(Public Pack)Agenda Document for Council, 25/11/2020 18:30

Public Document Pack North Devon Council Brynsworthy Environment Centre Barnstaple North Devon EX31 3NP

K. Miles Chief Executive.

To: All Members of the Council and Chief Officers

NOTE: PLEASE NOTE THAT PRAYERS WILL BE SAID AT 6.25 P.M. PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL MEETING FOR ANY MEMBER WHO WISHES TO ATTEND

COUNCIL MEETING

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to attend a meeting of NORTH DEVON COUNCIL to be held in the Virtual - Online meeting on WEDNESDAY, 25TH NOVEMBER, 2020 at 6.30 pm.

Chief Executive

AGENDA

1. Virtual meetings procedure - briefing and etiquette Chair to report.

2. Apologies for absence

3. To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 7 October 2020 (attached) (Pages 13 - 28)

4. Chair's announcements

5. Business brought forward by or with the consent of the Chair

6. Replies to any questions submitted by the Public and/or to receive Petitions under Part 4, Council Procedures Rules, Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Constitution

7. To consider motions of which notice has been submitted by Members in accordance with Part 4, Council Procedure Rules, Paragraph 11 of the Constitution

(a) To consider the following notice of motion received by Councillor Patrinos

“In reaction to the devastating decision by central government to vote against protecting farming the environment and food standards, I propose the following:

Motion: “That North Devon Council write to the Secretary of State for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs to expresses our disappointment at the government’s decision to vote against protecting food standards in the Agriculture Bill. This is a devastating blow to farmers and consumers, impacting upon animal welfare, the environment and public health. It will also drive small farmers out of business and change our landscape. That we also write to our own MP, Selaine Saxby to ask her try to urge the SOS to save our agricultural industry and Save British Farming.”

(b) To consider the following notice of motion by Councillor Hunt:

“This Council notes:

 That North Devon is one of the hardest hit regions economically in the South West as the result of the Covid 19 pandemic with, for example the number of families on Universal Credit rising from 3885 in March to 7999 in September.

 That numbers of pupils entitled to Free School Meals is rising fast.

 That every child who is entitled to Free School Meals is a sign of a family under significant financial pressure.

 That this picture of increasing child poverty is supported by the rapid rise in the number of families dependent on food banks.

 That the Trussell trust reported an 81 per cent increase in food bank dependency in March 2020, and other food banks reported similar increases. It is said that the figures show that the number of children relying on food banks more than doubles during lockdown.

 That children who are hungry are less able to learn and thrive at school.

 That the extension of the school meals voucher scheme (campaigned for by Marcus Rashford) to cover the period of the summer holiday was incredibly important and valuable to families in food poverty.

 The very welcome commitment and generosity shown by many local businesses and individuals in North Devon to provide free meals for children of families who are struggling to provide food.

 This Council recognises that the withdrawal of the furlough scheme, along with fears of a second lockdown are likely to lead to further increases in child poverty.

This Council therefore supports the calls by the Child Food Poverty Task Force, supported by Marcus Rashford and many leading food suppliers and producers,

which calls for:

 The expansion of free school meals provision to every child whose family is in receipt of Universal Credit or equivalent, or with a low-income and no recourse to public funds.

 That provision be made for food vouchers to cover school holidays and periods of lockdown for all families in receipt of Universal Credit or with low- income and no recourse to public funds.

 That Healthy Start vouchers should be increased in value to £4.25, and expanded to be made available to all those in receipt of Universal Credit or with a low-income and no recourse to public funds.

This Council therefore resolves to write to the Secretary of State for Education, the Chancellor and our member of Parliament to call for:

1. An extension of eligibility for free school meals to every pupil whose parents or guardians are in receipt of Universal Credit 2. Food vouchers for every one of those pupils in every school holiday and during any period of lockdown 3. An extension of eligibility for free school meals to pupils from low-income families whose parents or guardians have no recourse to public funds and destitute asylum seekers under s4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.”

“This council recognises the importance of agriculture to the livelihood of many families and the economy of North Devon and in the maintenance and protection of our environment. The future viability of our farms, the contribution they make to our economy and the high standard of what is produced is of great importance to the residents of our area and beyond. This council expresses its concern that the House of Lords amendment to the agricultural bill which would have ensured agricultural and food imports meet domestic standards was rejected by the government. Unless high standards are maintained it will be a devastating blow to farmers and consumers, impacting upon animal welfare, the environment and public health. This council notes that peers had made the change to block the import of foodstuffs produced abroad with lower animal welfare standards, amid warnings over chlorinated chicken or hormone-treated beef entering the UK market from the US.

This council is concerned that the government should not sell out the UK’s animal welfare for a quick trade deal as we do not want animals over treated with antibiotics and pesticide-laced food on our plates. Crucial climate and public health targets should also be included in the Agriculture Bill.

This council calls for:

 Our food, farming, environmental and animal welfare standards to be written into law and for public health to be protected in trade deals

 Better parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals and an improved Trade and Agriculture Commission to oversee standards protection  A letter to be written to central government as well as our own MP Selaine Saxby along with the MPs from surrounding constituencies (Geoffrey Cox for Torridge and West Devon and Mel Stride for Central Devon), who all voted against the amendment to protect food standards asking them to support our Devon farmers.  A meeting of the Policy Committee to discuss with representatives of the farming community the possible implications and impact on North Devon farmers of not enshrining quality standards in law.

 #AgricultureBillUK #SaveOurStandards #SaveBritishFarming”

(d) To consider the following notice of motion by Councillor Pearson:

“This Council resolves:

 to require all public firework displays within the local authority boundaries to be advertised in advance of the event, allowing residents to take precautions for their animals and vulnerable people  to actively promote a public awareness campaign about the impact of fireworks on animal welfare and vulnerable people – including the precautions that can be taken to mitigate risks  to write to the UK Government urging them to introduce legislation to limit the maximum noise level of fireworks to 90dB for those sold to the public for private displays  to encourage local suppliers of fireworks to stock ‘quieter’ fireworks for public display.”

8. Declarations of Interest (NB. Members only need to re-declare any interests previously declared at Committee and Sub-Committee meetings if the item is discussed at Council).

9. Chair's replies to any questions to Council by Members submitted under Part 4, Council Procedures Rules, Paragraph 10 of the Constitution (a) To consider the following questions from Councillor York:

“As a Member of the NDC Climate Action Team, I would welcome answers to the following questions about the introduction of street waste and recycling bins in Barnstaple (and beyond?).

I understand there is a trial being conducted with a new recycling bin in Pilton Park.

I would like to know how this is going and what, if any, plans there are to extend this service across the town (and beyond)?

If there are plans, which areas are being considered?

Will Members be contacted to help identify ‘litter hot-spots’ in their wards?

How will the collection of waste and recycling from these bins be managed?

A couple of years ago during the previous administration, I had positive discussions with Cllr Brailey and Hannah Harrington at the Barnstaple Pannier Market Traders’ Committee, around the potential of local businesses sponsoring new recycling bins to help pay for them. Is this still being considered? If not, could this be achieved?

If there is doubt about whether the public are likely to use the bins effectiely, could the Council consider issuing some constructive comms around their introduction and how to use them responsibly?

As Chair of Barnstaple Town Council’s Environment Committee, I would be willing, with the agreement of the committee, to help support a recycling bin scheme with some of our Committee budget, for Barnstaple wards.”

10. To agree the agenda between Part 'A' and Part 'B' (Confidential Restricted Information).

PART A

11. Plastic Free North Devon Polystyrene Bodyboard Campaign Presentation by Claire Moodie, Plastic Free North Devon

12. Report of the Leader of the Council (Pages 29 - 32) Report by Leader of the Council (attached).

13. Questions by Members Questions to the Leader or the Chair of a Committee submitted under Part 4, Council Procedure Rules, paragraph 10.4 of the Constitution.

14. Devon County Council/North Devon Council response to the Climate Declaration Lead Member for Climate Change to report.

15. Public Spaces Protection Orders - Dog Control (Pages 33 - 148) Report by Environmental Protection Service Lead (attached) and minute extract of the Strategy and Resources Committee held on 13 November 2020 (to follow).

16. Commercialisation Strategy (Pages 149 - 158) Report by Head of Resources to the Strategy and Resources Committee on 2 November 2020 (attached).

(a) Report by the Policy Development Committee To receive the report of the Policy Development Committee held on 19 November 2020 (to follow).

(b) Report of meeting of the Strategy and Resources Committee (Pages 159 - 160) To receive the report of the Strategy and Resources Committee held on 2 November 2020 (attached).

17. Performance and Financial Management Quarter 2 of 2020/21 (Pages 161 - 190) Report by Head of Resources to the Strategy and Resources Committee on 2 November 2020 (attached).

(a) Report by Policy Development Committee To receive the report of the Policy Development Committee held on 19 November 2020 (to follow).

(b) Report of meeting of the Strategy and Resources Committee (Pages 191 - 192) To receive the report of the Strategy and Resources Committee held on 2 November 2020 (attached).

18. Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Annual Investment Strategy: Mid Year Review Report 2020/21 (Pages 193 - 210) Report by Chief Financial Officer to the Strategy and Resources Committee on 2 November 2020 (attached).

(a) Report by Policy Development Committee To receive the report of the Policy Development Committee held on 19 November 2020 (to follow).

(b) Report of meeting of the Strategy and Resources Committee (Pages 211 - 212) To receive the report of the Strategy and Resources Committee held on 2 November 2020 (attached).

19. Appointment of Committees for 2019/20 (Pages 213 - 214) Report by Chief Executive (attached).

20. Minutes of Committees Council is recommended to note the schedule of Committee minutes and approve recommendations as listed below:

(a) Governance Committee (Pages 215 - 226) (i) 5 October 2020 (NOTE: Minute 103: Letter of Representation – this recommendation was adopted by Council on 7 October 2020)

(iI) 3 November 2020

(b) Licensing and Community Safety Committee (Pages 227 - 232) (i) 13 October 2020

(d) Policy Development Committee (i) 19 November 2020 (to follow).

(e) Strategy and Resources Committee (Pages 237 - 270) (i) 5 October 2020

(ii) 19 October 2020

(iii) 2 November 2020

(A) Minute 203: Review of North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011- 2031

(iv) 13 November 2020 (to follow)

(A) Minute 218: Public Spaces Protection Orders (B) Minute 219: Approval and Release of Section 106 Public Open Space Funds – Chulmleigh (C) Minute 220: Approval and Release of Section 106 Public Open Space Funds – North Molton (D) Minute 221: Approval and Release of Section 106 Public Open Space Funds – Instow (E) Minute 222: Approval and Release of Section 106 Public Open Space Funds - Fremington

PART B (CONFIDENTIAL RESTRICTED INFORMATION) Nil.

If you have any enquiries about this agenda, please contact Corporate and Community Services, telephone 01271 388253

17.11.20

GUIDANCE NOTES FOR RULES OF DEBATE AT MEETINGS OF COUNCIL

Part 4, Council Procedure Rules of the Constitution

The basics

At a meeting of Full Council, Members shall stand when speaking unless unable to do so and shall address the Chair.

While a Member is speaking, other Members shall remain seated unless rising for a point of order, a point of information or in personal explanation.

No speeches may be made after the mover had moved a proposal and explained the purpose of it until the motion has been seconded.

Unless notice of motion has already been given, the Chair may require it to be written down and handed to him before it is discussed.

When seconding a motion or amendment, a member may reserve their speech until later in the debate.

Speeches must be directed to the question under discussion or to be personal explanation or point of order.

A speech by the mover of a motion may not exceed 5 minutes without the consent of the Chair.

Speeches by other Members may not exceed 3 minutes without the consent of the Chair, unless when the Council’s annual budget is under discussion, the leader of each political group on the Council may speak for up to 5 minutes or such longer period as the Chair shall allow.

The rules of Question Time

At a meeting of the Council, other than the Annual meeting, a Member of the Council may ask the Leader or the chair of a committee any question without notice upon an item of the report of a committee when that item is being received or under consideration by the Council.

North Devon Council protocol on recording/filming at Council meetings

The Council is committed to openness and transparency in its decision-making. Recording is permitted at Council meetings that are open to the public. The Council understands that some members of the public attending its meetings may not wish to be recorded. The Chairman of the meeting will make sure any request not to be recorded is respected.

The rules that the Council will apply are:

1. The recording must be overt (clearly visible to anyone at the meeting) and must not disrupt proceedings. The Council will put signs up at any meeting where we know recording is taking place and a reminder will be issued at the commencement of virtual meetings.

2. The Chairman of the meeting has absolute discretion to stop or suspend recording if, in their opinion, continuing to do so would prejudice proceedings at the meeting or if the person recording is in breach of these rules.

3. We will ask for recording to stop if the meeting goes into ‘part B’ where the public is excluded for confidentiality reasons. In such a case, the person filming should leave the room ensuring all recording equipment is switched off. In a virtual meeting the public will be excluded from the meeting while in Part B.

4. Any member of the public has the right not to be recorded. We ensure that agendas for, and signage at, Council meetings make it clear that recording can take place – anyone not wishing to be recorded must advise the Chairman at the earliest opportunity. Public contributions to virtual meetings will be recorded, unless, at the Chair’s discretion, recording is deemed in appropriate in accordance with point 2 above.

5. The recording should not be edited in a way that could lead to misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the proceedings or in a way that ridicules or shows a lack of respect for those in the recording. The Council would expect any recording in breach of these rules to be removed from public view.

Notes for guidance:

Please contact either our Corporate and Community Services team or our Communications team in advance of the meeting you wish to record at so we can make all the necessary arrangements for you on the day.

For more information contact the Corporate and Community Services team on 01271 388253 or email [email protected] or the Communications Team on 01271 388278, email [email protected].

Meeting Etiquette Reminder for Members

Members are reminded to:  Join the meeting at least 10-15 minutes prior to the commencement to ensure that the meeting starts on time.  Behave as you would in a formal committee setting.  Address Councillors and officers by their full names.  Do not have Members of your household in the same room.  Be aware of what is in screen shot.  Mute your microphone when you are not talking.  Switch off video if you are not speaking.  Only speak when invited to do so by the Chair.  Speak clearly (if you are not using video then please state your name)  If you’re referring to a specific page, mention the page number.  Switch off your video and microphone after you have spoken.  The only person on video will be the Chair and the one other person speaking.  Only use the Chat function to register that you wish to speak or to move or second a motion.

Virtual attendance by members of the public

If members of the public wish to attend virtually, please contact Corporate and Community services on 01271 388253 or [email protected] by 12pm on the Monday preceding the meeting.

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 3 Council - 7 October 2020

NORTH DEVON COUNCIL

Minutes of a meeting of NORTH DEVON COUNCIL held at Virtual - Online meeting on Wednesday, 7th October, 2020 at 6.30 pm

PRESENT: Members:

Councillor Biederman (Chair)

Councillors Barker, Bulled, Bushell, Chesters, Davis, Davies, Fowler, Gubb, Henderson, Hunt, Jenkins, Knight, Lane, Leaver, Lovering, Ley, Mack, Mackie, Orange, Patrinos, Pearson, Prowse, Roome, Saxby, D. Spear, L. Spear, Topham, Tucker, Turton, Walker, Wilkinson, Worden, Yabsley and York

Officers:

Chief Executive, Head of Resources, Senior Solicitor/Monitoring Officer and Head of Place

139. VIRTUAL MEETINGS PROCEDURE - BRIEFING AND ETIQUETTE

The Chair outlined the virtual meeting procedure and etiquette to Council and attendees.

The Senior Corporate and Community Services Officer confirmed the names of those Councillors and officers present and advised that members of the public and press were also in attendance.

140. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Campbell, Cann, Lofthouse, Phillips and Topps.

141. TO APPROVE AS A CORRECT RECORD THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 22 JULY 2020 (ATTACHED)

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 22 July 2020 (circulated previously) be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

142. CHAIR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS

(a) Councillor Will Topps

The Chair congratulated Councillor Will Topps and his wife Selina on the birth of their baby daughter yesterday.

1 Page 13 Agenda Item 3 Council - 7 October 2020

(b) Business Grants

The Chair provided Council with an update on Business Grants. He advised that Members will recall that the business grant scheme announced by the Chancellor back in March 2020 and that Local Authorities would be responsible for the administration and payment of these much needed grants to support local businesses. North Devon Council were allocated the largest allocation of grant funding in Devon and had one of the largest number of eligible businesses who could apply, including all the unitary Councils. North Devon’s online form went ‘live’ on 9 April for businesses to access, just 2 weeks after the guidance was announced. The scheme had now finished and as of today; the Council had paid out £43million to 3800 businesses and have therefore paid out to 96% of those eligible businesses that could apply. In addition, Government announced a “Discretionary Business Grant” fund. The Council ran this scheme through our Economic Development team as they had close links to local businesses and especially those that had fallen outside the scope of the original grant scheme. The scheme was launched on 1 June 2020; and have fully allocated the £2.25million fund. To summarise, the Council had paid out a total of £45.3million in Business Grants. The Council had also allocated in addition; £20million Expanded Retail discount off business rate bills to a further 1100 businesses. Overall financial assistance to support North Devon businesses of over £65million through the pandemic. Bearing in mind the context of the speed and pressure from Government to ‘support businesses’ quickly; the Council have delivered under exceptional circumstances an enormous amount of financial assistance to support local businesses in North Devon and we should be extremely proud of our officers in what they have achieved.

143. REPLIES TO ANY QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE PUBLIC AND/OR TO RECEIVE PETITIONS UNDER PART 4, COUNCIL PROCEDURES RULES, PARAGRAPHS 8 AND 9 OF THE CONSTITUTION

There were no questions and/or Petitions submitted by the Public under Part 4, Council Procedure Rules, Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Constitution.

144. TO CONSIDER MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART 4, COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULES, PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE CONSTITUTION

(a) To consider the following notice of motion from Councillor Prowse

Councillor Prowse presented his notice of motion to Council.

It was moved by Councillor Prowse and seconded by Councillor Biederman:

“That this Council work with other stakeholders across Devon to draft and promote an alternative structure of local government that best reflects the needs of the differing communities and local economies in Devon.”

2 Page 14 Agenda Item 3 Council - 7 October 2020

Council noted that Councillor Bushell raised concerns of a repeat of when Borough Councils were removed and local authorities lost the assets from their area.

RESOLVED that this Council work with other stakeholders across Devon to draft and promote an alternative structure of local government that best reflects the needs of the differing communities and local economies in Devon.

(b) To consider the following notice of motion from Councillor Roome

Councillor Biederman declared a personal interest as a Member of Devon County Council.

Councillor Roome presented his notice of motion to Council.

It was moved by Councillor Roome and seconded by Councillor Tucker that “we request DCC review the maintenance programme of gully drains immediately and that South West Water review their drains in light of the recent flooding, and work with District Council Members to identify areas that need more regular maintenance; and that comparison information be requested from DCC regarding the savings that have been made following the reduction of maintenance and clearance of drains against the costs of the reactionary work required following flooding”.

RESOLVED that it be requested that DCC review the maintenance programme of gully drains immediately and that South West Water review their drains in light of the recent flooding, and work with District Council Members to identify areas that need more regular maintenance; and that comparison information be requested from DCC regarding the savings that have been made following the reduction of maintenance and clearance of drains against the costs of the reactionary work required following flooding”.

Councillor Worden presented his notice of motion to Council. Councillor Worden advised that a special meeting of the Strategy and Resources Committee would be held on 19 October 2020 and that any Member was welcome to attend and address the Committee.

The Chief Executive advised that the consultation response to the White Paper on changes to the current planning system had been submitted and a copy would be circulated to all Members. The notice of motion would be automatically referred to the Strategy and Resources Committee and therefore did not need to form part of the notice of motion.

It was moved by Councillor Worden and seconded by Councillor Biederman that “the Council take part in the consultation in the planning proposals, and to make representations against the proposals as outlined in this motion, write to our Member of Parliament, expressing the Council’s concerns and to circulate her reply to

3 Page 15 Agenda Item 3 Council - 7 October 2020

members and highlight its concerns over these proposals with the public and local residents.”

RESOLVED:

(i) the Council take part in the consultation in the planning proposals, and to make representations against the proposals as outlined in this motion;

(ii) write to our Member of Parliament, expressing the Council’s concerns and to circulate her reply to Members; and

(iii) highlight its concerns over these proposals with the public and local residents.

(d) To consider the following notice of motion from Councillor Walker

Councillor Walker presented her notice of motion to Council.

It was moved by Councillor Walker and seconded by Councillor York that “we ask that this Council responds to the consultation on pavement parking stating they wish to control such parking and can issue fines for breaches.”

RESOLVED that we ask that this Council responds to the consultation on pavement parking stating they wish to control such parking and can issue fines for breaches.

Council noted that the notice of motion would be referred to the Policy Development Committee for consideration.

145. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The following declaration of interest was announced:

Councillor Biederman Item 12 – personal interest as an employee of the Royal Mail

146. CHAIR'S REPLIES TO ANY QUESTIONS TO COUNCIL BY MEMBERS SUBMITTED UNDER PART 4, COUNCIL PROCEDURES RULES, PARAGRAPH 10 OF THE CONSTITUTION

(a) To consider the following question from Councillor Ley to the Leder:

“For the first time I have been unable to resolve Ward issues. The primary reason for this, (again for the first time) is that in exercising their delegated powers, officers have either informed me after a decision has been made, or not at all. The

4 Page 16 Agenda Item 3 Council - 7 October 2020

Constitution is crystal clear on Page 10. IN EXERCISING THEIR DELEGATED POWERS OFFICERS WILL CONSULT WITH ANY APPROPRIATE MEMBER. To date officers at the most senior level have refused to acknowledge any mistakes. If you do not acknowledge when a mistake has been made, you cannot learn from them and move on.

So the question is: How do you ensure such incidents are not repeated. Or alternatively, what mechanism can be put in place to safeguard a Ward member(s) community role from being overridden.”

Councillor Worden’s response “Thank you Councillor Ley for your question and I am sorry that you have felt uniformed resulting in not been able to resolve a Ward issue. As you are aware the constitution sets out a whole range of decisions which are delegated to officers to take. Every Council operates in this way and in effect, it would be very difficult to operate on a day to day basis without that approach. Our constitution states that before exercising delegated powers, an officer will consult with any appropriate member which may include the Leader, Ward Councillors or the Chair of a relevant Committee. I am sure that this provision was included so that councillors would be involved in important decisions. The wording of this provision does however leave room for misinterpretation as what one person deems appropriate may be different to another person. The powers that are delegated to officers are wide and range from decisions such as approving a planning application through to minor matters such as ordering equipment. It is fair to say that councillors would not expect to be consulted on every decision as to do so in some cases would not be seen as “appropriate”. The alternative approach would be to specify each power that would be subject to prior consultation which would be extremely difficult as there are even differences between the level of information or consultation expected by individual councillors. The issue raised by Councillor Ley, which related to a planning issue in his ward, has already been discussed with officers and the Head of Place has made a suggestion to Councillor Ley that will hopefully ensure that this situation does not arise again.” In response to a supplementary question, Councillor Worden advised that a meeting with Councillor Ley, himself, the Chief Executive and Head of Place would be arranged to resolve the issue.

147. REPORT OF THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL

Council noted a report by the Leader of the Council (circulated previously) regarding work that had been undertaken since the last Council meeting.

Councillor Worden advised that he would write a letter to Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust on behalf of the Council asking them to reconsider their current maternity restrictions with urgency, and allow women to have their partners with them for all pregnancy scans and at all stages of labour. Torridge District Council had written a similar letter.

Councillor Roome declared a personal interest as an employee of the Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust.

5 Page 17 Agenda Item 3 Council - 7 October 2020

Councillor Lovering declared a personal interest as employee of the maternity unit at the North Devon District Hospital.

148. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS

The following questions were submitted in advance of the meeting and responses provided by the Leader were circulated separately:

(a) Question to Councillor Worden from Councillor Luggar “It appears North Devon Council has lodged a High Court Claim against the Royal Mail for Value Added Tax. Please could it be explained who authorised the legal action against the Royal Mail and an indication of the costs and risks of taking our case to the High Court? (Page 115, point 44. Council meeting agenda).” Councillor Worden’s response “The Royal Mail has historically treated certain services as exempt from VAT, where the view is that the correct treatment should have been standard rated VAT. The argument being that we have been prevented from reclaiming input VAT embedded in these supplies. The initial value of the claim, subject to verification and updating as the litigation progresses, amounts to £500,000. As receipt of the claim is uncertain we have not included within the Council’s accounts but have shown as a Contingent Asset highlighting the claim is outstanding. Our claim was submitted in 2015, approved by the Section 151 officer in consultation with Legal Services and to date the total cost incurred is circa £16,000 including tax advice, legal fees, and after the event insurance which have all been covered from within existing budgetary resources. There are almost 300 participants in the Group Litigation Order, including a great number of other Local Authorities, with Leicester City Council being one of the lead cases. The Council has also taken out After The Event Insurance that would cover Royal Mail's legal and related costs should they be successful, so that none of the participants would be exposed to these fees, thereby reducing the risk to this Council.”

(b) Question to Councillor Worden from Councillor Luggar “Has the council reviewed its investment strategy, supply chains and procurement models to give due consideration to climate change impacts as time is of the essence, before an officer for climate change is appointed?” Councillor Worden’s response “The Council does take into consideration climate change impacts as part of the Environment corporate priority theme. The forthcoming Service Plans that Heads of Service produce will have the environment theme running through them to ensure that projects and future service delivery has this embedded within.”

(c) Question to Councillor Worden from Councillor Luggar “Why is the assurance framework (on page 141 of Council meeting agenda) out of date and based on a former constitutional arrangement at North Devon Council?” Councillor Worden’s response “Thank you Councillor

6 Page 18 Agenda Item 3 Council - 7 October 2020

Luggar you are correct. The diagram at the back of the Annual Governance Statement reflects the old Executive Committee system. The detail of function within the assurance diagram is correct we just need to amend the Committee names to reflect the new structure which came into force April 2019 and this has now been completed and has been published as a supplementary document as part of your agenda.”

(d) Question to Councillor Worden from Councillor Lofthouse ““The leader mentioned in his report that Torridge are debating a motion at their Full Council urging NDDH to remove the restrictions that cause pregnant women to sit alone in hospital rooms with partners locked out of scans and labour. What is the latest situation regarding this?” Councillor Worden’s response “NDDH has changed its regulations and from Friday 2 October 2020: • One partner or designated individual is able to attend the dating scan (at approx 12 weeks) and the anomaly scan (at 20 weeks), they are not able to stay for any subsequent appointments with a doctor or midwife. • All other scans, such as growth scans, should be attended alone, though exceptions can be made if we anticipate having to break bad news • If a woman is being induced, they can have a partner or designated individual attend with them between the hours of 10am and 6pm. Outside of these hours our staff will continue to contact partners and ask them to attend the unit if, due to pain or distress, support is required. • One partner or designated individual may make an appointment with ward staff to visit Bassett Ward between the hours of 10am and 6pm. As throughout the whole of the COVID-19 pandemic, if a woman is being cared for in labour ward or in theatre, they can have one birth partner with them. This is usually when they are in labour, having a caesarean or in the immediate postnatal period. The hospital appreciates that these restrictions may still be difficult for mums-to-be and their partners, but they would like to reiterate that if a mum-to-be is being induced and is in pain or distress, they will contact their partner and ask them to attend, regardless of what time of day it is. Torridge District Council discussed the situation on Monday evening and unanimously agreed to write to NDHT thanking them for introducing this and supporting the changes that have been made. I think that it would be a good thing for us to do the same.”

(e) Question to Councillor Worden from Councillor Derrick Spear “Back in June our CEO, Ken Miles wrote as Chair of a SW Chief Executive Working Group looking at leisure provision and the impact of the Covid-19 crisis to the Minister for Sport, Tourism and Heritage and Minister for Local Government. Did we ever receive a response to this letter?” Councillor Worden’s response “A number of letters have now been written to central government on the subject of support for the leisure industry. Two letters have been written in conjunction with the South West CEX Group. A final letter has been written just recently setting out the current position of this authority. Copies of examples of the letters are tabled and attached to this reply. The first letter was

7 Page 19 Agenda Item 3 Council - 7 October 2020

written fairly early in the crisis to highlight some general concerns. The second letter added more detail to these concerns. Since those two letters were written, leisure centres were allowed to re-open but it is important that central government realise that this is not the complete answer. Most leisure centres and providers are experiencing an approximate 3040% drop in subscription levels and the additional costs of operating with social distancing requirements in place mean that they are no longer profitable. Virtually every leisure provider is now having to be supported financially by their partner councils and where that support can not be provided, leisure centres have not reopened. In many councils, that support runs to figures in excess of £1,000,000. Some councils have also been asked to effectively underwrite all extra costs incurred by the leisure provider. Even with that support, facilities have had to be scaled back and redundancies have been made. Within our own leisure centres, 14 staff have unfortunately been made redundant and this is replicated across the country. The third letter seeks to reflect the position locally to central government and a further letter will shortly be written on behalf of the South West CEX Group as well. Council provided leisure facilities are vital to communities and are also vital to the recovery process. It is well known now that underlying health is a crucial factor in recovery from the virus and so facilities such as ours are needed to assist with the government’s targets to reduce obesity and increase health. The second letter sets out what impacts council provided facilities have on various hard to reach groups, groups which generally have been the hardest hit by the virus. Whilst no direct reply has been provided to any of the letters, we are aware of discussions that are now taking place between DCMS, MHCLG, national bodies such as Sport England and the Treasury. Councils are still hopeful that funding will be provided to support this sector and we are working with those national bodies to help in any way that we can. As a council we will also continue to lobby and will continue to take an active role in the SW response.” In response to a supplementary question, Councillor Worden confirmed that he would keep Members informed of the Government’s position for funding of the leisure industry.

(f) Question to Councillor Worden from Councillor Yabsley “Would the Leader update Members on the EA’s progress with their work on Barnstaple Flood Resilience Scheme’s”. Councillor Worden’s response ““I should perhaps start with explaining that flooding in urban areas can be from a number of causes. NDC has been working with the Environment Agency on a plan to address river flooding in Barnstaple. This is the flooding that results from the rivers overflowing their banks due to rainfall over an extended period and an extended area. For a tidal area such as in Barnstaple this can be made significantly worse if the high rainfall coincides with high and spring tide events. This is different from the urban flooding that was experienced in August and subsequently which was due to a lack of drainage in the urban area. The lack of drainage can be because there is too little capacity or what capacity there is, is reduced by

8 Page 20 Agenda Item 3 Council - 7 October 2020

blockages/damage. High intensity rainfall as we had in August can cause flooding when the town’s sewage system and draining canals do not have the necessary capacity to drain away the amounts of rain that are falling. Water may even enter the sewage system in one place and then get deposited somewhere else in the town on the streets. With regard to river flooding in Barnstaple the EA is not able to fully fund flood schemes, therefore, the plan is to gain a pot of partnership funding from the various developments in Barnstaple; of the total of £7.44m, local partnership funding of £1.53m will be required. The local funding will have to be secured through S106 agreements associated with planning permissions. These figures were initial estimates but do give an indication of the proportion of extra funding required. The general plan is to allow new development in the flood risk area, but deal with residual flood risks in a different way to other recent developments. For example, Anchorwood raised the whole area of residential units and car parking and provided a safe access and egress route. The impact on third parties is being offset by upgrading the rest of the flood cell around Severn Brethren. This cannot be achieved in the other areas of Barnstaple, hence why a different method is needed. To make development acceptable in term of the flood risks, the development sites in the River Yeo area still need to raise finished floor levels to a safe height, and the developments need to deal with safe access and egress by having the residential buildings connected, if technically possible, to the area of the new defences or high ground, to form a safe route. A number of work stages must now be gone through, including:

1. Production of a Strategic Outline Case, approximately 2023-2024 2. Production of Outline Business Case approximately 2024-25 3. Full Business Case in 2025 with a start on physical construction in 2025, two years after we start. Devon County Council have been looking at the surface water flood risks in Barnstaple, and potential solutions - they appear to be requesting funding to tackle surface water issues on similar timeframes to that for the EA/NDC scheme, to the tune of £935,000 total estimated cost, with £625,000 coming from the EA and £310,000 further required. This could easily be designed to work with the funding the EA have already been identified and as the EA have a good working relationship with DCC they are confident the two initiatives can be married up. There was the possibility some months ago, as part of the Covid19 response, that the flood works might be fully funded, however, this was not achieved, though the EA and NDC continue to seek additional funding to help fully secure the project finances as opportunities arise. In summary, our proposed scheme with the EA will not help prevent the flooding Barnstaple had in August and since then, that was due to surface water flooding (DCC remit), however, both EA and DCC aim to seek if possible improvements to the surface water system as part of the EA river flood works.”

9 Page 21 Agenda Item 3 Council - 7 October 2020

149. STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS 2019/20

The Chair advised that items 13 (a), 13 (b) and 13 (c) would be considered and debated together and that a single vote would be taken on the three recommendations.

(a) Report by Chief Financial Officer (attached) Council considered a report by the Chief Financial Officer (circulated previously) regarding the Statement of Accounts for 2019/20. The Chief Financial Officer advised that the draft Statement of Accounts for year ended 31 March 2020 was signed by the Chief Financial Officer on 22 July 2020. Normally, the final date for published, audited accounts was 31 July, however this year due to Covid-19 this was extended to 30 November 2020. The Covid-19 pandemic only started to make a notable impact upon the public and businesses in the last two weeks of March; and thus not had a dramatic impact upon these draft financial statements for period to 31 March 2020; the real budgetary impact of Covid affects the financial position of the Council post April 2020. The External Audit of Accounts started on 8 Sept 2020. The Audit Findings Report was presented to the Governance Committee which gave an Unqualified Opinion on Financial Statements/Value for Money Conclusion and four recommendations following Key Findings which had been accepted by management and responses built into the Action Plan. The Accounts were required to be formally signed off at Council. He outlined the narrative report which set out the challenges the Council faced, how those challenges would be met and reviewed the last financial year 2019/20; the main statements; accounting policies; notes to the Accounts. He advised of an amendment to Note 4 “Accounting Standards that have been issued but not yet been adopted” as follows: “In response to the Covid 19 pandemic, CIPFA/LASAAC deferred the implementation of IFRS 16 Leases in the public sector until 1 April 2021. This will require lessees to recognise assets subject to leases as right-of-use assets on their balance sheet, along with corresponding lease liabilities (there are exceptions for low-value and short-term leases).” He outlined the Auditors report as detailed on page 123 following the conclusion of the audit and presentation of their audit findings report to Governance Committee on 5 October 2020. He advised that the Medium Term Financial Plan would be presented to the next meeting of Council.

Councillor Roome presented the recommendations of the Governance Committee held on 8 September 2020 and 5 October 2020 (circulated previously).

10 Page 22 Agenda Item 3 Council - 7 October 2020

It was moved by Councillor Roome and seconded by Councillor Biederman that the recommendation in the report be adopted.

RESOLVED that the Statement of Accounts 2019/20 be approved, and that the Chairman of the Council sign and date the Statement of Accounts as required by the Accounts and Audit Regulations.

(b) Annual Governance Statement 2019/20 (attached) Council considered the Annual Governance Statement for 2019/20 (circulated previously). The Monitoring Officer advised that the flowchart on page 11 had now been updated to reflect the committee arrangements and a copy had been published as a supplementary document. He advised that the Governance Committee at its meeting on 8th September 2020 had recommended approval.

Councillor Roome reported the recommendations of the Governance Committee held on 8th September 2020 and advised that it had been a challenging year for all Local Authorities and in particular thanked the Finance team for its hard work in administering grants to support the economy.

It was moved by Councillor Roome and seconded by Councillor Biederman “that the Annual Governance Statement for 2019/20 be approved”.

RESOLVED that the Annual Governance Statement for 2019/20 be approved.

(c) Letter of Representation on behalf of the Council (attached) The Chief Financial Officer advised Council that the Letter of Representation on behalf of the Council was the final part of the Statement of Accounts and conclusion of the audit.

Councillor Roome reported the recommendation of the Governance Committee held on 5 October 2020 (circulated separately).

It was moved by Councillor Roome and seconded by Councillor Biederman that “that the letter of representation on behalf of the Council be approved and signed by the Chief Financial Officer”.

RESOLVED that the letter of representation on behalf of the Council be approved and signed by the Chief Financial Officer.

11 Page 23 Agenda Item 3 Council - 7 October 2020

150. PERFORMANCE AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT QUARTER 4 2019/20

Council considered the Performance and Financial Management report Quarter 4 2019/20 to the Strategy and Resources Committee on 3 August 2020 (circulated previously).

(a) Report of the Policy Development Committee Councillor Spear, Chair of the Policy Development Committee presented the Committee’s report on the Performance and Financial Management for Quarter 4 of 2019/20 (circulated previously). (b) Report of meeting of the Strategy and Resources Committee Councillor Worden, Chair of the Strategy and Resources Committee reported the recommendations of the Strategy and Resources Committee on the Performance and Financial Management for Quarter 4 of 2019/20 (circulated previously).

It was moved by Councillor Worden and seconded by Councillor Bushell that “minute 159 (f) of the Strategy and Resources Committee held on 3 August 2020 be adopted”.

RESOLVED that minute 159 (f) of the Strategy and Resources Committee held on 3 August 2020 be adopted.

151. PERFORMANCE AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT QUARTER 1 OF 2020/21

Council considered the Performance and Financial Management report for Quarter 1 of 2020/21 to the Strategy and Resources Committee on 1 September 2020 (circulated previously).

(a) Report by the Policy Development Committee Councillor Spear, Chair of the Policy Development Committee presented the Committee’s report on the Performance and Financial Management for Quarter 1 of 2020/21 (circulated previously). (b) Report of meeting of the Strategy and Resources Committee Councillor Worden, Chair of the Strategy and Resources Committee reported the recommendations of the Strategy and Resources Committee on the Performance and Financial Management for Quarter 1 of 2020/21 (circulated previously).

It was moved by Councillor Worden and seconded by

12 Page 24 Agenda Item 3 Council - 7 October 2020

Councillor D. Spear that “minute 175 (f) of the Strategy and Resources Committee held on 1 September 2020 be adopted”.

RESOLVED that minute 175 (f) of the Strategy and Resources Committee held on 1 September 2020 be adopted.

152. TREASURY MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT 2019/20

Council considered the Treasury Management Annual report for 2019/20 to the Strategy and Resources Committee on 1 September 2020 (circulated previously)

(a) Report of the Policy Development Committee Councillor Spear, Chair of the Policy Development Committee presented the Committee’s report on the Treasury Management Annual Report 2019/20 (circulated previously). (b) Report of meeting of the Strategy and Resources Committee Councillor Worden, Chair of the Strategy and Resources Committee reported the recommendations of the Strategy and Resources Committee on the Treasury Management Annual Report 2019/20 (circulated previously).

It was moved by Councillor Worden and seconded by Councillor Jenkins that “minute 176 of the meeting of the Strategy and Resources Committee on 1 September 2020 be adopted”.

RESOLVED that minute 176 of the meeting of the Strategy and Resources Committee on 1 September 2020 be adopted. 153. APPOINTMENT TO THE STRATEGY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE

Councillor Worden thanked Councillor Leaver for her work on the Strategy and Resources Committee and advised that she had to step down from the Committee owing to work commitments.

It was moved by Councillor Worden and seconded by Councillor Tucker “that Councillor Knight be appointed to replace Councillor Leaver as a member of the Strategy and Resources Committee for the municipal year 2019/20”.

In response to a question, the Senior Corporate and Community Services Officer confirmed that it was still the 2019/20 municipal year as a meeting of Annual Council had not been held this year.

RESOLVED that Councillor Knight be appointed to replace Councillor Leaver as a member of the Strategy and Resources Committee for the municipal year 2019/20.

13 Page 25 Agenda Item 3 Council - 7 October 2020

154. REPORT BY CHAIR OF GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE

Council considered and noted the half yearly report by the Chair of Governance Committee (circulated previously).

155. MINUTES OF COMMITTEES

(a) Building Control Joint Committee RESOLVED that the following minutes of the Building Control Joint Committee (circulated previously) be noted and adopted as follows:

(i) 6 August 2020 (b) Governance Committee RESOLVED that the following minutes of the Governance Committee (circulated previously) be noted and adopted as follows:

(i) 8 September 2020

(A) Minute 90: Recommendations to Update the Member Code of Conduct (c) Harbour Board RESOLVED that the following minutes of the Harbour Board (circulated previously) be noted and adopted as follows:

(i) 11 August 2020

(A) Minute 58: Three Month Waiver of Harbour Fees 2021- 2022 (d) Licensing and Community Safety Committee RESOLVED that the following minutes of the Licensing and Community Safety Committee (circulated previously) be noted and adopted as follows:

(i) 14 July 2020

(ii) 8 September 2020 (e) Planning Committee RESOLVED that the following minutes of the Planning Committee (circulated previously) be noted and adopted as follows:

(i) 8 July 2020

14 Page 26 Agenda Item 3 Council - 7 October 2020

(ii) 12 August 2020

(iii) 9 September 2020 (f) Policy Development Committee RESOLVED that the following minutes of the Policy Development Committee (circulated previously) be noted and adopted as follows:

(i) 16 July 2020

(ii) 10 September 2020 (g) Strategy and Resources Committee RESOLVED that the following minutes of the Strategy and Resources Committee (circulated previously) be noted and adopted as follows:

(i) 3 August 2020

(A) Minute 164 (b): Approval and Release of Section 106 Public Open Space Fund – Bickington

(B) Minute 165 (b): Approval and Release of Section 106 Funds – South Molton

(ii) 1 September 2020

(A) Minute 177 (c): Approval and Release of Section 106 Public Open Space Funds – South Molton and Combe Martin

(B) Minute 179: Seven Brethren - Agreeing a Way Forward (Council noted that due to a typographical error, the minute will be amended to state “RESOLVED” and not “RECOMMENDED” at the meeting of the Committee on 5 October 2020).

Chair The meeting ended at 8.24 pm

NOTE: These minutes will be confirmed as a correct record at the next meeting of Council.

