pinhoe as one of the fastest-growing areas in Exeter with rising demand for community facilities;

·        the proposed reduction of Pinhoe library to just 6 hours per week was not acceptable;

·        thanks were made to local campaigners, for pressuring Devon County Council to listen to them;

·        volunteers, brought skills, commitment, and local knowledge, but required clear frameworks and support from paid staff;

·        volunteers could not replace trained professional staff and should not be used as a cost-saving measure;

·        cross-party support for the motion was commended;

·        additional funding from central government enabled Devon County Council to reconsider cuts;

·        the Save Devon’s Libraries campaign was praised for raising awareness and influencing decisions;

·        it was regretful that the motion was necessary but was commended as a positive step for protecting library services;

·        reading was a fundamental life skill, and reducing opportunities for families to take young children to libraries was a concern;

·        Devon County Council should not have considered making cuts to library funding;

·        the St. Thomas library was a valuable community facility;

·        the motion was  slightly out of date due to recent developments;

·        libraries had evolved beyond books to include technology, computers, and modern community services;

·        reduced hours in one area could be balanced with increased hours or new resources elsewhere;

·        the consultation process was welcomed and seen as a way to tailor services to public needs, such as book availability, computer access, service complexity, or location; and

·        the earlier amendment strengthened the substantive motion and supported maintaining or enhancing library provisions.

 

In summing up, Councillor Darling as Mover of the Motion made the following points:

 

·        thanked all Members for engaging in the debate and acknowledged the contributions of Solomon Elliot, Lucy Finlay, and other campaigners;

·        welcomed the reversal on the proposed library cuts but stressed that restored budgets did not guarantee restored hours or services;

·        that libraries were evolving into hubs, but standard hours failed to reflect the needs of individual libraries, causing dramatic reductions in services;

·        branches, like St. Thomas, faced significant cuts on operating hours impacting on community use;

·        she was critical of the move toward a volunteer-led model, stressing that professional librarians were essential for reading support, IT assistance, material selection, and community engagement;

·        consultations had been limited and functioned more as volunteer recruitment exercises than opportunities to shape library services;

·        case studies and examples of enhanced library programs could not operate effectively with only six hours of opening; and

·        although Devon County Council announced the reversal of cuts on 18 February, the motion was still needed to protect library hours, professional staffing, and service quality.

 

Following a vote, the motion was CARRIED as amended (as follows):

 

RESOLVED that

 

1)     the Leader of the Council write to Devon County Council urging them to reconsider its proposed severe reduction in branch library opening hours that adversely affect Exeter’s residents, especially given the recently announced county council multiyear settlement.

 

2)     now that the survey consultation has closed, that Devon County Council be requested to consult directly with the staff at Exeter’s branch libraries, before any decisions are made, to explore more modest changes to opening hours based on firsthand knowledge of the way the libraries are used.

 

3)     Devon County Council be encouraged to explore options to protect and/or enhance library access and services, by drawing on existing case studies such as those published by Independent Mind. This should also involve an exploration of collaborative opportunities with existing public services, such as the arrangement St Thomas Library has with Theatre Alibi.

 

4)     Devon County Council provide a full Equalities Impact Assessment to decision makers before the decision is made to cut this key public service. It is not enough to simply ask for views on the proposed changes, as stated in the introduction to the consultation.

 

5)     That the Devon County Council cabinet member responsible for library services be invited to a Scrutiny meeting with interested Members to discuss both the current provision and future provision of library services in Exeter.

 

The Lord Mayor advised the recommendations for the following minutes were considered at and voted at the meeting Council budget setting meeting held on 25 February 2026 and would therefore not be debated or voted upon:

 

·        Minute No. 103 General Fund / HRA Estimates and Capital Programme 2026/27;

·        Minute No. 104 HRA Estimates and Capital Programme 2026/27;

·        Minute No. 105 Capital Strategy 2026-27;

·        Minute No. 106 Treasury Management Strategy Report 2026/27.

·        Minute No. 107 The Prudential Code for Capital Finance.

 

The minutes of the Executive Committee of 3 February 2026 were presented by the Leader, Councillor Bialyk, and taken as read.

 

In respect of Minute No. 102 - Exeter Plan: Process for Authorising Proposed Changes Resulting from the examination, the Leader moved the recommendation, seconded by Councillor Wright. Following a vote the recommendations were CARRIED unanimously.