15 Page 27 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 12

NORTH DEVON COUNCIL

COUNCIL: 25 NOVEMBER 2020

LEADER’S REPORT

In the middle of October two of our staff tested positive for Covid 19. This resulted in several staff having to self-isolate for 14 days. It impacted our services; primarily in Waste and Recycling and in Customer Services. It resulted in missing a small number of waste and recycling rounds and we posted messages on our web site and social media to tell people the areas of the district affected. Not everyone is on the internet so if it happens again please be aware that we will try to return and do their collection within two days. If we haven’t managed to do so within that time please inform anyone in your ward who may ask to take the bins back in again and put them out when the next collection is due.

In relation to Customer Services, the reduced number of available staff meant that trying to cover the phones and keep staff on reception had a knock on effect on the number of calls that the team were able to take. As a consequence, we temporarily closed the reception desks to visiting members of the public so that we could put more resource into answering the calls. This applied to the desks at Ilfracombe, Barnstaple and South Molton. It was planned to reopen them at the beginning of November but this has been put on hold because of the lockdown. Recently we have had more cases of Covid 19 but so far we are managing to cope well under the circumstances.

As you are aware we were expecting to have a meeting of the South West Councils to discuss going into Tier 2 or Tier 3 because of the Covid 19 pandemic. However, the government did a U turn as the infection rate increased significantly nation-wide and brought in a lockdown until at least December 2nd. Staff who are able to do so are now working from home and a small number are now shielding. Although this time the conditions of the lockdown are not as severe as in the first one it does impact on many of our businesses. The economic regeneration team had produced an advert with Seth Conway which was to be shown, for example, on Sky TV etc. encouraging people to use the shops in our High Streets leading up to Christmas and featuring traders from Ilfracombe, Barnstaple and South Molton. We had to pull that and the economic team along with our comms changed the emphasis to encourage shopping locally online, using click and collect services and in suggesting to residents that they may wish to buy vouchers from our local businesses as Christmas presents e.g. for beauty salons. Obviously we want people shopping safely in those shops that are eligible to remain open. This is all part of the Live Love Local campaign as we hope North Devon's town centre businesses are able to return to the high street once lockdown is over. In addition we took the decision to carry on charging for our car parks because we rely heavily on the income but from 16.00 until 18.00 each day we are allowing free parking in selected car parks. Hopefully that will encourage people to use the click and collect service.

Page 29 Agenda Item 12

We have been working with Team Devon and the South West Councils to encourage the government to change the national system of Track and Trace to a local one. The national system hasn’t been that successful with only about 60% of those who have been in contact with someone who has Covid being spoken too and asked to self- isolate.

We have been helping to co-ordinate a range of services for those in need by working alongside organisations such as One Northern Devon and the town and parish councils. Unlike last time, the government is not handing out food parcels to the clinically vulnerable as the emphasis this time is on self-sufficiency. So we have been working to coordinate volunteers to help with grocery orders and deliveries, collection and delivery of medication, transport to medical and hospital appointments (using a local taxi firm) and financial support for those in serious hardship. We provided an online form at my.northdevon.gov.uk/service/Request_for_assistance and our phone line at 01271 388280 for those who have not been able to get support from family or volunteers.

Local restriction support grants have been made available for businesses required to close in England. This has amounted to eligible properties with a rateable value of £15k or under, being given grants of £1,334 per month, those whose rateable value of between £15k-£51k receive grants of £2,000 per month and those with a rateable value of £51k or over receive grants of £3,000 per month. This has meant more work for our staff checking and getting these payments distributed. In addition £1.1bn is being given to Local Authorities, distributed on the basis of £20 per head, for one-off payments to enable Councils to support businesses more broadly until the end of next year. We have made the decision not to pay it all out immediately but to keep some for helping businesses during 2021. We know that our leisure and hospitality industries and some of our self-employed are being particularly badly hit by the Covid 19 restrictions and will need support for some time.

A lot of publicity has been in media recently about the provision of food for children of needy families. Several local businesses and individuals volunteered and stepped up to help during half term. The number of families on universal credit in North Devon more than doubled from March to September and unfortunately the situation is likely to get worse because more people are likely to become unemployed as winter approaches although the extension of the furlough scheme will help. To assist those who are struggling NDC has provided a Local Hardship Fund in direct response to the COVID-19 pandemic, with financial support from Devon County Council. This emergency fund has been used to give money to schools who have then identified and provided direct help to families and children most at need. Financial support has been given to the North Devon Food Bank and other groups working with and supporting our local communities and we still have more money available for this purpose. It has just been announced that the government is going to give upper tier local authorities finance to enable those eligible for free school meals to receive meals for the Christmas holidays.

Page 30 Agenda Item 12

As Members are aware the Council set up a fund to provide financial support to households who were victims of the flash floods on 17 August. This was a one off fund, brought into effect largely due to the unprecedented circumstances presented in 2020, and based upon pledges from individual Councillor’s grant allocations. Flood funding was made available only to those impacted by the floods on 17th August 2020 who didn’t have any home insurance to help with replacing damaged goods etc.

Ken Miles, Malcolm Prowse and I have continued to meet with Torridge’s equivalents and we are working together on many issues which affect Northern Devon such as the development of tourism and the appointment of a joint climate change officer. I am pleased that Torridge and North Devon responded together to the government’s white paper on planning. Thank you to all who participated in the special S & R meeting to answer the specific questions in the consultation and with the assistance of the officers helped to answer each question in detail. We know that we have to have some more homes but one of the real problems is affordability for local people. In addition Ken and I had meetings with the District Council Network, the HotSW and Team Devon and they all sent in a detailed response to the consultation.

It is a particularly busy time for our service heads as they make plans for the next financial year. We are hoping to include more member input as it is important to ensure that our corporate priorities are fully incorporated in what we are planning e.g. concerning climate change.

NDC is gaining a national reputation for some of the excellent work it is doing as a local government authority. The latest work to gain national recognition resulted in NDC being a finalist in two categories for the prestigious Local Government Chronicle Awards Ceremony 2020. Over 1500 local government professionals attended and it made me very proud as Leader to also attend virtually and hear our authority being named and praised. You may remember the problem many councils had this summer with tons of litter being dumped by visitors particularly on beaches and beauty spots. NDC’s Environmental Wardens Ray Jones and Alan Kyle wanted to prevent this in our area and together with our Communications Team came up with #ClearMessages. The idea was to raise the profile of these issues and crack down on anti-social behaviour through a programme of education, awareness and enforcement. This proved to be very effective. In addition the Safe Sleep team became a finalist for the Local Government 'Team of the Year' award. They provided 1,857 nights of accommodation, over the winter, for more than 100 rough sleepers. Interdependent solutions were developed to serve these individuals and over a third of the group did not return to the streets. This is an example of NDC working together with both the statutory and voluntary sector organisations as the team included the Adult Social Services, Drug and Alcohol Treatment Services, the Police, and the Freedom Community Alliance (FCA).

Some more good news - Green flags will be flying with pride once again at Bicclescombe Park in Ilfracombe and Yeo Valley Community Woodland in Barnstaple, in a year when millions of people have seen the value of having great quality green

Page 31 Agenda Item 12

spaces on their doorstep. Both of the award winning green spaces are owned and managed by North Devon Council, with the help of active community groups including the Friends of Yeo Valley Woodland and the Bicclescombe Park User Group. 2020 is the 16th consecutive year that Bicclescombe Park has achieved Green Flag status, with Yeo Valley Woodland receiving the award for the 9th time in a row.

Also you are no doubt aware that we have adopted the following slogan on our emails – Distance socially, spend locally, enjoy safely as part of our Live Love Local campaign. You may have noticed that the comms team are coming out with graphic and colourful communications which deserve our praise. Other Districts and publications are now noticing it and commenting very favourably.

We live in difficult times but NDC is rising to the challenge but please keep safe.

David Worden 14th November 2020.

Page 32 Agenda Item 15

Open NORTH DEVON COUNCIL

REPORT TO: FULL COUNCIL DATE: 25th NOVEMBER 2020 TOPIC: PUBLIC SPACES PROTECTION ORDERS

DOG CONTROL

REPORT BY: ANDY COLE – ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SERVICE LEAD

1. Introduction

1.1 On 13th November 2020, Strategy and Resources Committee are due to consider a report (refer Appendix A) concerning the implementation of a number of controls designed to address anti-social behaviour associated with irresponsible dog ownership.

1.2 The recommendations of the Strategy and Resources Committee will be shared with Full Council as soon as possible after this date – to enable further consideration at the Full Council Meeting on 25th November 2020.

2. Recommendations

2.1 It is recommended that Members approve the recommendations of the Strategy and Resources Committee.

3 Reasons for Recommendations

3.1 To enable controls to be put in place to address anti-social behaviour associated with irresponsible dog ownership.

4 Report

4.1 An extraordinary meeting of the Strategy and Resources Committee has been called for 13th November 2020 to enable the report attached as Appendix A to be considered. 4.2 The recommendations of the Strategy and Resources Committee will be communicated to Full Council in a separate document, in advance of the Full Council meeting on 25th November 2020. 4.3 An estimated timeline for the next steps is provided below : Page 33 Agenda Item 15

Timeframe Task By 23rd December 2020 Finalise wording of Public Spaces Protection Order.

Finalise signage wording requirements and commission production – for Council owned land.

By end of January 2021 Production and delivery of signage.

Liaise with Parish Councils’ and other landowners re their signage requirements.

Communications and Public Relations exercise.

By end of February 2021 Installation of signage on Council owned land.

Public Spaces Protection Order in place and enforceable.

5 Resource Implications

5.1 The setting up of the new PSPO can be undertaken within existing resources. The cost of the new signage is estimated to be in the region of £5k which can be met from existing revenue budget.

5.2 Enforcement of the PSPO can be undertaken by the Council’s Officers’, and by other groups where the Council is satisfied that they hold the appropriate competencies – as detailed in the Appendix A report.

Page 34 Agenda Item 15

6 Constitutional Context

Article or Appendix Referred or Key decision? and paragraph delegated power?

Part 2, Article 4, Delegated No 4.5.3 and Part 3, Annexe 1, paragraph 1(h).

7 Statement of Confidentiality This report contains no confidential information or exempt information under the provisions of Schedule 12A of the 1972 Local Government Act.

8 Background Papers This report has been prepared with reference to the Local Government Association document “Public Spaces Protection Orders – Guidance for Councils” - published on 1st February 2018 and readily available at www.local.gov.uk - and the Strategy and Resources Committee report dated 13th November 2020 (see Appendix A).

9 Statement of internal Advice The author confirms that advice has been taken from all appropriate Councillors and Officers.

Author: Andy Cole, Environmental Protection Service Lead Date: 25th November 2020 Reference: PSPO Full Council Report 25th November 2020

Page 35 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 15 Appendix A

Open NORTH DEVON COUNCIL

REPORT TO: STRATEGY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE DATE: 13th NOVEMBER 2020 TOPIC: UPDATED REPORT RE PUBLIC SPACES PROTECTION ORDERS

DOG CONTROL

REPORT BY: ANDY COLE – ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SERVICE LEAD

1. Introduction

1.1 On 1st June 2020 Members considered a proposed public consultation exercise on the implementation of a number of controls designed to address anti-social behaviour associated with irresponsible dog ownership.

1.2 This report gives Members the opportunity to consider the results of the completed public consultation exercise - to enable decisions to be made about the implementation of relevant, lawful and proportionate controls.

1.3 The potentially contentious nature of this important area of the Council’s business is acknowledged.

Members who have previously expressed an interest in this area of work were invited to discuss the previously submitted report - in advance of the Strategy and Resources Committee meeting on Friday 13th November.

The report was updated at the request of Members – resulting in this updated version.

2. Recommendations

2.1 It is recommended to Full Council that Members approve the measures identified in section 4.9 of this report.

2.2 It is also recommend that Committee consider any further controls and make such recommendations to Full Council as are considered appropriate.

3 Reasons for Recommendations

3.1 To enable controls to be put in place which better address anti-social behaviour associated with irresponsible dog ownership. Page 37 Agenda Item 15 Appendix A

4 Report

4.1 Members’ have previously been made aware of the significant and positive public health, social and economic benefits of dog ownership. A number of published papers for example have evidenced the savings to the NHS through improved physical and mental health of owning a companion dog. While the majority of dog owners are responsible, there is unfortunately an irresponsible minority who do not pick up after their dog or allow their dogs to run out of control.

4.2 The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 contains provisions for local authorities to introduce Public Space Protection Orders’ (PSPO), designed to address anti-social behaviour.

To implement a PSPO, a local authority must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the activity has been or is likely to be detrimental to the quality of life of those in the locality, and that the activity is likely to be persistent and unreasonable in nature.

The PSPO can either prohibit the activity or make specific requirements on those who are carrying out the detrimental activity.

4.3 The recent public consultation exercise - designed to inform the evidence base for implementing any new PSPO, by pursuing the least restrictive approach - is now complete.

4.4 Considering the number of responses received (3000+), and the need for absolute transparency and robustness in the evaluation of this data, an external consultant was commissioned to undertake an independent analysis of the responses received.

4.5 The consultant’s findings are included as Appendix 1 to this report – with the key findings summarised below:

- There is majority support for the controls identified in the consultation exercise, in relation to :

o controlling dog fouling o dog control (excluding the 6 busy amenity beaches and the Tarka Trail) Page 38 Agenda Item 15 Appendix A

o public cemeteries o enclosed children’s play areas o formal sports pitches o Braunton Burrows special area of conservation o high tide resting sites

- There is majority opposition for the controls identified in the consultation exercise, in relation to :

o proposals for dog control on the 6 busy amenity beaches o proposals for dog control on the Tarka Trail

4.6 The Environmental Protection Team receives the following reactive requests for service in relation to this area of work :

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20

Dog Fouling 84 69 97 72

Dogs Out of 113 87 80 66 Control

Lost Dogs 98 110 92 78

Stray Dogs 129 132 136 138

4.7 In relation to those aspects of the consultation which present a majority opposition (the 6 main amenity beaches and the Tarka Trail), Officers’ have further liaised with the landowners to clarify their views.

This information is attached as Appendix 2 to this report.

4.8 On consideration of the data presented in 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 - as well as their routine observations from carrying out their day to day duties – Officers’ are satisfied that there is the legal justification for implementing a suite of measures to enable the Council to better address anti-social behaviour associated with irresponsible dog ownership.

4.9 It is recommended that a new District wide PSPO is implemented - incorporating measures to: Page 39 Agenda Item 15 Appendix A

1 issue Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs’) of £100 to people who do not pick up their dog waste in all areas open to the public.

2 issue FPNs’ of £100 to people who do not place their dog on a lead of 2.0m length or less in any public area when directed by a suitably delegated person / Officer - where that person / Officer is satisfied that the dog is out of control by way of being at large and not on a lead - and / or poses a nuisance or danger to people or other animals.

3 issue FPNs’ of £100 to people who walk or exercise their dogs ‘off lead’ in any cemetery open to the public.

4 issue FPNs’ of £100 to people who allow their dogs to be present on any formal sports pitch, or enclosed children’s play area.

5 issue FPNs’ of £100 to people who allow their dogs to be present within the vicinity (to be defined on a site specific basis) of land used as a High Tide Roosting Site (as identified in Appendix 3, Figure 1) between 1st October and 31st March.

6 issue FPNs’ of £100 to people who allow their dogs to be present on Croyde Bay (as defined in Appendix 3, Figure 2) between, 1st May and 30th September.

7 issue FPNs’ of £100 to people who walk or exercise their dogs ‘off lead’ in the dunes behind Croyde Bay (as defined in Appendix 3, Figure 2) between, 1st May and 30th September.

8 issue FPNs’ of £100 to people who allow their dogs to be present on Combe Martin Beach (as defined in Appendix 3, Figure 3) between, 1st May and 30th September.

9 issue FPNs’ of £100 to people who walk or exercise their dogs ‘off lead’ in certain parts of Braunton Burrows during certain times of year - as defined by the landowner.

10 exempt people who have an assistance dog registered with a member organisation of Assistance Dogs UK from these controls.

4.10 It is recommended that the Head of Environmental Health and Housing Services is given authority to delegate enforcement powers to other groups Page 40 Agenda Item 15 Appendix A

where it can be demonstrated that they hold the appropriate competencies – for example Police Officers’, Parish Council Officers’ and specific individual landowners on request. A programme of accreditation - which takes into account the requirements of all legislation and associated guidance - shall be put in place to enable a robust assessment of competence to take place before such delegation is given.

4.11 All existing signage on NDC owned land will be replaced to provide absolute clarity about any controls which are in place in a given location. Whilst the final designs are not yet complete, the general appearance and style of the new signage is currently proposed to be consistent with the working examples provided in Appendix 4 to this report.

4.12 In relation to the proposed controls for High Tide Roosting Sites, detailed maps will be drawn up for each site to clearly identify the exact areas to which the controls refer.

4.13 Individual landowners who request additional controls to be introduced on their land will be required to install signage as per the finalised Council designs.

4.14 A high profile communications exercise will be undertaken to promote responsible dog ownership and to ensure there is a high level of awareness of the controls amongst the Community.

5 Resource Implications

5.1 The setting up of any new PSPO can be undertaken within existing resources. The cost of the new signage is estimated to be in the region of £5k which can be met from existing revenue budget.

5.2 Enforcement of the PSPO can be undertaken by the Council’s Officers’, and by other groups where the Council is satisfied that they hold the appropriate competencies – as detailed above.

6 Constitutional Context

Article or Appendix Referred or Key decision? and paragraph delegated power?

Part 2, Article 4, Delegated No 4.5.3 and Part 3, Page 41 Agenda Item 15 Appendix A

Annexe 1, paragraph 1(h).

7 Statement of Confidentiality This report contains no confidential information or exempt information under the provisions of Schedule 12A of the 1972 Local Government Act.

9 Statement of internal Advice The author confirms that advice has been taken from all appropriate Councillors and Officers.

Author: Andy Cole, Environmental Protection Service Lead Date: 13th November 2020 Reference: PSPO Strategy and Resources Report

Page 42 Agenda Item 15 Appendix A

Appendix 1

“Analysis of Responses to the North Devon Council 2020 PSPO Dog Control Consultation”

Tonic Consulting 2nd November 2020

(double click document to open)

Page 43 Agenda Item 15 Appendix A

Page 44 Agenda Item 15 Appendix A

Page 45 Agenda Item 15 Appendix A

Appendix 2

Landowner Responses

Page 46

Landowner Response

Do you support the Do you support the implementation of implementation of controls which would controls which would allow the issuing of allow the issuing of Fixed Penalty FPN’s of £100 to people Notices (FPNs’) of who do not place their Would you like to implement any further Land £100 to people who dog on a lead of 2.0m controls on your beach in relation to dogs do not pick up their length or less when ?

Page 47 Page dog waste on your directed by a suitable beach ? delegated person / Officer ?

Saunton No No Restrictions on commercial dog walking Sands operators through licence or permit based Agenda Item 15 system Appendix A

Woolacombe Yes No No – satisfied with current arrangements Sands

Landowner Response

Page 48 Page dog waste on your directed by a suitable beach ? delegated person / Officer ?

Putsborough Yes No No – satisfied with current arrangements Sands Agenda Item 15 Appendix A

Instow Beach Only if consistent with wishes of Instow Only if requested by Instow Residents, Yes Residents, Parishioners Parishioners and other landowners and other landowners

Landowner Response

Page 49 Page dog waste on your directed by a suitable beach ? delegated person / Officer ?

Instow Beach Yes Yes No – satisfied with current arrangements

Agenda Item 15 Yes. Appendix A Croyde Bay Between 1st May – 30th September:

Yes Yes - not allow dogs on the beach at any time of day.

- require that dogs being walked in the dunes must be on a lead.

Landowner Response

Page 50 Page dog waste on your directed by a suitable beach ? delegated person / Officer ?

Yes. Combe Martin Beach st th Yes Yes Between 1 May – 30 September: Agenda Item 15 Appendix A - not allow dogs on the beach at any time of day.

No Tarka Trail Yes “Unsure – but probably No” (note - question asked related to Tarka Trail, not beach)

Agenda Item 15 Appendix A

Appendix 3

Maps

Page 51 Agenda Item 15 Appendix A

Figure 1 - High Tide Roosting Sites in North Devon

Page 52 Agenda Item 15 Appendix A

Figure 2 – Croyde Bay

Page 53 Agenda Item 15 Appendix A

Figure 3 – Combe Martin Beach

Page 54 Agenda Item 15 Appendix A

Appendix 4

Draft sample signage

Page 55 Agenda Item 15 Appendix A

Page 56 Agenda Item 15 Appendix A

Page 57 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 15 Appendix B

INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS CONDUCTED BY TONIC

AUTHORS: MATTHEW SCOTT OZDEN KARAALI RORY MILLER

V: 1.3 Da: 21/10/2020 Page 59 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Contents

Executive Summary ...... 3

1. Background to the Consultation ...... 11

2. Methodology ...... 12

3. Findings from the Analysis of Consultation Responses ...... 14

3.1 Responses to the Consultation ...... 14

3.2 Part A - Proposals for Controlling Dog Fouling ...... 15

3.3 Part B - Dog Control ...... 26

3.4 Part C - Formal Sports Pitches ...... 49

3.5 Part D - Tarka Trail ...... 57

3.6 Part E - Braunton Burrows Special Area of Conservation (SAC) ...... 64

3.7 Part F - High Tide Roosting Sites ...... 72

Page2 60 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Executive Summary

A. INTRODUCTION

Background Consultation Proposals North Devon Council consulted the public on The consultation put forward questions on the plans to introduce a new Public Space following set of proposals: Protection Order (PSPO) to introduce controls • Part A - Proposals for Controlling Dog to help address antisocial behaviour Fouling associated with dog waste and uncontrolled • Part B - Dog Control dogs, while still providing open spaces where • Part C - Formal Sports Pitches owners can freely exercise their dogs. TONIC • Part D - Tarka Trail were commissioned to conduct and report on • Part E - Braunton Burrows Special Area the findings of an independent analysis of of Conservation (SAC) responses to the consultation.

• Part F - High Tide Roosting Sites Methodology Responses were received from an online B. FINDINGS survey and by email and letter, with all Quantitative Findings responses types brought together for analysis The majority of respondents supported the and treated in the same way – namely, all majority of proposals - with over half of quantitative responses were counted and all respondents expressing their support for two qualitative responses were read and analysed thirds (67%) of the questions (18 out of 27) in order to identify key themes that support or relating to the proposals. Support ranged from oppose the proposals, as well as provide 53% to 92% across the proposals. Of the suggestions and other comments. The analysis remaining 9 questions, 8 had narrow findings are set out in this report. majorities for those who opposed the proposal

Response Numbers – ranging from 53% to 59% opposed. The There were 3,078 responses to the remaining proposal showed equal levels of consultation, with the vast majority (3,017) support and opposition. This table sets out a responding via the online consultation portal summary of the proposals broken down by and a further 61 responding by email or letter. whether they had majority support or Responses came from across North Devon and opposition to them from those who responded surrounding areas, as well as from other areas to the consultation: in the country.

Page3 61 Agenda Item 15 Appendix B

Table 1 - sets out a summary of the responses to the quantitative questions:

Part Ref Proposals Response Rates Summary Majority 77% 23% A1 Introduction of a PSPO to further control dog fouling support PART A: Majority 72% 28% Proposals for A2 Introduction of dog fouling controls on all public spaces across the district support Controlling Majority 73% 27% Dog Fouling A3 Introduction of dog fouling controls on the six beaches identified support Give delegated authority to approved third parties to improve the efficiency Majority 71% 29% A4 and effectiveness of enforcing dog fouling controls support Address nuisance or offence caused by dogs in public cemeteries, and Majority 59% 41% B1 nuisance on the six busy amenity beaches through a PSPO support Majority 92% 8% B2 Proposed controls in enclosed children’s play areas support Majority 87% 13% B4 Proposed controls for dogs in public cemeteries support Majority 44% 56% B6 Proposed controls on Saunton Sands oppose Majority 47% 53% B7 Proposed controls on Woolacombe Sands oppose PART B: Majority Proposals for 46% 54% B8 Proposed controls on Putsborough Sands oppose Dog Control Majority 42% 58% B9 Proposed controls on Instow beach oppose

50% 50% B10 Proposed controls on Croyde Bay Equal Majority 47% 53% B11 Proposed controls on Combe Martin beach oppose Proposed designated areas of the beaches being promoted as being "dog Majority 73% 27% B12 friendly" support Proposed controls to require a person to place their dogs on a lead of 2 Majority 53% 47% B13 meters in length or less, as directed by a suitably delegated person or support Address dog fouling on public and privately owned formal sports pitches Majority PART C: 77% 23% C1 through the introduction of a PSPO support Proposals for Proposed controls for all public and privately owned sports pitches across Majority Formal 76% 24% C2 the district support Sports Give delegated authority to approved third parties to improve the efficiency Majority Pitches 73% 27% C3 and effectiveness of enforcing the controls on public and privately owned support Address issues caused by the presence of dogs 'off lead' on the Tarka Trail Majority 47% 53% PART D: D1 through the introduction of a PSPO oppose Proposals for Proposed controls to prohibit the presence of dogs 'off lead' on the Tarka Majority 41% 59% the Tarka D2 Trail oppose Trail Proposed controls to require a person to place their dogs on a lead of 2 Majority 46% 54% D3 metre length or less, as directed by a suitably delegated person/Officer oppose Address the issue of uncontrolled dogs disturbing grazing livestock in Majority 60% 40% PART E: E1 Braunton Burrows SAC through the introduction of a PSPO support Proposals for Proposed controls to require a person to place their dog on a lead of 2 Majority 60% 40% Braunton E2 metres length or less in Braunton Burrows SAC, as directed by a suitably support Burrows SAC Proposed controls to prohibit the presence of dogs 'off lead' in Braunton Majority 56% 44% E3 Burrows SAC at specific locations at appropriate times of the year support Address concerns about the impact of dogs 'off leads' on certain sites of Majority PART F: 68% 32% F1 the Taw/Torridge Estuary through the introduction of a PSPO support Proposals for Proposed controls to prohibit the presence of dogs in the identified Majority High Tide 68% 32% F2 locations at appropriate times of the year support Roosting Proposed controls to require a person to place their dogs on a lead of 2 Majority Sites 67% 33% F3 metre length or less, as directed by a suitably delegated person or Officer support

Page 62 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Table 2 – sets out a summary of proposals by whether there was majority support or opposition amongst consultation respondents

MAJORITY RESPONDENT SUPPORT FOR MAJORITY RESPONDENT OPPOSITION TO A1. Introduction of a PSPO to further control dog fouling B6. Proposed controls on Saunton Sands A2. Introduction of dog fouling controls on all public spaces across the district B7. Proposed controls on Woolacombe Sands A3. Introduction of dog fouling controls on the six beaches identified B8. Proposed controls on Putsborough Sands A4. Giving delegated authority to approved third parties to improve the B9. Proposed controls on Instow beach efficiency and effectiveness of enforcing dog fouling controls B1. Address nuisance or offence caused by dogs in public cemeteries, and B11. Proposed controls on Combe Martin beach nuisance on the six busy amenity beaches through a PSPO B2. Proposed controls in enclosed children’s play areas D1. Address issues caused by the presence of dogs 'off lead' on the Tarka Trail through introduction of a PSPO B4. Proposed controls for dogs in public cemeteries D2. Proposed controls to prohibit the presence of dogs 'off lead' on the Tarka Trail B12. Proposed designated areas of the beaches being promoted as being “dog D3. Proposed controls to require a person to place their friendly” dogs on a lead of 2 metre length or less, as directed by a suitably delegated person/Officer B13. Proposed controls to require a person to place their dogs on a lead of 2 B6. Proposed controls on Saunton Sands meters in length or less, as directed by a suitably delegated person or Officer C1. Address dog fouling on public and privately owned formal sports pitches EQUAL SUPPORT & OPPOSITION FROM RESPONDENTS through the introduction of a PSPO C2. Proposed controls for all public and privately owned sports pitches across the B10. Proposed controls on Croyde Bay district C3. Giving delegated authority to approved third parties to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of enforcing the controls on public and privately owned sports pitches across the district to address dog fouling E1. Address the issue of uncontrolled dogs disturbing grazing livestock in Braunton Burrows SAC through the introduction of a PSPO E2. Proposed controls to require a person to place their dog on a lead of 2 metres length or less in Braunton Burrows SAC, as directed by a suitably delegated person or Officer E3. Proposed controls to prohibit the presence of dogs 'off lead' in Braunton Burrows SAC at specific locations at appropriate times of the year F1. Address concerns about the impact of dogs 'off leads' on certain sites of the Taw/Torridge Estuary through the introduction of a PSPO F2. Proposed controls to prohibit the presence of dogs in the identified locations at appropriate times of the year F3. Proposed controls to require a person to place their dogs on a lead of 2 metre length or less, as directed by a suitably delegated person or Officer

Page5 63 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Analysis of comments and suggestions The most commonly occurring suggestions and comments made in support or opposition to the proposals are summarised in the following tables:

A5 – Alternative controls which would achieve the same aim as the proposals in relation to dog fouling

Suggested alternative control % of people who provided % of total an answer to this question respondents to who made this suggestion the consultation Provide more dog waste bags and bins with more frequent emptying 25% 11% Clear signage is needed for fines and where and when dogs should be 12% 5% “on lead” Campaigns and training to encourage dog owners to be responsible 8% 4% All dogs should be kept on leads 6% 3%

Related Comments % of people who provided % of total an answer to this question respondents to who made this suggestion the consultation Support 42% 19% It is important to deal with dog fouling 4% 2% People should take responsibility if they do not look after their dogs 4% 2% properly Higher penalties for dog fouling 3% 1% Opposition 34% 15% Dog walkers are generally responsible – only a minority are irresponsible 15% 7% Action on littering is more important 12% 5% There must be some controls on fines from “third parties” 7% 3%

B3 – Alternative controls which would achieve the same aim as these proposals in children's play areas

Suggested alternative control % of people who provided % of total an answer to this question respondents to who made this suggestion the consultation Ban dogs in general from children's play areas 21% 4% Provide clear fenced-off areas designated for children's play with entry 6% 1% prohibited by dogs All dogs should be kept on lead at all times 3% 1% Set out specific times of day to allow dog walking off lead 3% 1%

Related Comments % of people who provided % of total an answer to this question respondents to who made this suggestion the consultation Support 24% 5% Dogs upset and scare individuals and children 2% 0% This will keep children safe from dogs’ behaviour and possible health 2% 0% hazards from dog waste Support for higher penalties 1% 0% Opposition 34% 7% The area chosen is too large – beaches and/or cemeteries should not be 8% 2% included in a dog ban on or off lead These regulations are already in place - we do not need new rules, just 5% 1% enforce the rules we have Litter and antisocial behaviour are more important issues 4% 1%

Page6 64 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

B5 – Alternative controls which would achieve the same aim as these proposals in public cemeteries

Suggested alternative control % of people who provided % of total an answer to this question respondents to who made this suggestion the consultation Ban dogs from cemeteries – exception for assistance dogs 11% 1% Provide better signage, advice and notices in local papers – provide 10% 1% training on responsible ownership. Dog licences should be mandated Keep dogs on leads at all times 2% 0% Provide dog racks to tie dogs to when visiting cemeteries 1% 0%

Related Comments % of people who provided % of total an answer to this question respondents to who made this suggestion the consultation Support 36% 4% Larger penalty needed 3% 0% A larger area should be included in this proposal 1% 0% Opposition 26% 3% Owners already control dogs in cemeteries - enforce existing rules 6% 1% Provide designated areas for dogs on beaches 5% 0% Only fine uncontrolled dogs – allow controlled dogs off lead 4% 0% Private sector companies should not get revenue - Process should be fair 3% 0% and evidence should be provided when issuing fines Provide designated areas in cemeteries to walk dogs 3% 0%

B14 – Alternative controls which would achieve the same aims as these proposals on the beaches

Suggested alternative control % of people who provided % of total an answer to this question respondents to who made this suggestion the consultation Clearer signage needed - for rules, fines, ways the public can report 8% 3% offenders. Educate and train owners. Monitor with CCTV Dogs should be kept on lead at all times 3% 1% Specify times of day dogs can be allowed “off lead” – e.g. when not busy 3% 1% Limit the number of people and cyclists who can use the trail at certain 2% 1% times. Limit the number of dogs per person Uncontrolled dogs should be on lead - dedicated person to enforce this 2% 1% Provide separate area for bikers and dog walkers on the Tarka trail 2% 1% Dogs should be kept on short leads on the Tarka trail 2% 1%

Related Comments % of people who provided % of total an answer to this question respondents to who made this suggestion the consultation Support 13% 6% Dogs are dangerous and unpredictable – not everyone is safe around 2% 1% dogs, and they can be a danger to wildlife People should take responsibility for their dogs – those that do will not 1% 0% object to these proposals Opposition 63% 26% Walking a controlled dog “off lead” responsibly is not dangerous – do not 38% 16% single out dog owners This leaves few options for walking dogs – especially for elderly, disabled, 10% 4% and those living near these areas. Target the irresponsible minority 9% 4%

Page7 65 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

C4 – Alternative controls to achieve the same aim as the proposals for public and privately owned sports pitches

Suggested alternative control % of people who provided % of total an answer to this question respondents to who made this suggestion the consultation Clear signage and more enforcement of existing rules – encourage 12% 2% people to act responsibly Provide more dog waste bags and bins that are regularly emptied 3% 1% Fence off areas dogs should not be in and/or apply this rule only during 3% 1% the sporting season Enable public reporting, name and shame offenders and ban them from 3% 1% these areas, monitor through CCTV and provide an appeal system

Related Comments % of people who provided % of total an answer to this question respondents to who made this suggestion the consultation Support - FPNs for dog fouling 36% 7% Support - dog ban 24% 5% Provide alternative suitable spaces for dogs nearby 5% 1% This will protect public from health hazard of dog fouling 3% 1% Increase the fines – owners should then have to be educated 2% 0% Oppose – General opposition 27% 7% Oppose - Dog ban 31% 5% Dogs “on lead” should be allowed around pitches but not on them 12% 3% Concerns about using third parties – this should only be the local 11% 2% authority dog wardens. Must be fair and well controlled Sports pitches should be used by all – dogs should be allowed in these 9% 2% areas as long as they are under control

D4 – Alternative controls which would achieve the same aim as these proposals on the Tarka Trail

Suggested alternative control % of people who provided % of total an answer to this question respondents to who made this suggestion the consultation Better enforcement of current rules - including clear signage to raise 10% 4% awareness and educate the public; a reporting mechanism for the public; training for dog owners who receive FPNs – especially repeat offenders; and CCTV Dogs not under control should be “on lead” 4% 2% Allocate certain times of day specifically for dog walking 3% 1% Divide the trail – with dog walkers on one side and cyclists on the other 2% 1%

Related Comments % of people who provided % of total an answer to this question respondents to who made this suggestion the consultation Support 16% 6% Dogs are dangerous and unpredictable 6% 2% Being “on lead” protects dogs from cyclists, runners and children 2% 1% Responsible dog owners will not disagree with these proposals 2% 1% Opposition 62% 25% The Tarka Trail is a shared, multi-use space, so fines should not be given 33% 13% to every dog owner whose dog is “off lead” but to all people who cause a nuisance – including irresponsible dog owners and cyclists Restrict the proposal to busy periods and/or certain areas of the trail 9% 4% 2m lead rule is an issue – too long, too short or more dangerous 6% 3%

Page8 66 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

E4 – Alternative controls which would achieve the same aim as these proposals for the Braunton Burrows SAC

Suggested alternative control % of people who provided % of total an answer to this question respondents to who made this suggestion the consultation Provide more signage - CCTV, reporting mechanism and ways the public 19% 5% can report offences. Train and educate dog owners on how to behave around livestock Enforce existing rules 17% 4% Dogs disturbing livestock should be put on leads or fined by a warden – 6% 1% including harsher punishments for repeat offenders All dogs should be on leads at all times 3% 1%

Related Comments % of people who provided % of total an answer to this question respondents to who made this suggestion the consultation Support 22% 5% Support for proposals in areas around livestock, nesting birds and wildlife 8% 2% Increase the fine 1% 0% Opposition 50% 12% Majority of responsible dog owners should not be put under restrictions 16% 4% There is enough space for dogs to be on and off lead in the Burrows 12% 3% The Burrows are the only place left that dogs can run free to exercise 8% 2% 2m lead is too short 4% 1% Cattle should not be there 3% 1% Concerns with third party issuing fines – evidence should be clearly 2% 1% presented

F4 – Achieving the aim of these proposals at High Tide Roosting Sites

Suggested alternative control % of people who provided % of total an answer to this question respondents to who made this suggestion the consultation Provide more signage – to inform and educate dog owners on how to 26% 5% behave in this area, advising where roosting sites are and where dogs must be “on lead” Fence off bird roosting areas to protect them 4% 1% Ban dogs from these areas completely 2% 0% Enforce existing rules better 2% 0%

Related Comments % of people who provided % of total an answer to this question respondents to who made this suggestion the consultation Support 27% 5% Protects wildlife 4% 1% Dogs should be kept on leads and under strict control in nature reserves 4% 1% and around wildlife Opposition 37% 7% Object to blanket ban – dogs should be allowed in these areas on lead at 6% 1% certain times Only irresponsible owners should be fined – the responsible majority 6% 1% should not be punished These measures are unnecessary and discriminatory against dog owners 5% 1%

Page9 67 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Other issues raised Respondents also raised a number of points that were not directly related to the specific consultation questions. These centred on the following issues:

• Objecting in principle to the concept of banning dogs from public areas • Cyclists being seen as the main problem that needs to be addressed in these areas • Concerns that these proposals will have a negative impact on tourism and the local economy • Other issues need to be tackled in these areas – including antisocial behaviour, drug abuse, littering, teenage drinking • More restrictions on dog walking in these areas will lead to dog walkers using other less safe areas, such as farmland • Dog walking has many benefits, such as socialising, exercise, mental health, and family time • Criticisms of the consultation process, including respondents expressing their feelings that the way the proposals were set out was confusing; that there was insufficient information to make informed decisions about the proposals; and that they experienced problems accessing the online consultation

Page10 68 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

1. Background to the Consultation

North Devon Council have consulted on plans to introduce a new Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) to introduce controls to help address antisocial behaviour associated with dog waste and uncontrolled dogs while still providing open spaces where owners can freely exercise their dogs.

The nine week consultation, which ended on the 14th August 2020, aimed to gain the community's views on a number of proposed district-wide control measures at specific locations where dog fouling and dog control are a problem, including: sports pitches, cemeteries, enclosed play areas and high tide roosting sites. This included some specific beaches, the Tarka Trail and Braunton Burrows.

The proposed measures would give each private landowner discretion on how they wished the PSPO to be enforced and failure to follow the controls could result in a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) of £100.

In developing this, the Council took guidance from The Kennel Club, which has made recommendations for local authorities to reduce the risk of unfair and disproportionate controls on responsible dog walkers. The Council was also interested in exploring non-regulatory alternatives and in asking residents and visitors to share their ideas through the consultation.

The consultation had six elements:

• Part A - proposals for controlling dog fouling • Part B - dog control • Part C - formal sports pitches • Part D - Tarka Trail • Part E - Braunton Burrows Special Area of Conservation • Part F - high tide resting sites

North Devon Council commissioned TONIC (www.tonic.org.uk) to conduct an independent analysis of the responses to the public consultation. The findings from this analysis are set out in this report.

Page11 69 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

2. Methodology

2.1 Overview

Consultation responses were received from an online survey, by email and by letter. All response types were brought together for analysis and were treated in the same way. Only online survey responses have been counted in the quantitative analysis as they were the only response type that included this data.

After we received the response data, each individual answer was analysed. Statistical analysis was performed on the answers to all “closed” (quantitative) questions, while all “open” (qualitative) responses were read in full by our analysts. The range of issues presented were captured and explored through a coding process that enabled us to build a picture of the respondents’ sentiments and ideas, including specific examples, explanations for their opinions, and alternative suggestions, as well as the frequency that these sentiments and ideas arose in order to identify the most common and strongest arguments around an issue.

It should be noted that the numbers responding to each question is not always the same as the numbers presented in the respondent group table. Only some of the respondents answered all of the questions; others chose to comment on the questions (or sections) of greatest relevance to their organisation, sector or field of interest. The report indicates the number of respondents who commented on each question.

2.2 Quantitative Analysis

We performed quantitative analysis of the quantitative questions and have set out the response rates by stakeholder type as well as the overall totals for preferred options. Percentage figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number for the majority of questions, therefore, as a result, not all numbers add up to 100%.

Page12 70 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

2.2 Qualitative Analysis

We conducted a thorough qualitative thematic analysis. Thematic Analysis1 is a simple and flexible form of qualitative analysis that is commonly used in social research. We have chosen this approach as it provides a way of summarising patterns in a large body of data, highlights similarities and differences across the data set, and can generate unanticipated insights. Our use of thematic analysis is driven by the consultation questions; all data that is relevant to the consultation questions is coded. The analysis is not guided by theory, but rather is data driven, providing an overall analysis of themes relevant to the consultation. Our analysis comprises of six steps:

• Step 1: A detailed reading of the data to become familiar with the text • Step 2: Initial codes are then manually ascribed to the data, organising the data into meaningful groups relevant to the consultation questions • Step 3: Codes that are conceptually related to one another are grouped together, and identified as themes. A theme is defined as capturing something important about the data in relation to the research question, and represents some level of patterned response or meaning within the data set • Step 4: The themes are reviewed to determine whether they are internally coherent (i.e., all data within them are conceptually linked) and distinct from each other • Step 5: We then define and name the themes with the aim of capturing the essence of the data they comprise. This stage also involves the identification of subthemes, which help to provide structure to the analysis. The relationship between the codes, subthemes and themes is then captured in a thematic map and coding book • Step 6: We then write up the results, providing a narrative summary of the relationship between codes, subthemes and themes, including examples from the data to illustrate the essence of each theme

2.4 Report Structure

This report provides an overview of the responses received, setting out the main themes that emerged. Given the number and variety of consultation responses received, in order to present our analysis in a way that reduces duplication and makes sense to the reader, we have grouped themes together in the most logical locations in this report.