 

In respect of Minute No. 108 - Local Council Tax Support Scheme 2026/27

 

In respect of Minute No. 109 – Consultation and Engagement Strategy the Leader moved the recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor Wright. During the debate, the following points were made:

 

·        the strategy was welcomed as a positive step in strengthening relationships between the Council and the community;

·        there was an importance in establishing clear mechanisms to report back to communities following consultations and asked how this would be implemented;

·        further information on community insights was sought and how these would be shared with Councillors and local communities;

·        there was a need to move beyond small grants and ad hoc networking towards genuine investment in building community capacity;

·        supporting social enterprise organisations as long-term partners was suggested;

·        clarification was sought on how the proposed civic society covenant would operate as a meaningful framework for engagement with the community sector;

·        welcomed the concept of citizen assemblies as a space for deliberative discussion;

·        stressed the importance of two-way dialogue and active listening to improve communication and collaboration with communities;

·        expressed overall support for the strategy and interest in a future iteration being focused on consultation, engagement, and cooperation;

·        the portfolio holder’s commitment to exploring citizen assemblies was welcomed;

·        such initiatives should not be deferred until the new unitary authority was established, which may be more than two years away; and

·        similar arrangements could be implemented sooner, potentially with the shadow authority.

 

The Portfolio Holder for Climate, Ecological Change and Communities in responding made the following points:

 

·        many of the points raised were already under discussion;

·        referred to the recent Member briefing on the strategy, which addressed several of these points;

·        expressed personal support in principle for citizen assemblies and confirmed discussions with officers would explore capacity and practical implementation;

·        noted that governance considerations may arise in relation to Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) and the future unitary authority;

·        confirmed that a civic society covenant was being considered in early discussions with the Strategic Director and service portfolio;

·        advised that further work was still required to determine the covenant’s scope and application; and

·        welcomed the feedback and highlighted the topic as an area of ongoing interest.

 

The Leader in summarising advised:

 

·        noted that citizens assemblies were an interesting concept but were not currently included in the strategy under discussion;

·        emphasised that elected Councillors retained ultimate decision-making responsibility;

·        highlighted the importance of consultation and engagement, allowing residents to provide input while Councillors made the final decisions;

·        clarified that no commitment was being made to implement citizens assemblies at this stage, given the upcoming unitary authority and other governance priorities; and

·        stressed that focus should remain on current priorities and expressed his support for the recommendation as presented.

 

Following a vote the recommendations were CARRIED unanimously.

 

In respect of Minute No. 110 – Amendment to Grants Panel Terms of Reference – Ukrainian Community Grants the Leader moved the recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor Wright. During the debate, the following points were made:

 

·        there was strong support for Exeter being a ‘City of Sanctuary’ and commended the Council for establishing this status;

·        highlighted the severe conditions currently being experienced in Ukraine, including prolonged electricity outages and limited access to clean water;

·        emphasised the importance of continuing to provide sanctuary and support to Ukrainians in Exeter until it was safe for them to return home;

·        welcomed the proposal for funding to be overseen through the Council’s Grants Panel to ensure proper scrutiny and governance;

·        highlighted that funding was external, meaning it would not impact the Council’s own finances;

·        highlighted the importance of supporting Ukrainian residents; and

·        welcomed establishing a clear framework for managing and awarding funding through the existing Grants Panel and urged members to support the proposal.

 

The Leader in summarising made the following points:

 

·        highlighted the seriousness of the ongoing situation in Ukraine and the need for a transparent approach in providing support;

·        referenced personal communications reflecting the difficult conditions being faced by people in Ukraine;

·        Ukrainian residents were valued members of the Exeter community; and

·        commended how different communities in Exeter had worked work together to welcome Ukrainian residents.

 

Following a vote the recommendations were CARRIED unanimously.

 

In respect of Minute No. 111 – Temporary Accommodation Allocations Policy the Leader moved the recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor Wright. During the debate, the following points were made:

 

·        referred to a previously submitted question and requested clarification on a legal matter regarding housing allocations for people fleeing domestic violence, noting current regulations may restrict a placement in private accommodation;

·        highlighted the potential need to prioritise this group differently within the policy; and

·        sought guidance on how to proceed if the policy was agreed but later required adjustment to include this special criteria.

 

The Leader in responding:

 

·        apologised for any delay in response and confirmed that directors would provide a formal reply;

·        noted that the issue was addressed in supporting operating procedures and proposed clarifying these procedures and circulating them to all members; and

·        he provided reassurance that the Council’s approach aimed to include everyone appropriately and to do the right thing.

 

The Lord Mayor emphasised that policies could be amended if needed, through the proper Council processes.

 

Following a vote the recommendations were CARRIED

 

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Executive Committee 3 February 2026 be received.