1 Braun and Clarke (2006)

Page13 71 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

3. Findings from the analysis of consultation responses

This section of the report sets out the data analysis from both the open and closed questions in the order they appeared within the consultation document.

3.1 Responses to the Consultation

There were 3,078 responses to the consultation, with the majority (3,017) responding via the online consultation portal and a further 61 responding by email or letter. 1,900 respondents provided an address or postcode. Responses came from across North Devon and the surrounding areas, and are summarised in the following table showing all areas that had more than 1 response:

Number of Number of Postcode/Town/City respondents Postcode/Town/City respondents EX39 269 EX13 3 EX31 266 PL6 3 EX33 224 TQ13 3 EX34 199 Bratton Fleming 3 EX32 125 Somerset 3 Barnstaple 72 EX23 3 EX36 48 EX14 3 EX38 47 Woolacombe 3 Braunton 44 BS30 3 Bideford 42 EX10 3 EX37 28 Bickington 3 Ilfracombe 22 Taunton 2 EX20 18 Winkleigh 2 Only a street name provided 18 EX8 2 EX21 17 GU16 2 EX19 17 EX4 2 Instow 17 HR8 2 EX35 14 EX6 2 EX18 13 EX2 2 EX22 12 Umberleigh 2 No Address Supplied 11 Landkey 2 Croyde 11 SL4 2 South Molton 10 North Devon 2 Combe Martin 10 EX5 2 Fremington 9 Witheridge 2 Northam 9 Tiverton 2 EX16 9 PL19 2 Appledore 8 TQ12 2 EX17 8 EX24 2 Exeter 6 TR13 2 Yelland 6 PL24 2 PL20 5 Devon 2 EX15 5 B50 2 TA4 4 GL52 2 Torrington 4 Plymouth 2 Westward Ho 4 North Molton 2 Georgeham 4 Marwood 2 BA3 4 No further demographic data was collected as part of the consultation – e.g. age or gender – therefore no further information can be provided about who the respondents were.

Page14 72 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

3.2 Part A - proposals for controlling dog fouling

North Devon Council consulted on a new Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) to introduce controls to help address antisocial behaviour associated with dog waste and uncontrolled dogs, while providing open spaces where owners can freely exercise their dogs. The Council believe the following regulatory controls should be considered to further control dog fouling:

• To issue £100 Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) to people who do not pick up their dog waste in all public areas and on the beaches of Saunton Sands, Woolacombe Sands, Putsborough Sands, Instow, Croyde Bay and Combe Martin • To increase the efficiency and effectiveness of enforcing this provision by giving delegated authority to approved third parties to issue FPNs in relation to the above.

Page15 73 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

A1: Do you support us in addressing this area of community need through a PSPO?

The clear majority of respondents to this question (77%) supported the proposal of a PSPO to further control dog fouling.

23%

Yes No 77%

A2: Do you support the introduction of these controls on all public spaces across the district?

The majority of respondents (72%) support the introduction of dog fouling controls on all public spaces across the district.

28% Yes No 72%

A3: Do you support introduction of these controls on all the beaches identified?

The majority of respondents (73%) support introduction of dog fouling controls on the 6 identified beaches – Saunton Sands, Woolacombe Sands, Putsborough Sands, Instow, Croyde Bay and Combe Martin.

27%

Yes No

73%

Page16 74 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

A4: Do you support us in giving delegated authority to approved third parties (such as police officers, Parish/Town Councils, beach owners, and other landowners) to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of enforcing these controls?

The majority of respondents (73%) support the proposal for giving delegated authority to approved third parties to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of enforcing dog fouling controls.

29%

Yes No

71%

A5: Comments and suggestions for alternative controls which would achieve the same aim as these proposals in relation to dog fouling

Summary of Themes There were 1,394 responses to this question. 42% of those who provided a response to this question provided comments which supported the proposals made (this equates to 19% of total respondents). 34% gave comments which opposed the proposed actions (15% of the total). 48% provided alternative suggestions to be considered and 25% raised other points that they wanted considered.

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this question respondents SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL 580 42% 19% OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL 470 34% 15% SUGGESTIONS FOR THIS POLICY 663 48% 22% OTHER POINTS RAISED 350 25% 11% NOT APPLICABLE 32 2% 1%

The tables below provide a summary of the themes identified in our analysis of all responses to this question.

Page17 75 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Support

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this respondents question Advocate dealing with dog fouling as it is important (without 61 4% 2% explicitly supporting FPNs) People should take responsibility for not looking after their 60 4% 2% dogs correctly Higher penalties for dog fouling 41 3% 1% This will help keep people safe from disease 32 2% 1%

Oppose

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this respondents question Dog walkers are generally responsible – only a minority are 209 15% 7% irresponsible. This would punish responsible dog owners Action on littering is more important 162 12% 5% There must be some controls on fines from “third parties” – private companies should not have this power, only the police 96 7% 3% or council officers. Conflict of interest if landlords and beach owners give out fines. This is a money making scheme Tourists are the problem, not local people 16 1% 1% This will cost the tax payer money that could be better used 16 1% 1% elsewhere Patrolling officers will ruin the beauty of the place and put people off coming – the police and Council have enough to do 11 1% 0% already The fine should be reduced 4 0% 0%

Page18 76 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Suggestions

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this respondents question Provide more dog waste bags and bins and more frequent 350 25% 11% emptying of bins Clear signage is needed for fines and when dogs need to be “on lead”. Specify “on lead” times of the day and year and 167 12% 5% designated areas. Make specific areas dog free Flyers, signage and campaigns encouraging all dog owners to be responsible. Training for dog owners on how to responsibly 118 8% 4% look after their dog All dogs should be kept on leads 80 6% 3% Photographic evidence of dog fouling from the public and CCTV 41 3% 1% could be used to catch “offenders” Introduce licences to keep dogs. Mandate dog training and 30 2% 1% chipping dogs for identification Ban dogs from beaches and parks 26 2% 1% This should include dog fouling on pavements and grassy areas. 6 0% 0% Other areas of Devon should be included in this Increase fines for repeated offences 3 0% 0%

Other

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this respondents question Don’t ban walking dogs – this is unfair for responsible dog 175 13% 6% walkers. Fears this may be an excuse to ban dogs all together This will be bad for Devon’s economy 109 8% 4% Dog walking is a good for socialising, mental health, exercise and family time. Restrictions will make it harder for disabled 61 4% 2% people to enjoy dog walking

Page19 77 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Cyclists are a problem on the Tarka Trail 48 3% 2% Instow beach is not clean enough to swim, so should be used 32 2% 1% by dog walkers Identification of repeated dog fouling owners. Name and 21 2% 1% shame and/or ban them from certain areas Criticism of the consultation process 19 1% 1% There are more pressing issues like antisocial behaviour and 17 1% 1% drug abuse in the area “Stick and Flick” method is better than bags and bins 8 1% 0% More restrictions on dog walking in these areas will lead to 7 1% 0% other areas, such as farmland, being at risk Allow dogs “on lead” on beaches 3 0% 0%

Themes in Detail

Agree They advocate dealing with dog fouling / think it is important (without explicitly supporting the FPNs) People didn’t specifically mention FPNs however they agreed that dog fouling needed to be controlled in the form of punishment as it is an increasing problem in the area. They complained that there is not enough being done to reduce the amount of dog fouling and that it tarnishes the beauty of North Devon. People also mentioned that bags filled with dog excrement are left and that this is also a huge problem in the area, and that there is no excuse for someone to do that. Some people blamed this on dogs not being on leads, meaning that the owners may be unaware of the fouling.

Less fouling would make people safer from infection and disease Respondents expressed concern regarding the diseases that can be caught from dog excrement, such as toxocariasis. This was especially important for children who play on beaches where dogs would regularly defecate around them. It was also mentioned that dog waste can be harmful to other animals as well.

People should take responsibility for not looking after their dogs correctly Respondents felt that dog owners should be prepared to take responsibility for their dogs, including picking up after them when they have fouled and disposing of it in a proper manner. Dog owners who failed to do this, it was felt, should be either educated, by way of training, or penalised.

Page20 78 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Higher penalty for dog fouling A higher penalty is needed for dog fouling in order to for it to act as a deterrent. This was mainly in the form of a larger FPN, e.g. £500. Some also mentioned that the higher penalty should include people being named and shamed, and that repeat offenders should have increasing fines.

Disagree Action on litter from people is more important and is more/equally a concern Some respondents disagreed that strong actions should be directed at the issue of dog fouling when they believed that littering was a much more pressing concern in the area, both in terms of unsightliness – spoiling the beauty of North Devon for both visitors and locals alike – and in causing potential danger to people and animals (e.g. broken glass).

Dog owners are generally responsible and could be unfairly punished for the actions of a few Some disagreed with the proposal because they believed that dog owners are generally responsible and that the proposal seeks to address problems caused by a very small minority with a blanket solution which would be felt as a punishment to many, for issues they have not caused. It was also felt that the issue of dog fouling and problem behaviour by some dog owners and their pets were exaggerated, and that those who ignored current rules would be unlikely to follow increased regulations, therefore the only outcome would be decreased liberties and enjoyment for those who already managed their dogs responsibly.

There must be some controls on fines from “third parties” – private companies should not have this power, only the police or council officers. There was a concern over who the “third party” would be, with some respondents feeling that the proposal would likely lead to a system where issuing fines for financial gain would become the driving force, rather than creating safety and cleanliness, and that it would lead to a conflict of interest between the general public and land owners. Fines, it was felt, should be given by Council employees or police officers only.

Tourists are the problem not the locals A small proportion said that tourists who brought their dogs with them caused far bigger problems in terms of dog fouling than local residents, who were much more likely to care about the area and who were familiar with the location of dog bins.

Page21 79 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Patrolling officers will ruin the aesthetics. The police and council have enough to do already Some respondents felt that seeing officers patrolling areas of beauty and “looking for people to fine” would diminish the atmosphere and reduce their enjoyment of a walk in nature. It was also felt that resources and manpower could be better employed elsewhere, and that there were more pressing problems to which police officers and council employees could put their time.

The fine should be reduced Some respondents stated that they felt the fine was set too high, and that it should be reduced to a figure or between £25 and £50.

Costs the tax payer money Some felt that the cost of these proposals would be better spent elsewhere, and that the upkeep of the land should be funded by the owners themselves, rather than the tax payer.

Suggestions Clear signage is needed for fines and when dogs need to be “on lead”. Create “off lead” times of the day and year in designated areas. Make specific areas dog free Respondents suggested that clearer signs stating where dogs are allowed off lead should be installed, as well as signs stating that fines will be issued for those not following rules. It was also suggested that there could be certain times of the day and year that dogs could be off lead in certain areas – for example, when areas are less populated – and that there should be areas where they are always free to run off- lead. It was felt that North Devon could provide room for everyone to enjoy the outdoors in a beneficial and satisfactory way, and that educating and reminding dog owners through signs would be preferable to employing officers and wardens and issuing fines.

CCTV and photographic evidence should be used to catch offenders Some respondents suggested that, in addition to the use of CCTV in problem areas, a web portal could be created whereby members of the public could provide video and photographic evidence of dog fouling offences.

Licences to keep dogs should be introduced and owners should take dogs to training It was suggested that requiring a license in order to own a dog, as well as requiring training for both dog and owner, would educate dog owners and instil in them an understanding and sense of the responsibilities of dog ownership. These requirements may also dissuade or prevent those unsuitable to

Page22 80 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B the proper care of an animal from becoming dog owners, therefore tackling the issue at root cause. The money gathered from dog licences could pay for both the enforcement of responsible dog ownership any clean up resulting from dog fouling. In addition, it was suggested that all dogs should be microchipped so that they can be easily identified and traced.

More dog waste bags and bins, and more frequent emptying of bins A large majority stated that there was not enough provision of dog excrement bins in order to properly encourage picking up after dogs. More bins would mean less people leaving their dog waste in bags on the ground. The bins should also be emptied more regularly, and especially during peak times. In addition, dog waste bags could also be made available, therefore removing the excuse for those who may have forgotten, run out, or otherwise neglected to ensure that they were suitable equipped for their walk.

Increased punishment for repeat offenders Respondents suggested that the level of fine should be increased in the event that a person repeats a dog fouling offence, and that the person offending could be named and shamed in the public domain.

Enlarge the area included in the proposal Some stated that they felt the area included in the proposal should be enlarged, to include other grassy areas, footpaths, and pavements. Dog fouling in areas was also seen as problematic and in need of attention, with some stating that they felt the problem of dog excrement was worse on pavements than on beaches.

Increased education and training for dog owners A significant number of people felt there was a need for the public to be educated on good dog ownership. This could be in the form of flyers, signs and campaigns in areas where dog owners take their dogs, as well as training on how to look after their dogs responsibly, which would encourage them to be more mindful of dog fouling. Education was suggested as a more positive approach than enforcing rules, which should be a last resort.

All dogs should be kept on leads and more control is needed for them Some felt that dogs should always be kept on a lead and be properly controlled at all times; this would ensure that owners were always aware when the dog is fouling and benefit the general safety of the

Page23 81 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B public – particularly for families and children. Unleashed dogs were termed “chaotic” and a “nuisance”, and was seen as a growing problem, with more and more people walking their dogs “off lead”.

Ban dogs from beaches and parks Some suggested that beaches and parks should be used for the enjoyment of people only, free from disruption and inconvenience caused by dogs. It was felt that it would be safer for children if they were able to play without dogs running around and potentially approaching them. Also, those who dislike dogs and would like to be outdoors in a place where there are no dogs felt that they had nowhere they could go which was truly “dog free”.

Other Don’t ban dog walking – this is unfair for responsible dog walkers. A large number of respondents objected to a ban of walking dogs either off lead or on lead. They felt this was an unfair proposal that discriminates against dog walkers, responsible or not. They agree that dog fouling is bad, however they disagree with the proposal, feeling it may lead to banning dogs from beaches entirely. This threatens the enjoyment people have when they walk their dogs, and was seen as a blanket punishment for a problem cause by a small minority.

Allowed dogs on lead on beaches Dog should always be allowed on beaches but they should be on a lead. Restricting the presence of dogs on beaches would directly affect tourism in North Devon and be detrimental to the economy.

Dog walking is a good way of socialising, and beneficial for physical and mental health The advantages to dog walking massively outweigh the disadvantages. For some people, their dog may be their sole companion and the main reason they go outdoors and exercise, as well as a key factor in social interaction. Too many restrictions on dog owners would mean they cannot exercise their dogs properly. Dog walking was seen as being beneficial for people’s mental health – especially during the pandemic – and meeting up with family and friends to walk dogs together was seen as an enjoyable and intrinsic part of life.

Visitors and tourists are important for the revenue they bring to the area, and they should be able to bring their dogs. Restrictions could negatively impact the economy of Devon People have moved to North Devon and visit North Devon because it is a welcoming, dog-friendly place to come. By enforcing these restrictions, it will affect the amount of people that visit North Devon and

Page24 82 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B stimulate the economy as there will be less people going to shops, pubs, restaurants, etc. Revenue in any way should not be restricted – especially in the time of COVID.

More pressing issues like antisocial behaviour and drug abuse Many people think dog fouling is bad, however it is not as bad as other issues in the area such as antisocial behaviour from humans and drug abuse. Fly tipping, barbecues, dirty nappies, speedy cyclists and rowdy behaviour were mentioned as example of antisocial behaviours respondents felt were more pressing issues to address than dog fouling.

Restrictions for dog walking in the named areas will lead to other areas being at risk Given that people need an outdoor space in order to walk their dogs, they will go elsewhere if they are restricted from beaches. Farmland was mentioned as seeing a likely increase in dog walking, and there were fears that this may impact on the safety of livestock, dog walkers and dogs alike. Moving the problem from one place to another would not be a solution but rather ignores the actual issue: the small but significant number of irresponsible dog owners.

Cyclists are a huge problem on the Tarka Trail Some respondents felt that issues caused by cyclists – particularly on the Tarka Trail – was a far greater problem than dog fouling. Inconveniences mentioned including: cycling too fast; not ringing their bells; being nasty and rude; and littering. Some stated that they had almost been hit by cyclists and that they worried about walking in places where cyclists were prevalent – particularly when walking with small children.

Stick and flick method is better than using bags, and better for the environment too Some felt that the “stick and flick” method should be encouraged and that excrement should be allowed to erode naturally – particularly in the countryside – thereby avoiding the use of plastic bags which do not erode and are often found hanging in branches or otherwise discarded along the path. It was noted that “stick and flick” is promoted by the National Trust. This suggestion, however, was not be expected to apply to beaches, but specifically to places with suitable and heavy plant growth.

Instow beach is not clean enough to bathe so should be used by dog walkers Some respondents felt that Instow Beach differed from other named beaches in that it is not a blue flag beach and therefore isn’t suitable for swimming. They suggested that Instow should be left alone and available for use by dog owners year round as and they pleased, either in full, or by way of the creation of

Page25 83 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B certain restriction-free areas. It was also mentioned that allowing dog walking on Instow Beach would be beneficial to the disabled. 3.3 Part B - dog control

North Devon Council believe walking or exercising dogs 'off lead' in public children's play areas can be dangerous, that it can cause nuisance or offence in public cemeteries, and that the presence of dogs on the six busy amenity beaches can cause nuisance to other beach users. The owners of these beaches want additional dog controls put in place during the summer season (Easter Day - 30th September).

We wish to consult on the following proposals:

• To issue FPNs of £100 to people who walk or exercise their dogs 'off lead' in enclosed children's play areas • To issue FPNs of £100 to people who walk or exercise their dogs 'off lead' in public cemeteries • To prohibit the presence of dogs on six amenity beaches identified above between Easter Day and 30th September, except in certain designated “dog friendly” areas. The beach owner will be responsible for identifying and promoting such designated “dog friendly” areas – including the provision of associated signage • To issue FPNs of £100 to people who allow their dogs to be present on these beaches – other than being in or travelling to the “dog friendly” areas as signed • To require a person to place their dogs on a lead of 2.0 metre length or less, as directed by a suitably delegated person/officer. • To issue FPNs of £100 to people who do not place their dogs on a lead of 2.0 metre length or less when directed by a suitable delegated person/officer • To increase the efficiency and effectiveness of enforcing this provision by giving delegated authority to approved third parties to issue FPNs • The above controls will not apply to people who are blind or partially sighted and have an assistance dog registered with a member organisation of Assistance Dogs UK.

Page26 84 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

B1: Do you support us in addressing these issues through a PSPO?

More than half of the respondents (59%) support addressing nuisance or offence caused by dogs in public cemeteries and on the six busy amenity beaches through a PSPO.

41% Yes No 59%

B2: Do you support the proposed controls in enclosed children's play areas?

The clear majority of respondents (92%) support introducing the proposed controls in enclosed children’s play areas.

Yes No

92%

B3: Comments or suggestions for alternative controls which would achieve the same aim as these proposals in children's play areas

Summary of Themes There were 605 responses to this question. 24% of those who provided a response to this question provided comments which supported the proposals made (this equates to 5% of total respondents). 34% gave comments which opposed the proposed actions (7% of the total). 45% provided alternative suggestions to be considered and 21% raised other points that they wanted considered.

Page27 85 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

% of respondents to % of total THEME No. this question respondents SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL 146 24% 5% OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL 204 34% 7% SUGGESTIONS FOR THIS POLICY 272 45% 9% OTHER POINTS RAISED 129 21% 4% NOT APPLICABLE 54 9% 2%

The tables below provide a summary of the themes identified in our analysis of all responses to this question:

Support

% of % of total THEME No. respondents to respondents this question I don't want dogs to scare me or my children 13 2% 0% The proposal will allow children to be safe from dogs’ behaviour 12 2% 0% and possible health hazards from dogs Support for higher penalties 9 1% 0% Support to ban dogs from all named places 4 1% 0%

Oppose

% of % of total THEME No. respondents to respondents this question The area chosen is too large – beaches and/or cemeteries should 50 8% 2% not be included in a dog ban on or off lead These regulations are already in place, we don’t need more, just 33 5% 1% enforce the rules we have Litter and antisocial behaviour are more important issues – dog 22 4% 1% walkers should not be singled out

Page28 86 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Should be enforced by public sector and dog wardens, not by private companies. Third parties will need clear ID and evidence 19 3% 1% when enforcing this Strong rules may mean that instructions are ignored or cause 10 2% 0% overcrowding Longer leads should be allowed as long as the dog is under control 5 1% 0% Fines are too large 4 1% 0% 2m lead is too long 2 0% 0%

Suggestions

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this respondents question Ban dogs in general from children's play areas 127 21% 4% Provide clear fenced-off areas designated for children's play with 39 6% 1% entry prohibited by dogs All dogs should be kept on lead at all times 20 3% 1% Set out specific times of day to allow for dog walking off lead 19 3% 1% Maximum of one dog on a lead per person in children's play areas 3 0% 0% Dog licences should be introduced 2 0% 0%

Other

% of % of total THEME No. respondents to respondents this question Provide clear and reasonable areas designated for dog walkers. Locals and holiday makers are important for the economy, and 87 14% 3% this includes dog owners. Do not ban dogs anywhere Dogs being off lead is good for the dog’s health and owner’s enjoyment and mental health. It is educational for children to be 39 6% 1% thoughtful towards animals. Dogs are “part of the family” Instow beach is not clean enough to swim in, so this should be 15 2% 0% used by dog walkers Criticism of the consultation process 12 2% 0%

Page29 87 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Detailed Themes

Support I don't want dogs to scare me or my children Parents would like dogs away from children’s play areas so that they don’t scare them or create a phobia of them for the future. Some children are already scared of dogs and aren’t able to use the play areas comfortably with dogs around, which was seen as unfair. Furthermore, dog owners who fail to control their dogs in children’s play areas – even when asked to do so – were seen as making the experience frightening for both children and parents alike.

The proposal will allow children to be safe from dogs’ behaviour and possible health hazards from dogs Respondents felt that having dog-free areas would be better for the safety of children, possibly preventing infection and disease caused from exposure to urine and faeces, as well as avoiding the problem of stepping in dog excrement.

Support for higher penalties Some felt that proposed penalties should be higher, and that £100 was not enough of a deterrent to irresponsible owners. Repeated offenders could receive have higher fines and/or community service programs involving the cleaning up of dog excrement.

Oppose Strong rules may mean that instructions are ignored or cause overcrowding Some felt that the introduction of strong rules may lead to overcrowding in other areas, people using areas that are not suitable, or people “rebelling” by ignoring the rules altogether.

Litter and antisocial behaviour are more important issues As mentioned above, some also stated here that they felt dog owners were being unfairly singled out and that there were more important antisocial human issues which needed addressing, such as littering, drunken/drug-fuelled behaviour, teenage disruptive behaviour and unruly children. These issues need to be treated as a whole together.

The area chosen is too large Some respondents felt that the named areas provided ample space for all to enjoy, and that banning dogs completely was too draconian. While they agreed that children’s play areas would be better served by being dog-free, it was felt that imposing restrictions on beaches and cemeteries was unnecessary. It was

Page30 88 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B also pointed out that some children love to play and run with their dogs, and that it is beneficial for their exercise and wellbeing; therefore a ban could actually be detrimental to a significant number of children and their families.

Regulations should be enforced by the public sector and dog wardens, not by private companies As above in A5, there was a concern over who the “third party” issuing fines would be. People said that this is likely to lead to a system where issuing more fines would be in the favour of the delegated “third party” for financial gain. This would lead to a conflict of interest between the general public and landowners. Fines should strictly be given by a council employee, police officer or dog warden only. Clear evidence should be shown when issuing FPNs with clear identification of the issuing person.

Length of lead Some felt that the 2m was too long and that a dog cannot be properly controlled or prevented from jumping on other people with a lead of that length, while it was also stated that extendable leads should be banned. Others, however, felt that as long as a dog was under control then a restriction on lead length was unnecessary, pointing out that some dogs behaved better with longer leads and that longer leads were more beneficial in terms of exercise and canine socialisation.

The regulations are already in place, but they aren’t enforced Respondents stated a belief that there are already sufficient regulations in place, and while most dog owners know about these regulations and abide by them, currently, when the rules are broken, they aren’t enforced. Increasing rules and regulation, therefore, isn’t solving the problem; rather, current regulations should be enforced first.

Fines are too large The fine should be lower and then increase if repeated offence.

Suggestions Ban dogs in general from children's play areas A large majority of people said that dogs should be banned from children’s play areas entirely. This would make the play areas a safe place for children to play and for parents to relax. This reduces any risk a child may have around a dog. The residue left when dog faeces has been picked up is still unhygienic for children.

Page31 89 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Maximum of one dog on a lead per person in children's play areas Limiting the number of dogs per person in play areas ensure that the dog is properly controlled around children and any dog fouling that occurs will be picked up.

Provide clear fenced-off areas designated for children's play area prohibited entry by dogs A significant number of people said that areas specifically for children to play should be marked and fenced off, prohibited to dogs on or off lead. A fence will make sure the dog can’t get in the park. Some say that dogs should have their own fenced area away from the general public in order to run free. This would separate both parties where the clear issues of antisocial behaviour can be identified.

Set out specific times of day to allow for dog walking off lead Some suggested that dog walking off lead should be restricted to certain times of day that are seen as “off peak”. This would enable people to be able to walk and exercise their dogs freely without disturbing the general public. This was suggested as a fair compromise.

All dogs should be kept on lead at all times All dogs should be kept on a lead in order to have full control of the dog at all times while out in public. This would stop them from fouling in places that owners cannot see. Dogs off lead can be a menace to families and individuals that do not like dogs.

Dog licences should be introduced As above in A5.

Clearer signage to enforce rules and areas where dogs are banned or should be kept on/off lead in these areas. Educate children on how to approach dogs. Educate people how to train/keep dogs. Educating the public on how to have responsible dog ownership is needed to be encouraged by the council. It should be made clear that if you have an uncontrollable dog they should be on lead through signage and educating the public. More signage needs to be clear about where dogs are allowed and the areas in which they are allowed off or on lead. Children need to be educated as to how they need to behave around dogs – for example, knowing that they should ask before approaching a dog.

Page32 90 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Provide a place outside a children's play area where people can keep their dogs without being stolen Some parents need to be able to exercise their dogs as well as take their children out. Having safe areas where dogs can be kept outside children’s play areas would be helpful so that both can be done at the same time. As opposed to having dogs strapped somewhere where they can potentially be stolen.

Other Dogs being off lead is good for the dog’s health and owner’s enjoyment and mental health. It is educational for children to be thoughtful towards animals. Dogs are “part of the family” Dogs need to be off lead to be exercised properly and it is good for their health. It is the duty of the dog owner to be able to care for their dogs properly. Dog walking together with family is an enjoyable experience for some and some treat their dogs are part of the family. Child and dog relationships can be healthy for the wellbeing of the dogs, the children and the parents. Dog walking is a good way of helping with mental health and exercise and people need to be able to enjoy the public areas with their dogs.

Provide clear and reasonable areas designated for dog walkers. Locals and holiday makers are important for the economy, this includes dog owners. Do not ban dogs anywhere As above in A5.

Instow beach is not clean enough to swim in, so this should be used by dog walkers As above in A5.

B4: Do you support the proposed controls in public cemeteries?

The clear majority of respondents (87%) support the proposed controls for dogs in public cemeteries.

13%

Yes No

87%

Page33 91 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

B5: Comments and suggestions for alternative controls which would achieve the same aim as these proposals in public cemeteries

Sentiment Analysis There were 323 responses to this question. 36% of those who provided a response to this question provided comments which supported the proposals made (this equates to 4% of total respondents). 26% gave comments which opposed the proposed actions (3% of the total). 25% provided alternative suggestions to be considered and 16% raised other points that they wanted considered.

% of respondents to % of total THEME No. this question respondents SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL 115 36% 4% OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL 84 26% 3% SUGGESTIONS FOR THIS POLICY 81 25% 3% OTHER POINTS RAISED 51 16% 2% NOT APPLICABLE 51 16% 2%

Summary of Themes The tables below provide a summary of the themes identified in our analysis of all responses to this question:

Support

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this respondents question Larger penalty required 9 3% 0% A larger area should be included in this proposal 3 1% 0%

Page34 92 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Oppose

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this respondents question People are in control of their dogs in cemeteries already and relevant rules already exist. It would be better to enforce existing 20 6% 1% rules Designated areas for dogs are essential on beaches for holidaymakers (for economic reasons), do not included beaches in 15 5% 0% this proposal. Dogs need open spaces to exercise and be walked without so many restrictions Dogs walking “off lead” but under control should not be fined – in 12 4% 0% control in general should not be fined Private sector companies should not get revenue from this. Evidence 10 3% 0% should be shown when issuing fines. The process should be fair Provide designated areas in cemeteries to walk dogs on / off lead, as it is some peoples only accessible area where they can exercise their 10 3% 0% dogs Going straight to fines without considering other options is too 8 2% 0% heavy handed 2m lead requirement should be changed to just be on a lead 3 1% 0% Fine are too high – repeat offenders should have fines increased 3 1% 0%

Suggestions

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this respondents question Ban dogs from cemeteries, but do not apply this to assistance dogs 35 11% 1% Provide better signage, advice and notices in local papers. Educate people on how to train dogs and on responsible ownership. Dog 31 10% 1% licences should be mandated Keep dogs on leads at all times 8 2% 0%

Page35 93 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Provide dog racks to tie dogs to when visiting cemeteries, outside 4 1% 0% cemeteries or in designated areas Dogs only on a designated footpath in cemeteries 3 1% 0% Provide more CCTV coverage to catch offenders 3 1% 0% Specify times during the day for dogs to be allowed on beaches and 2 1% 0% cemeteries rather than seasonal bans

Other

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this respondents question Dogs are a companion when mourning with family, they should be allowed in cemeteries and they should be able to mourn their 32 10% 1% owners too Do not agree in general to dog bans 13 4% 0% Criticism of the consultation process 7 2% 0% I do not want to leave my dog unattended whilst mourning 3 1% 0% Common sense should prevail 2 1% 0%

Detailed Themes

Support Larger penalty required As mentioned above, some suggested that larger fines (up to £500) and/or community service orders in which the offender clears dog excrement should be applied.

A larger area should be included in this proposal More beaches should be included in this proposal, specifically Wildersmouth Beach, RNLI launch Beach and Ilfracombe beaches. Some suggested this should be imposed for a longer time than it is proposed.

Page36 94 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Oppose Going straight to fines without considering other options is too heavy handed Other options should be presented before going straight to fines. It seems a bit petty and unnecessary. It seems like dog walkers are targeted and penalised in this proposal.

Designated areas for dogs are essential on beaches for holidaymakers (for economic reasons), do not include beaches in this proposal. Dogs need open spaces to exercise and be walked without so many restrictions There needs to be designated areas where people can walk their dogs as people need a place to be able to exercise their dogs. There are too many restrictions and people are having less and less space to be able to walk their dogs. Cemeteries are always empty and people will end up there to walk their dogs as other places have too many restrictions. Beaches should be kept out of these proposals to protect the cemeteries from dogs. This is very important for the locals and tourists.

Dogs walking “off lead” but under control should not be fined – in control in general should not be fined People who can walk their well-behaved dogs responsibly without a lead should not be fined. People who have uncontrollable dogs should be fined instead. The specific irresponsible person should be targeted rather than introducing blanket restrictions.

Private sector companies should not get revenue from this. The process should be fair and transparent – evidence should be shown when issuing fines. As above in A5.

2m lead requirement should be changed to just being “on lead” 2m leads are not necessary, dogs should just be on a lead whatever length that is.

People are in control of their dogs in cemeteries already and relevant rules already exist. It would be better to enforce existing rules Restrictions in cemeteries should not be necessary, people already know how to handle their dogs there and are respectful of people mourning. Rules are already in place for keeping dogs behaved, they just need to be enforced more. These places are already quiet and you are punishing dog owners for no reason.

Page37 95 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Provide designated areas in cemeteries to walk dogs on / off lead, as it is some people’s only accessible area where they can exercise their dogs There are less and less places that people can go to exercise their dogs. Some people need quiet places to train their dogs and cemeteries are the only quiet place they can go. Some people cannot access other places to walk their dogs and there should be designated off lead areas in cemeteries for dog walkers. It is the safest place away from cars and roads.

Fine are too high – though repeat offenders should have fines increased The fines are too high. They should be lowered and then repeat offenders should have them increased each time.

Suggestions Provide better signage, advice and notices in local papers. Educate people on how to train dogs and on responsible ownership As above in A5. And, in addition, it was suggested that clear signs indicating where and when funerals are taking place should be posted in order to keep dogs out of those areas.

Ban dogs from cemeteries, but do not apply this to assistance dogs People suggested dogs should be completely banned from cemeteries as their presence is disrespectful. Dog should not be in cemeteries, they may end up fouling on or near a grave. They may bark and disrupt people grieving, there are plenty of other places they can go. This does not apply to assistance dogs.

Keep dogs on leads at all times Dogs should be kept on leads at all times in cemeteries so that they can be properly controlled and seen when fouling.

Specify times during the day when dogs are allowed in cemeteries There should be certain times in the day when dogs can be walked off lead in cemeteries. This would eliminate any incidence when funerals are taking place. Seasonal bans should not be introduced.

Dogs only on a designated footpath in cemeteries Dogs should only be allowed on the footpaths in cemeteries so that incidents don’t take place on graves. These are public footpaths that people may need to use to get from A to B.

Page38 96 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Provide more CCTV coverage to catch offenders CCTV should be used to catch people offending, this is a good way of providing proof.

Provide dog racks to tie dogs to when visiting cemeteries, outside cemeteries or in designated areas Dog racks should be provided for people so that they can keep their dogs in a safe place when visiting graves. This can be just outside or on the edge of the cemeteries where it is shady and there is water provided for the dogs. Some, however, stated that they would not want to leave their dogs unattended and expressed concerns over dog theft.

Other Do not agree to dog bans Some respondents could not agree with any policy where dogs are banned, though they did agree that increase dog control was necessary.

Dogs are a companion when mourning with family, they should be allowed in cemeteries and they should be able to mourn their owners too Dog owners consider their dogs as family and may feel that they need them as companions while grieving. This would be a very unfair proposal if people could not be able to take their dogs with them when they need them for support. Some people only have their dogs in their lives and need them for companionship. Dogs also need to go to mourn their owners. Dogs might be part of the service.

Common sense should prevail People should be encouraged to use their common sense and control their dogs around grieving people funeral goers.

B6: Do you support the proposed controls on Saunton Sands?

More than half of the respondents (56%) do not support the proposed controls on Saunton Sands.

44% Yes 56% No

Page39 97 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

B7: Do you support the proposed controls on Woolacombe Sands?

More than half of the respondents (53%) do not support the proposed controls on Woolacombe Sands

47% Yes 53% No

B8: Do you support the proposed controls on Putsborough Sands?

More than half of the respondents (54%) do not support the proposed controls on Putsborough Sands.

46% Yes 54% No

B9: Do you support the proposed controls on Instow beach?

More than half of the respondents (58%) do not support the proposed controls on Instow beach.

42% Yes No 58%

B10: Do you support the proposed controls on Croyde Bay?

Half of respondents support the proposed controls on Croyde Bay and 50% do not support the proposals.

Yes 50% 50% No

Page40 98 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

B11: Do you support the proposed controls on Combe Martin beach?

More than half of the respondents (53%) do not support the proposed controls on Combe Martin beach.

47% Yes 53% No

B12: Do you support the proposal of designated areas of the beaches being promoted as being “dog friendly” - i.e. places where people can exercise their dogs without restrictions?

The majority of respondents (73%) support the proposal of introducing designated areas of the beaches being promoted as being “dog friendly”.

27%

Yes No

73%

B13: Do you support the proposed controls to require a person to place their dogs on a lead of 2.0 metre length or less, as directed by a suitably delegated person/officer? More than half of the respondents (53%) support the proposed controls to require a person to place their dogs on a lead of 2 meters in length or less, as directed by a suitably delegated person or officer.

Yes 47% 53% No

Page41 99 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

B14: Suggestions for alternative controls which would achieve the same aims as these proposals on the beaches

Summary of Themes There were 1,286 responses to this question. 13% of those who provided a response to this question provided comments which supported the proposals made (this equates to 6% of total respondents). 63% gave comments which opposed the proposed actions (26% of the total). 24% provided alternative suggestions to be considered and 57% raised other points that they wanted considered.

% of respondents to % of total THEME No. this question respondents SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL 170 13% 6% OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL 808 63% 26% SUGGESTIONS FOR THIS POLICY 308 24% 10% OTHER POINTS RAISED 731 57% 24% NOT APPLICABLE 46 4% 1%

The tables below provide a summary of the themes identified in our analysis of all responses to this question:

Support

% of % of total THEME No. respondents to respondents this question Dogs are dangerous and unpredictable – not everyone is safe around 31 2% 1% dogs, and they can be a danger to wildlife People should take responsibility for their dogs – those that do will not 11 1% 0% object to these proposals Compulsory dog training and higher fines for repeat offenders 4 0% 0%

Page42 100 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Oppose

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this question respondents

Walking a controlled dog “off lead” responsibly is not dangerous – “on lead” can be more dangerous for cyclists and is a trip hazard. The trail is multi-use and it is for all, dog walkers alone should not be 483 38% 16% discriminated against. All users of the trail should be treated equally, with consideration of fines to all who misuse these spaces As exercising a dog is important, this leaves few options for walking dogs – especially for the elderly, the disabled, and those who live 133 10% 4% near these areas. People will go to places that are not safe, e.g. the countryside where livestock and nesting birds may be affected The minority with uncontrolled dogs should be fined as opposed to punishing everyone – dog walkers should be allowed to have their dogs off 120 9% 4% lead at the owners risk The proposal should be restricted to busier times or areas on the 84 7% 3% Tarka Trail – e.g. summer, weekend or “peak times” Antisocial behaviour and litter are more of a problem than dog 39 3% 1% walkers 2m lead is too long 26 2% 1% FPNs should only be given by a dog warden or public employee – this 21 2% 1% does not need a PSPO The Tarka Trail should be kept out of this proposal 20 2% 1% 2m lead it too short 19 1% 1% There is over use of fines – leniency should be shown, e.g. if breaches are accidental, or if there is no one else on the Trail, you should not 13 1% 0% be fined.

Page43 101 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Suggestions

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this question respondents

Clearer signage for rules and fines, including ways the public can report offenders. Educate the public on awareness of dogs, training 105 8% 3% dogs, and campaigns encouraging people to be aware of their surroundings. CCTV could be used to enforce this Dogs should be kept on lead so they can be properly controlled 44 3% 1% Specify certain times of day for dogs to be allowed “off lead” – e.g. 40 3% 1% when locations are not busy Limit the number of people and cyclists who can use the trail at certain times. Limit the number of dogs per person - makes the 32 2% 1% owner more able to control the dog Uncontrolled dogs should be put on leads. There would need to be a 31 2% 1% dedicated person to enforce this Provide separate area for bikers and dog walkers on the Tarka trail 30 2% 1% Dogs should be kept on short leads on the Tarka trail so they are safe 29 2% 1% from / not a danger to cyclists. Existing laws should be enforced 18 1% 1% Children can also be a problem 11 1% 0% Dogs should be kept out of the Tarka trail and beaches 10 1% 0% Dog owners and walkers should be given priority on the Tarka trail 9 1% 0% before cyclists

Other

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this question respondents

Cyclists are a problem on the Tarka trail 665 52% 22% There are many benefits to dog walking – exercise, family time, enjoyment, mental health, socialising, tourism and the economy. It is 110 9% 4% also good for the dog to be “off lead” Criticism of the consultation process 30 2% 1% Common sense of the public should be used 11 1% 0%

Page44 102 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Detailed Themes

Support People should take responsibility for their dogs – those that do will not object to these proposals These restrictions are fair and responsible owners will not object to this, they have a duty to control their dogs.

Dogs are dangerous and unpredictable – not everyone is safe around dogs, and they can be a danger to wildlife Some respondents felt that dogs are a nuisance to society and they need to be properly controlled with these restrictions. They can be dangerous to adults and children and they need to be kept away in order to have a safe environment. They can also disrupt the environment with their fouling.

Compulsory dog training and higher fines for repeat offenders As above.

Oppose There is over use of fines – leniency should be shown, e.g. if breaches are accidental, or if there is no one else on the Trail These rules are draconian and unfair. The issues of dog walking is exaggerated. These restrictions should not apply to parts of the trail where there very little human presence. And fines that are to be given must be lenient if done by accident.

Walking a controlled dog “off lead” responsibly is not dangerous – “on lead” can be more dangerous for cyclists and is a trip hazard. The trail is multi-use and is for all, the trail should be respected. Dog walkers alone should not be discriminated against – all users of the trail should be treated equally, with consideration of fines to all who misuse these spaces There is room on the Tarka Trail and beaches for all of the public to use, they are a multi-use facility and should be respected by all. A well behaved dog that is in control should not be given a fine and picked on as it is not a danger to society. If fines are being given out in these areas then every antisocial behaviour that may occur should be treated equally – e.g. fast cyclists, people who litter, etc. Insisting dogs are on a lead all the time could be a trip hazard for walkers and bikers. Some dogs are better off lead as they can keep away from oncoming cyclists.

Page45 103 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

The minority with uncontrolled dogs should be fined as opposed to punishing everyone – dog walkers should be allowed to have their dogs off lead at the owners’ risk These blanket restrictions punish all dog owners whereas most are responsible and cause no trouble. Increasing regulations across the board does not solve the issue. Instead, enforcing current rules and issuing FPNs to owners who are irresponsible would be a better step. A dog walker should be able to make their own decision on where and when they would like to keep their dog on a lead and off lead, and that decision should be made by the owners risk alone.