 

The Leader moved the recommendations, seconded by Councillor Wright, and invited the Strategic Director People and Community to introduce the report

 

The Strategic Director People and Community in presenting the report made the following points:

 

·        the Annual Pay Policy Statement was a statutory requirement under the Localism Act 2011, in which the full Council must approve and publish it annually before the start of the new financial year;

·        the statement ensured there was full transparency, accountability, and public assurance regarding employee pay;

·        it included details on: Chief Executive pay, definitions of lowest paid employees, pay multipliers and pay governance framework;

·        benchmarking showed that Exeter had a favourable pay ratio between its lowest paid employees (Grade B) and the Chief Executive, performing better than other regional authorities with the lowest ratio; and

·        the recommendation was for Council to approve the Pay Policy Statement and enable its publication.

 

In summing up the Leader advised Members that the Council adopted the real ‘Living Wage’ as the minimum spinal column point from 1 January 2014 which had served the Council well and was continuing to  work effectively. He expressed hope that all parties representing working-class constituents shared this view and expressed his support for the recommendations.

 

Following a vote the recommendations were CARRIED. 

 

The Leader moved the recommendations, seconded by Councillor Wright, and invited the Strategic Director for Corporate Resources to introduce the report

 

The Strategic Director for Corporate Resources in presenting the report advised that the HRA was performing well with no significant issues to bring to Council’s attention.

 

Following a unanimous vote the recommendations were CARRIED.

 

The Leader moved the recommendations, seconded by Councillor Wright, and invited the Strategic Director for Corporate Resources to introduce the report

 

The Strategic Director for Corporate Resources in presenting the report made the following points:

 

·        there were still ongoing challenges like previous quarterly reports;

·        there was a limited expenditure this quarter, with many schemes being deferred to next year’s capital programme;

·        there were no additional capital expenditure requests included in this report;

·        a Capital Programme Board was now in place, which was chaired by the Chief Executive, and was actively monitoring capital spend and the capital programme to move projects forward;

·        finance would be working with Strategic Directors and project managers at year-end to reflect realistic delivery timelines;

·        the capital programme spanned multiple years, so not all projects needed to be completed in the first year; and

·        there was a commitment to producing a more realistic multi-year capital programme going forward.

 

The Strategic Director for Corporate Resources responded to Members questions as follows:

 

·        the Capital Board was chaired by the Chief Executive and included the  Strategic Director of Corporate Resources, Strategic Director of Operations, Head of Commercial Assets, Head of Finance, and Head of Asset Maintenance;

·        additional members were invited as required and the board met every two months to review progress on capital projects;

·        key projects were defined as projects of significant cost, value, and importance to the city. Examples included the MRF project approved on 10 February, which was considered to be a key project by the Board;

·        the Board reviewed the full capital program, identified risks and issues, and monitored significant projects;

·        Council funding for the Mallison Bridge project remained in place and allocation and expenditure would be reviewed and managed accordingly;

·        current works on the Topsham Museum focussed on waterproofing and scaffold removal, which was expected to complete before year-end; and

·        the budget did not cover the full long-term cost for Topsham Museum and work was ongoing regarding a long-term lease, with a report expected in the new financial year to outline options.

 

In summing up the Leader advised Members that the Council was actively working with the museum and maintaining regular communication with Strategic directors and heads of service. He advised that some legal issues remained unresolved, limiting progress on certain matters. He confirmed that board members and local residents were being kept informed and provided assurance that the Council was committed to a collaborative approach with the museum. He further acknowledged frustration over delays but stressed the importance of doing things correctly before moving forward.

 

Following a vote the recommendations were CARRIED. 

 

The Leader moved the recommendations, seconded by Councillor Wright, and invited the Strategic Director for Corporate Resources to introduce the report

 

The Strategic Director for Corporate Resources in presenting the report made the following points:

 

·        the report highlighted there were continued financial challenges;

·        the General Fund working balance was projected to fall below its minimum recommended level;

·        with 28 days remaining in the current financial year, the final position would be assessed after year-end and officers would prepare a list of recommendations for Council to consider in June 2026 as part of the outturn reports if any actions were needed;

·        the shortfall was primarily due to delays in implementing planned savings, which were part of a longer term strategy to balance the budget over multiple years; and

·        there had also been some unavoidable costs exceeding the budget, but many of those had been addressed in the recently approved budget.

 

The Strategic Director for Corporate Resources responded to Members questions as follows:

 

·        the overall budget for car park income had been between £9.5 million and £10 million of income, and was currently down by £895,000;

·        the car parking fee increase was approved in February and the full-year effect was expected to significantly improve income;

·        some costs had increased such as the Ringgo expansion, but other budget recommendations and a new app contract would help reduce expenses;

·        car parking finances would improve and no additional income assumptions had been built into this year’s budget;

·        regarding final costs for Northbrook, the final closure cost was not yet available and negotiations with the trust were still ongoing;

·        asset maintenance related to rental income at the Civic Centre, which would not improve by the end of the financial year; and

·        a more realistic figure had been included in next year’s budget, which would address the issue going forward.

 

Following a vote the recommendations were CARRIED.