As exercising a dog is important, this leaves few options for walking dogs – especially for the elderly, disabled people and those that live near to these areas. People will go to places that are not safe – e.g. the countryside, which may negatively impact livestock and nesting birds It is a dog owner’s responsibility to exercise their dogs properly. If they cannot let their dogs run free on the Tarka Trail and the beaches then where will they be able to go? You are leaving people with very few options. More and more places that actually allow dogs will become overcrowded due to further restrictions and people will end up ignoring the rules or walking their dogs in places that they shouldn’t – for example, near livestock and roosting birds. The elderly and the disabled need places with flat surfaces to be able to walk their dogs on or off lead and the Tarka Trail is one of the only places they can do this.

The proposal should be restricted to busier times or areas on the Tarka Trail – e.g. summer, weekend or “peak times” These proposals are understandable for “peak times” where there are a lot of people around. During the summer months is a reasonable suggestion or the busy weekend times. There are also busier areas on the trail where owners should be urged to keep their dogs under control.

The Tarka Trail should be kept out of this proposal The Tarka trail is for all and it should not be included in this proposal. FPNs should not be issued to people on the Tarka trail.

Antisocial behaviour and litter are more of a problem than dog walkers As above.

2m lead is too short/too long As above.

Page46 104 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

FPNs should only be given by a dog warden or public employee – this does not need a PSPO As above.

Suggestion Clearer signage for rules and fines, including ways the public can report offenders. Educate the public on awareness of dogs, training dogs, campaigns encouraging people to be aware of their surroundings. CCTV could be used to enforce this (Has been mentioned before, see other sections).

Uncontrolled dogs should be put on leads. There would need to be a dedicated person to enforce this (Has been mentioned before, see other sections).

Children can also be a problem Children can be just as dangerous as dogs and they should be kept on a lead too if you insist that dogs should be kept on a lead.

Dogs should be kept on lead so they can be properly controlled Dogs need to be able to be properly controlled by their owners. The only way this can be done is by keeping them on a lead in these areas at all times.

Dog owners and walkers should be given priority on the Tarka trail before cyclists The Tarka trail is for everyone, not just cyclists. Walkers with or without dogs should be given priority in this area.

Limit the number of people and cyclists who can use the trail at certain times. Limit the number of dogs per person There should be a restriction on the number of dogs a person can walk in order to be in full control of the dog. The Tarka Trail is very long and there are areas where it is hardly used, therefore restrictions should not be imposed in all areas. Areas where there is a lot of foot traffic dogs should be advised to be kept on leads. Cyclists should also have restrictions in busy areas, and should be told to slow down or avoid the area entirely.

Page47 105 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Existing laws should be enforced These restrictions are not necessary. There are laws already that stop people from letting uncontrollable dogs cause havoc. These existing laws just need more enforcement.

Provide separate area for bikers and dog walkers on the Tarka trail Dogs and cyclists need to be separated from each other. There should be parts of the Tarka trail that are just for dog walkers or walkers only and no cyclists can enter. Or the trail itself should be separated with a line where each party keeps to each section.

Dogs should be kept out of the Tarka trail and beaches The Tarka trail and beaches should not allow dogs at all, they should be for the use of humans only and provide a place where people can enjoy the outdoors free from the nuisance of dogs.

Other Cyclists are a problem on the Tarka trail A very large number of people – almost 700 – expressed a number of complaints about cyclists on the Tarka Trail. It is important to address this issue due to the volume of people that expressed their concerns. Many people said they or their dogs have almost been hit by cyclists. Some said that they have actually collided with cyclists. They expressed that cyclists go too fast and use the trail as a race track, causing dangers for walkers who do not have enough time to get out of the way. They sometimes fear stopping to pick up their dog’s waste in fear of a cyclist not seeing them do so. Cyclists don’t have or use their bells to let people know they are coming. They ride in groups where they do not leave enough space for pedestrians. It was felt that pedestrians should have the right of way and that if cyclists wanted a place where they could ride as quickly as possible they should use the roads. Many also stated that they have found cyclists rude and confrontational, and also expressed concerns that accidents with small children will occur if cyclists are not controlled. Some also stated that they have seen cyclists riding with their dogs on a lead alongside, which was felt to represent a danger and something which should be banned.

There are many benefits to dog walking – exercise, family time, enjoyment, mental health, socialising, tourism and the economy. It is also good for the dog to be “off lead” As above.

Common sense of the public should be used Some respondents felt that common sense rather than fines should dictate how short or long a dog’s lead should be, or whether they should be on lead or not.

Page48 106 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

3.4 Part C - formal sports pitches

The presence of dog fouling on public and privately owned formal sports pitches (e.g. football, rugby, cricket, netball, tennis courts, bowling greens, athletics tracks) is a risk to health. High levels of cleanliness in these locations are particularly important to us due to our desire to promote tourism, the economy, and support residents and visitors to have a healthy and active lifestyle. We believe that regulatory controls should be considered as a result of:

(i) The current level of regulatory activity. (ii) The observations of our Neighbourhood Wardens who patrol the district. (iii) Private sports pitch owners wanting dog controls enforced to enable these areas to be safely used for the purpose which they are designed.

We wish to consult on the following proposals:

• To issue FPNs of £100 to people who do not pick up their dog’s waste from all publicly owned formal sports pitches. • To issue FPNs of £100 to people who do not pick up their dog’s waste from all privately owned formal sports pitches, where the owner has requested such controls. • To prohibit the presence of dogs on all publicly owned formal sports pitches. • To prohibit the presence of dogs on all privately owned sports pitches, where the owner has requested such controls. • To issue FPNs of £100 to people who allow their dogs to be present on all publicly owned sports pitches. • To issue FPNs of £100 to people who allow their dogs to be present on all privately owned formal sports pitches, where the owner has requested such controls. • To increase the efficiency and effectiveness of enforcing this provision by delegating authority to approved third parties to issue FPNs.

The above controls will not apply to people who are blind or partially sighted and have an assistance dog registered with a member organisation of Assistance Dogs UK. The site owner will be responsible for the provision of associated signage and promotion of these restrictions.

Page49 107 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

C1: Do you support us in addressing this area of community need through a PSPO?

The majority of respondents (77%) support the proposal to address dog fouling on public and privately owned formal sports pitches through the introduction of a PSPO.

23%

Yes No

77%

C2: Do you support the proposed controls on all public and privately owned sports pitches across the district?

The majority of respondents (76%) support the proposed controls being introduced for all public and privately owned sports pitches across the district.

24%

Yes No

76%

C3: Do you support us in giving delegated authority to approved third parties (such as police officers, Parish/Town Councils, sports pitch owners, and other landowners) to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of enforcing these controls?

The majority of respondents (73%) support the proposal to give delegated authority to approved third parties to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of enforcing the controls on public and privately owned sports pitches across the district to address dog fouling.

27%

Yes No

73%

Page50 108 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

C4: Comments and suggestions for alternative controls which would achieve the same aim as these proposals for public and privately owned sports pitches

Summary of Themes There were 634 responses to this question. 36% of those who provided a response to this question provided comments which supported the proposal regarding FPNs for dog fouling (this equates to 7% of total respondents) and 24% expressed support for a ban on dogs (5% of the total). 27% provided comments which opposed the proposed actions in general (6% of the total), with 31% specifically disagreeing with the dog ban and 1 response disagreeing with FPNs for dog fouling. 21% provided alternative suggestions to be considered and 7% raised other points that they wanted considered.

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this question respondents SUPPORT - FPNs FOR DOG FOULING 226 36% 7% SUPPORT - DOG BAN 155 24% 5% OPPOSE – GENERAL OPPOSITION 173 27% 6% OPPOSE - DOG BAN 199 31% 6% OPPOSE - FPNs DOG FOULING 1 0% 0% SUGGESTIONS 133 21% 4% OTHER COMMENTS 44 7% 1% NOT APPLICABLE 44 6% 1%

The tables below provide a summary of themes identified in our analysis of all responses to this question.

Support

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this question respondents

Provide alternative suitable spaces for dogs nearby 29 5% 1% This will protect children and adults due to public health hazard of

dog fouling 22 3% 1%

Increase the fines – owners should then have to be educated 15 2% 0%

Page51 109 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Oppose

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this question respondents

Dogs “on lead” should be allowed around pitches but not on them 79 12% 3% Concerns about using third parties – this should only be the local

authority dog wardens. Must be fair and well controlled 69 11% 2% Sports pitches should be used by all – dogs should be allowed in

these areas as long as they are under control 54 9% 2% Irresponsible few should not spoil it for the responsible many –

punish the irresponsible 43 7% 1% Sports pitches are only used occasionally – dog walkers should have as much right to exercise their dogs here in off season and

when there are no games 34 5% 1% For some (elderly and disabled) this is the only space they can walk their dogs – they should be allowed to do so in a controlled

manner 22 3% 1% Do not include multi-use areas that hold festivals/events and dog

shows or are used for dog training sessions 5 1% 0%

Suggestions

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this question respondents Clear signage and enforce rules properly – encourage people to

act responsibly 75 12% 2%

Provide more bags and bins that are regularly emptied 21 3% 1% Fence off areas dogs should not be in – only during sporting

season 20 3% 1% Public reporting, name and shame offenders, CCTV and an appeal

system. Ban offenders banned from these areas 17 3% 1%

Dogs should be kept on a lead if there is a match 4 1% 0%

Page52 110 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Rock Park pitch areas should be better defined pitch areas 3 0% 0%

Dogs should be kept on a lead in all public areas 3 0% 0%

Provide “ball free” areas for dogs so they don’t get distracted 1 0% 0%

Other

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this question respondents Other issues needs to be addressed – litter, antisocial behaviour,

human faeces and public urinating 19 3% 1%

Criticism of the consultation process 14 2% 0%

This would be bad for the local economy 7 1% 0% Delegating this will be difficult – the minority will always ignore it

and police have other priorities 5 1% 0%

Detailed Themes

Support

Agree to FPNs for Dog Fouling

This will protect children and adults due to the public health hazard of dog fouling Dog fouling is a health hazard. Even when people pick up their dog’s excrement traces may remain and make their way on to a person’s body. This is a public health hazard.

Increase the fines – owners should then have to be educated The amount for fines is wrong. The fines should be increased to act as a deterrent. There should be extra measures in place to punish such as dog education classes.

Agree to a dog ban There is no place for a dog in these areas, they should just be for people.

Page53 111 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Provide alternative suitable spaces for dogs nearby Some respondents agreed with the proposed ban on dogs on and around sports pitches with the proviso that suitably large alterative areas were provided for people to be able to exercise their dogs – potentially near to the sports areas that would be restricted.

Oppose

Disagree in general This whole proposal is wrong and it should not be taking place at all.

Disagree to a ban on dogs Dogs should not be banned from these areas under any circumstances.

Concerns about using third parties – this should only be the local authority dog wardens. Must be fair and well controlled As mentioned above in previous sections. Also, in addition, respondents felt that public money should not be used to benefit privately owned sports facilities, stating that private land owners could enforce their own rules if they chose, but that public land should be used for the public.

Irresponsible few should not spoil it for the responsible many – punish the irresponsible Most dog owners are responsible and there are a few that are not. These restrictions are punishing all including most of the responsible dog owners and that is not fair.

Sports pitches are only used occasionally – dog walkers have as much right to use them Some felt that sports pitches are utilised far more by dog walkers than by people playing sports, and that dog walkers have just as much a right to use them to exercise their dogs – particularly during off season and when no games are taking place.

Dogs “on lead” should be allowed around pitches but not on them Families often come to watch their children play with their dogs as it is a long day and they cannot leave them at home or in the car. It is a nice family activity including the dog. They should be allowed to accompany their owners if they are not on the pitch, but rather at the side and on a lead.

Page54 112 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Sports pitches should be used by all – dogs should be allowed in these areas as long as they are under control Sports pitches should be used by all whether the dog is on or off lead. This is due to sports pitches being used a lot of the time to train dogs as it is a safe place away from roads and cars, while on occasion gated areas are necessary for some dogs (e.g. tennis courts). Many other alternative places are being restricted and there is no other place for dog walkers to go to exercise their dogs. They should be allowed in these areas without restrictions as long as they are under control.

For some (e.g. the elderly and disabled) this is the only space they can walk their dogs For some people that live close to these areas that do not have a car this is the only place that they are able to walk their dogs. People such as the elderly and the disabled have only this area to walk their dogs and it would be devastating to them if they could not do so. Not allowing them to do so in a controlled manner without causing problems to others would seem unfair.

Do not include multi-use areas that hold festivals/events and dog shows or are used for dog training These sports pitches are multi-use and sometimes have festivals and events such as dog shows. Dog training sessions also use these pitches.

Disagreement with the idea that dog fouling on sports pitches is a problem Dog fouling is not a problem in this area and should not be enforced.

Suggestions Dogs should be kept on a lead if there is a match If there is a match it should be clearly stated that dogs should be kept on leads.

Clear signage and enforce rules properly – encourage people to act responsibly There should be very clear signs that encourage people to manage their dogs responsibly, that indicate which areas are out of bounds, and which fully detail the current and proposed rules. Education should be favoured over restrictions, but where education doesn’t succeed existing rules should be more fully enforced.

Pitch areas should be better defined pitch areas Some respondents felt that certain parks – particularly Rock Park – had sports areas which were not well defined, therefore making it difficult to know where the pitch actually was.

Page55 113 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Fence off areas dogs should not be in Some suggested that sports pitches should be fenced off to prevent dogs from wandering into them (though not fenced during the off-season).

Public reporting, name and shame offenders, CCTV and an appeal system. Ban offenders banned from these areas As above.

Dogs should be kept on a lead in all public areas There should be no public spaces where dogs are allowed off lead.

Provide more bags and bins that are regularly emptied If more bin and dog waste bags are provided and emptied this would encourage people to be more mindful about picking up after their dogs.

Provide “ball free” areas for dogs so they don’t get distracted Dogs also need an area where they can run without being distracted by sports games with balls.

Other Comments

Other issues needs to be addressed – litter and antisocial behaviour As detailed in previous sections.

Delegating this will be difficult – the minority will always ignore it and police have other priorities Some felt that this was an unrealistic proposal that will be hard to delegate or monitor. The minority will always ignore FPNs and the police have more important things to worry about.

Banning dogs would be bad for the local economy Having an anti-dog attitude will stop people from visiting and affect the economy.

Page56 114 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

3.5 Part D – the Tarka Trail

We believe that the presence of dogs 'off lead' on the Tarka Trail can be dangerous and a cause of nuisance to other users of this multi-use trail. We believe that regulatory controls should be considered as a result of:

(i) The current level of regulatory activity. (ii) The observations of our Neighbourhood Wardens who patrol the district.

We wish to consult on the following proposals to ensure that the presence of dogs does not interfere with the enjoyment of other users of the Tarka trail:

• To prohibit the presence of dogs 'off lead' on the Tarka Trail. • To issue FPNs of £100 to people who walk or exercise their dogs 'off lead' on the Tarka Trail. • To require a person to place their dogs on a lead of 2.0 metre length or less, as directed by a suitably delegated person/officer. • To issue FPNs of £100 to people who do not place their dogs on a lead of 2.0 metre length or less when directed by a suitable delegated person/officer. • To increase the efficiency and effectiveness of enforcing this provision by giving delegated authority to approved third parties to issue FPNs.

The above controls will not apply to people who are blind or partially sighted and have an assistance dog registered with a member organisation of Assistance Dogs UK.

Page57 115 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

D1: Do you support us in addressing these issues through a PSPO?

Over half of respondents (53%) do not support the proposal to address issues caused by the presence of dogs 'off lead' on the Tarka Trail through the introduction of a PSPO.

Yes 47% 53% No

D2: Do you support the proposed controls to prohibit the presence of dogs 'off lead' on the Tarka Trail?

Over half of respondents (59%) do not support the proposal to introduce controls to prohibit the presence of dogs 'off lead' on the Tarka Trail.

41% Yes No 59%

D3: Do you support the proposed controls to require a person to place their dogs on a lead of 2.0 metre length or less, as directed by a suitably delegated person/Officer?

Over half of respondents (54%) do not support the proposal to introduce controls to require a person to place their dog on a lead of 2.0 metres length or less on the Tarka Trail, as directed by a suitably delegated person or Officer.

46% Yes 54% No

Page58 116 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

D4: Comments and suggestions for alternative controls which would achieve the same aim as these proposals on the Tarka Trail

Summary of Themes There were 1,245 responses to this question. 16% of those who provided a response to this question provided comments which supported the proposals (this equates to 6% of total respondents). 62% provided comments which opposed the proposed actions (25% of the total). 56% provided alternative suggestions to be considered and 3% raised other points that they wanted considered.

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this question respondents SUPPORT 200 16% 6% OPPOSE 770 62% 25% SUGGESTIONS 234 19% 8% OTHER COMMENTS 697 56% 23% NOT APPLICABLE 38 3% 1%

The following tables provide a summary of themes identified in our analysis of responses to this question.

Support

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this question respondents

Dogs are dangerous and unpredictable 71 6% 2%

Being “on lead” protects dogs from cyclists, runners and children 31 2% 1%

Responsible dog owners will not disagree with these proposals 23 2% 1%

Oppose

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this question respondents The Tarka Trail is a shared, multi-use space, so fines should not be

given to every dog owner whose dog is “off lead” but to all people 408 33% 13%

Page59 117 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

who cause a nuisance – including irresponsible dog owners and cyclists Restrict the proposal to the summer months, busy periods or weekends and/or certain areas of the trail rather than a blanket

restriction 111 9% 4% 2m lead rule is an issue – too long, too short or more dangerous

than a dog “off lead” that is well controlled 78 6% 3% Priority should be given to walkers and dog walkers – owners

should be able to walk their dogs “off lead” at their own risk 32 3% 1% Dogs help cyclists slow down, making it safer for all users of the

trail 12 1% 0%

Concerns with third parties issuing fines 11 1% 0%

Cyclists should not have their dogs “on lead” 7 1% 0%

Suggestions

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this question respondents Better enforcement of current rules, including clear signage to raise awareness and educate the public; a reporting mechanism for the public; mandate training for dog owners who receive FPNs

– especially repeat offenders; CCTV; compulsory dog licences 125 10% 4%

Dogs not under control should be “on lead” 51 4% 2%

Allocate certain times of day specifically for dog walking 34 3% 1% Divide the trail – with dog walkers on one side and cyclists on the

other 22 2% 1%

Limit the number of dogs per person 5 0% 0%

Ban dogs altogether 4 0% 0%

Restricted to the trail only – do not include the land around it 2 0% 0%

Increase fines for repeated offenders 1 0% 0%

Page60 118 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Other

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this question respondents Cyclists and runners can be dangerous – limit cycling speeds or

use speed bumps 637 51% 21% Walking is good for physical and mental health – limiting dog walking will negatively affect the elderly, the disabled, and tourism

(which will harm economy) 96 8% 3% Antisocial behaviour such as littering and teenage drinking should be tackled. Provide more bins on the trail, which are regularly

emptied 52 4% 2%

Criticism of the consultation process 7 1% 0%

Support

Being “on lead” protects dogs from cyclists, runners and children Dogs in these areas should be on lead for their own protection. This is due to the large number of traffic from cyclists, runners and children which could cause the dog to be alarmed and cause an accident.

Responsible dog owners will not disagree with these proposals This is a good proposal and responsible owners will not disagree with this. Having a dog on a lead is a good way to keep them under control and owners will be able to see when they are fouling.

Dogs are dangerous and unpredictable Dogs are dangerous and unpredictable. They can cause people to fall off their bikes as well as jump on small children and adults. They can also injure livestock.

Oppose The Tarka Trail is a shared, multi-use space, so fines should not only to dog owners whose dogs are “off lead” but to all people who cause a nuisance Some respondents felt that the proposal to focus solely on dog owners was unfair. They stated that the Tarka trail is a shared multi-use area and therefore all users who caused a nuisance should be equally sanctioned. Cyclists and runners also cause issues and should be fined, whereas responsible dog walkers

Page61 119 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B who control their dogs should not be subject to fines and regulations. All users of the trail should respect one another.

There are not sufficient alternative spaces to walk dogs – this could lead to walking dogs in unsafe places As above.

Cyclists should not have their dogs “on lead” It is very dangerous for dogs to be on a lead attached to a cyclist and this action should be banned.

Dogs help cyclists slow down, making the trail safer for all users Some suggested that having dogs off lead stops cyclists from riding as fast as possible due to the need to be more mindful of dogs.

Disagreement with the 2m lead rule Some respondents took issue with the proposal to limit lead length to 2 metres. Some felt that 2 metres was too short and that this could actually be more dangerous than having a dog off lead, while others felt that 2 metres was too long and did not allow for adequate control.

Restrict the proposal to summer months, busy periods or weekends and/or certain areas of the trail Respondents pointed out that the Tarka Trail covers a large area and that some sections can be very quiet at certain times of the year, therefore a blanket proposal covering both the entire trail and the entire year may not be suitable. It was suggested that restrictions should be confined to the summer months or weekends only, and only to the busiest sections of the trail (suggested as being those closest to towns).

Priority should be given to walkers and dog walkers – owners should be able to walk their dogs “off lead” at their own risk Some respondents felt that walkers (including dog walkers) should be given priority to use the trail above cyclists and runners, and that those who used the trail – whether those opposed to dogs or those, for example, who feared for their dog’s safety from cyclists – did so at their own risk.

Concerns with third parties issuing fines As above.

Page62 120 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Suggestions

Better enforcement of current rules, including clear signage to raise awareness and educate the public; a reporting mechanism for the public; mandate training for dog owners who receive FPNs – especially repeat offenders; CCTV; compulsory dog licences This has been detailed in previous sections. In addition, with specific regard to the Tarka Trail, respondents stated that more signs reminding people of the presence of cyclists and the need to keep to the left would be welcome.

Children can be a nuisance Some believe that children can also be a nuisance and be a source of danger to others on the trail.

The proposal should be restricted to the trail only Some stated that they wanted the land around the trail to be excluded from the proposal and that it should be restricted to the actual trail only.

Limit the number of dogs per person Some felt that there should be a restriction on the number of dogs per person in order to ensure that they are properly controlled.

Divide the trail – with dog walkers on one side and cyclists on the other The only way to make the trail safe for all is to divide it down the middle for dog walkers and cyclists.

Ban dogs altogether Some felt that dogs should not be allowed on the trail in any capacity, whether off lead or on.

Other Comments

Cyclists and runners can be dangerous As mentioned above. Plus, in addition, it was suggested that a speed limit and speed bumps be introduced, as well as regulations prohibiting the use of earphones by cyclists and runners.

Walking is good for physical and mental health – limiting dog walking will affect the elderly, disabled tourists (which will harm economy) As mentioned above.

Antisocial behaviour such as littering and teenage drinking should be tackled. Provide more bins on the trail, which are regularly emptied As previously mentioned.

Page63 121 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

3.6 Part E - Braunton Burrows Special Area of Conservation (SAC)

We are aware of concerns from Natural England, and the owners of land in and around Braunton Burrows regarding uncontrolled dogs disturbing grazing livestock. The suggestion is that this could adversely impact on their business. We believe that regulatory controls should be considered as a result of:

(i) The current level of regulatory activity. (ii) The observations of our Neighbourhood Wardens who patrol the district. (iii) The need to support economic growth associated with the grazing of livestock in this area.

We wish to consult on the following proposals:

• To prohibit the presence of dogs 'off lead' in specific locations on Braunton Burrows at appropriate times of the year. • To issue FPNs of £100 to people who walk or exercise their dogs 'off lead' in these areas at these times. • To require a person to place their dogs on a lead of 2.0 metre length or less, as directed by a suitably delegated person/Officer. • To issue FPNs of £100 to people who do not place their dogs on a lead of 2.0 metre length or less when directed by a suitable delegated person/Officer. • To increase the efficiency and effectiveness of enforcing this provision by giving delegated authority to approved third parties to issue FPNs.

Page64 122 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

E1: Do you support us in addressing these issues through a PSPO?

Over half of respondents (60%) support the proposal to address the issue of uncontrolled dogs disturbing grazing livestock in Braunton Burrows SAC through a PSPO.

40% Yes No 60%

E2: Do you support the proposed controls to require a person to place their dogs on a lead of 2.0 metre length or less, as directed by a suitably delegated person/Officer?

Over half of respondents (60%) support the proposal to introduce controls to require a person to place their dog on a lead of 2 metres length or less in Braunton Burrows SAC, as directed by a suitably delegated person or Officer.

40% Yes No 60%

E3: Do you support the proposed controls to prohibit dogs 'off lead' in specific locations at appropriate times of the year?

Over half of respondents (59%) do not support the proposal to introduce controls to prohibit the presence of dogs 'off lead' in Braunton Burrows SAC at specific locations at appropriate times of the year.

44% Yes

56% No

Page65 123 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

E4: Comments and suggestions for alternative controls which would achieve the same aim as these proposals for the Braunton Burrows SAC

Summary of Themes There were 765 responses to this question. 22% of those who provided a response to this question provided comments which supported the proposals made (this equates to 5% of total respondents). 50% gave comments which opposed the proposed actions (12% of the total). 42% provided alternative suggestions to be considered and 17% raised other points that they wanted considered.

% of respondents to % of total THEME No. this question respondents SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL 169 22% 5% OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL 379 50% 12% SUGGESTIONS FOR THIS POLICY 323 42% 10% OTHER POINTS RAISED 131 17% 4% NOT APPLICABLE 47 6% 2%

The tables below provide a summary of themes identified in our analysis of responses to this question:

Support

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this respondents question Support for the proposals in areas around livestock, nesting birds and 64 8% 2% wildlife Increase the fine 4 1% 0% Implement but decrease the fine 2 0% 0% Allowances should be made for assistance dogs 1 0% 0%

Page66 124 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Oppose

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this respondents question The majority, who are responsible owners with dogs under control, should not be put under restrictions and punished for the behaviour 124 16% 4% of a minority

There is enough space for dogs to be on and off lead in the Burrows, 90 12% 3% it is for the enjoyment of the whole community all year

The Burrows are the only place left that dogs can run free to 60 8% 2% exercise, which they need 2m lead is too short 28 4% 1% The cattle should not be there, the space should be for the pleasure 20 3% 1% of people – the cattle/farmers are the problem Issues with third party issuing fines – evidence should be clearly 16 2% 1% presented. Wardens are better placed to do this Dog walking should be encouraged as it is good for a person’s 9 1% 0% health/mental health 2m lead is too long 3 0% 0%

Suggestions

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this respondents question Provide more signage, educate people on how to behave around livestock with dogs – e.g. dog training. Signage to include CCTV, 149 19% 5% clearly highlighting designated areas fenced off for cattle and ways the public can report offences

Owners know dogs should be under control “on lead” around 129 17% 4% livestock but it is not enforced

Page67 125 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Owners of dogs found disturbing livestock should be asked to put them on lead or fined by a warden – including harsher punishments 44 6% 1% for repeat offenders All dogs should be on leads at all times 24 3% 1% Ban dogs all together from these areas 10 1% 0% Dogs should be on the lead when birds are nesting 9 1% 0% Restrict the number of dogs per person 3 0% 0% Existing paths into the Burrows should not be included in this 2 0% 0% proposal People should be prohibited all together at certain times of the year 2 0% 0%

Other

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this respondents question Other issues need to be addressed – military training activity, 862 113% 28% vehicles, blank firing, litter and antisocial behaviour Criticism of the consultation 62 8% 2% This will stop people visiting Devon and the Burrows – harming the 25 3% 1% local economy People need to use common sense 4 1% 0%

Detailed Themes

Agree Support for the proposal in areas around livestock and wildlife Respondents felt that the proposal for dogs to be better controlled was important for the good of livestock, nesting birds and other wildlife, as well as for the safety of dogs and their owners.

Increase/decrease the fine Some again stated that they believed larger fines would be needed to create a greater deterrent, as well as the requirement to attend educational classes/courses. Others, however, felt that the level of proposed fine was too high.

Page68 126 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Allowances should be made for assistance dogs Some pointed out that allowances for people with assistance dogs was not mentioned in the proposal for this section, and that they felt these allowances should be included.

Disagree The cattle is the problem, not the dogs/people A small number of respondents felt that problems and issues would be better solved by removing the cattle, which were viewed as potentially dangerous and alien to the natural eco system. They disagreed that grazing cattle should take precedence over dog walkers and believed that cow excrement represented a more pressing concern than dog excrement. Some also stated that farmers are often rude to walkers and that they should be fined for nuisance behaviour.

The majority, who are responsible owners with dogs under control, should not be put under restrictions and punished for the behaviour of a minority As previously discussed.

The Burrows are the only place left that dogs can run free Respondents stated that the Burrows was the only place where dogs were allowed to run free and get the exercise they need. They felt that there should be at least one open space environment free from restrictions, and that the Burrows was ideally suited to this, with respondents pointing out that it was possible to walk here for many miles without running into other walkers or cattle, therefore negating the requirement to always keeping a dog on lead.

2m lead is too long/short As mentioned above.

Dog walking should be encouraged Some respondents stated felt that restrictions at the Burrows would discourage dog walking, whereas they believed dog walking should be encouraged by the Council in order to promote exercise, longevity, socialisation, mental health, and general well-being.

Issues with third parties issuing fines As mentioned above.

Page69 127 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Suggestions Owners know dogs should be under control “on lead” around livestock but it is not enforced Respondents suggested that owners already know that their dogs should be on lead around livestock – there are signs that state this – and that it is a small minority that do not follow the current regulations. Rather than introduce new regulations that negatively impacts responsible dog owners, the current regulations – including the issuance of FPNs – should be enforced.

Owners of dogs found disturbing livestock should be asked to put them on lead or fined by a warden Some respondents felt that specific owners who repeatedly walk with uncontrollable dogs should be required to have them on leads and, if they have disturbed livestock, they should be fined by dog wardens. Repeated offenders should be fined more. This was proposed as an improvement to a blanket ban which was seen as punishing dogs and their owners who already behaved perfectly in accordance with requirements and expectations.

Restrict the number of dogs per person As mentioned previously, some felt that restricting the number of dogs per person so that they can be properly controlled would help solve any problems and issues.

All dogs should be on leads at all times This would protect the public and wildlife. By having dogs on leads at all time, the owner has more control and they can keep them away from areas they should not be in and from people who dislike dogs.

More signage, more CCTV, more education and training As detailed in previous sections. In addition, with specific regard to the Burrows, respondents suggested that some areas should be fenced off so that cattle and the public (and their dogs) can be kept separate and no longer cause a nuisance to one another. It was also suggested that much clearer signage showing where cattle actually are should be installed, as there was a belief that many people were unaware of these zones. People should also be educated about the wildlife of the Burrows and how to act with their dogs in order to protect them and the wildlife/livestock, and there should be greater cooperation and interaction between farmers and dog walkers in order to make the area a safer and more beneficial place.

Existing paths into the Burrows should not be included in this proposal The existing paths in the Borrows should not be restricted as some people need to use them to get to other places, such as beaches.

Page70 128 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Dogs should be on the lead when birds are nesting Dogs need to be controlled on a lead when birds are nesting so that they don’t disrupt them. Maybe these places should be fenced off for their protection.

Ban dogs from these areas Some respondents felt that dogs caused too much disruption to be allowed in these areas and should be banned completely in order to properly benefit and protect wildlife.

People should be prohibited all together at certain times of the year Some felt that there were certain times of the year when dogs and people should be prohibited from entering areas of the Burrows in order to best serve wildlife and livestock.

Other This will stop people visiting Devon and the Burrows, harming the local economy Devon is advertised as a dog-friendly area, but these restrictions will negatively affect tourism as many visitors bring their dogs with them. In turn, this will be detrimental to the economy of Devon.

Other issues need to be addressed – military training activity, vehicles, blank firing, litter and antisocial behaviour There are other antisocial issues that are a problem in these areas. Military activity, litter, disruptive children and teenagers are also bad for the natural habitat of the Burrows and should have restrictions in place. More bins in general should be provided for litter.

People need to use common sense Common sense should be encouraged in these places. Signage of the area and education would help with this.

Page71 129 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

3.7 Part F - high tide roosting sites

We are aware that a significant proportion of the community take enjoyment from watching the diverse range of birds which rest ('roost') on certain sites of the Taw/Torridge Estuary during the high tide cycle. These sites are in both public and private ownership. The presence of dogs 'off lead' in such areas displaces resting birds and has the potential to directly limit the ability of this group of the community to enjoy this activity. We are aware that non-Government Organisations and local lobbyists have concerns about the impact of dogs 'off leads' on these sites, which are of high value as resting areas when feeding sites around the estuary are covered during periods of high tide. We believe that regulatory controls should be considered as a result of:

(i) The current level of regulatory activity. (ii) The observations of our Neighbourhood Wardens who patrol the district. (iii) The concerns of non-Government Organisations and local lobbyists stated above.

We wish to consult on the following proposals to ensure that the presence of dogs does not interfere with the enjoyment of other users of the sites:

• To prohibit the presence of dogs in the locations identified in Figure 1 (below) at appropriate times of the year.

• To issue FPNs of £100 to people who walk or exercise their dogs 'off lead' in these areas during these times. • To require a person to place their dogs on a lead of 2.0 metre length or less, as directed by a suitably delegated person/officer. • To issue FPNs of £100 to people who do not place their dogs on a lead of 2.0 metre length or less when directed by a delegated person/officer. • To increase the efficiency and effectiveness of enforcing this provision by giving delegated authority to approved third parties to issue FPNs.

The site owner will be responsible for identifying and promoting relevant dates and this will include the provision of the associated signage. The above controls will not apply to people who are blind or partially sighted and have an assistance dog registered with a member organisation of Assistance Dogs UK.

Page72 130 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

F1: Do you support us in addressing these issues through a PSPO?

More than half of respondents (68%) support addressing concerns about the impact of dogs 'off leads' on certain sites of the Taw/Torridge Estuary through the introduction of a PSPO.

32%

Yes No

68%

F2: Do you support the proposed controls to prohibit the presence of dogs in the locations identified in Figure 1 at appropriate times of the year?

More than half of respondents (68%) support the proposed controls to prohibit the presence of dogs in the identified locations at appropriate times of the year.

32%

Yes No

68%

F3: Do you support the proposed controls to require a person to place their dogs on a lead of 2.0 metre length or less, as directed by a suitably delegated person/officer?

More than half of respondents (67%) support the proposed controls to require a person to place their dogs on a lead of 2 metre length or less, as directed by a suitably delegated person or officer.

33% Yes No

67%

Page73 131 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

F4: Comments and suggestions on achieving the aim of these proposals at High Tide Roosting Sites

Summary of Themes There were 545 responses to this question. 27% of those who provided a response to this question provided comments which supported the proposals made (this equates to 5% of total respondents). 37% gave comments which opposed the proposed actions (7% of the total). 34% provided alternative suggestions to be considered and 24% raised other points that they wanted considered.

% of respondents to % of total THEME No. this question respondents SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL 148 27% 5% OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL 202 37% 7% SUGGESTIONS FOR THIS POLICY 187 34% 6% OTHER POINTS RAISED 130 24% 4% NOT APPLICABLE 47 9% 2%

The following tables provide a summary of the themes identified in our analysis of all responses to this question:

Support

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this respondents question Support as this protects wildlife 20 4% 1% Dogs should be kept on leads and under strict control in nature reserves 20 4% 1% and around wildlife Support the proposal as long as there are other places dogs can run free 6 1% 0% A larger area should be included in this proposal 6 1% 0% Increase the fines and provide training courses 5 1% 0%

Page74 132 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Oppose

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this respondents question Object to blanket ban – dogs should be allowed in these areas but kept 35 6% 1% on a lead at certain times of the year when birds are nesting The minority of irresponsible owners should be fined – the responsible 31 6% 1% majority should not be punished These measures are discriminatory against dog owners, over-the-top and unnecessary, just because a minority do not like dogs and want to get rid 26 5% 1% of them Dog walking has many benefits – exercise, mental health, family time. 21 4% 1% Proposals will adversely affect people who cannot travel to other places

Dogs need areas to be exercised “off lead” 20 4% 1%

2m lead is too short or long 20 4% 1% Private companies should not be implementing this policy, and an appeal 12 2% 0% system needs to be in place The area in question is too large 8 1% 0% As hunting is allowed in these areas, dogs should not be banned 1 0% 0%

Suggestions

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this respondents question Provide more clear signage, which informs and educates dog owners on how to behave in this area, advising where roosting sites are and where 140 26% 5% dogs must be “on lead” Fence off bird roosting areas to protect them 24 4% 1% Ban dogs from these areas completely 13 2% 0% This is already a law and should be properly enforced 10 2% 0% All walkers should be banned from these areas 5 1% 0% Provide ways for the public to report offences 2 0% 0%

Page75 133 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Other

% of respondents % of total THEME No. to this respondents question Criticism of the consultation 64 12% 2% There are other problems for birds in these areas, including pedestrian and cycle traffic, littering, development of infrastructure and antisocial 49 9% 2% behaviour This would stop visitors coming to Devon and have an adverse economic 20 4% 1% impact on tourism Foxes/other wildlife are also a problem for birds 7 1% 0%

Detailed Themes

Support Support the proposal as long as there are other places dogs can run free Respondents felt that the restrictions were reasonable as long as there were plenty of other places where dogs could run off lead and be able to adequately exercise.

Support as this protects wildlife This is necessary in order to keep wildlife protected from dogs. Dogs can be disruptive to wild life and they should be controlled.

Dogs should be kept on leads and under strict control in nature reserves and around wildlife Dogs have to always been on lead when around wildlife so that they do not disrupt the natural behaviour and habitat. People need to make sure that dogs are closely controlled around wildlife.

Increase the fines and provide training courses As mentioned above.

A larger area should be included in this proposal This proposal does not cover a large enough area. The low tide roosting sites and ground nesting birds should also be included in this.

Page76 134 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Oppose The measures are discriminatory and unnecessary Some respondents felt that the proposed measures were discriminatory against dog owners, as well as being over the top and unnecessary, and that they were being driven by a small minority of people in power who dislike dogs and want to get rid of them. These respondents believed the proposed measures were grossly unfair and that problems reportedly caused by dogs were being exaggerated.

Objections to a blanket ban Some respondents believed that dogs should not be banned from high tide roosting sites due to the fact that they are public spaces that should be available to everyone. Instead, they proposed that dog walkers should be allowed to use these areas but that dogs would be kept on lead at the times of the year when the birds are nesting – with exemptions for extremely well-behaved dogs who behaved perfectly when off lead.

As hunting is allowed in these areas, dogs should not be banned Some stated that since these areas are sometimes used by the shotgun community then dogs should not be kept on lead. The damage hunting does to the birds is much larger and cannot be compared to the damage dogs do. Private companies should not be implementing this policy As mentioned previously – and, in addition, it was suggested that there should be an appeal system for dog owners who feel they have been unfairly fined.

The minority of irresponsible owners should be fined – the responsible majority should not be punished As above.

Dogs need areas to be exercised “off lead” Some respondents again pointed out that dogs require large areas to exercise off lead, feeling that the areas mentioned in the proposal are suitable to this purpose and large enough to provide enough space for dogs, their owners, and wildlife alike.

2m lead is too short or too long As before.

Dog walking has many benefits – exercise, mental health, family time, etc As mentioned above.

Page77 135 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Suggestions Provide more clear signage, which informs and educates dog owners on how to behave in this area, advising where roosting sites are and where dogs must be “on lead” In addition to previous suggestions for increases in the amount and visibility of signage, respondents felt there was a need for very clear signs indicating where the roosting sites are so that responsible dog owners could take appropriate action.

Ban dogs from these areas completely Some stressed again their idea that dogs represent bring disruptive element to their interaction with valuable and that the roosting sites were too valuable to run the risk of any dogs entering the vicinity present. They therefore advocated that all dogs should be kept away from those areas for the good of the birds.

Provide ways for the public to report offences As above.

This is already a law and it should be properly enforced As mentioned in earlier sections.

All walkers should be banned from these areas In addition to suggesting a ban on dogs in order to protect important roosting sites, some respondents felt that a ban on humans would also represent an improvement for the birds’ well-being.

Fence off bird roosting sites to protect them Alternatively, some felt that the best way to protect roosting sites from dogs and humans was to fence them off to keep them free from disruption and disturbance.

Other Other wildlife is also a problem for birds Some believed that dogs were not the main threat to roosting birds, but that other wildlife such as foxes represented a greater disruption and danger.

This would stop visitors coming to Devon and have an adverse economic impact on tourism As in previous sections.

Page78 136 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Other problems for birds in these areas Some pointed out other issues facing roosting birds, including pedestrian and cycle traffic, children, littering, antisocial behaviour, and the development of new infrastructure near the sites – specifically, the Yelland Power station. All of these need to be controlled if the safety of these areas is to be taken seriously.

Page79 137 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

ANNEX A: Consultation Questions

Part A - Proposals for Controlling Dog Fouling. The presence of dog fouling in public areas is a risk to health. A high level of street cleanliness is particularly important locally due to our desire to promote tourism and the economy. We believe that regulatory controls should be considered as a result of:

(i) The current level of community representations received by us. (ii) The current level of regulatory activity. (iii) The observations of our Neighbourhood Wardens who patrol the district.

We have in addition identified six significant amenity beaches in the district, namely: • Saunton Sands • Woolacombe Sands • Putsborough Sands • Instow • Croyde Bay • Combe Martin

The owners of the beaches have indicated that they believe there is a need to regulate dog fouling controls to maintain the appropriate level of cleanliness for all users.

We wish to consult on the following proposals:

• To issue Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) to people who do not pick up their dog waste of £100 in all public areas and on the beaches of Saunton Sands, Woolacombe Sands, Putsborough Sands, Instow, Croyde Bay and Combe Martin • To increase the efficiency and effectiveness of enforcing this provision by giving delegated authority to approved third parties to issue FPN in relation to the above

Q1: Do you support us in addressing this area of community need through a PSPO? Yes No

Q2: Do you support the introduction of these controls on all public spaces across the district? Yes No

Page80 138 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Q3: Do you support the introduction of these controls on all the beaches identified? Yes No

Q4: Do you support us in giving delegated authority to approved third parties (such as Police Officers, Parish/Town Councils, beach owners, and other landowners) to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of enforcing these controls? Yes No

Q5: If you have any other comments, or suggestions for alternative controls which would achieve the same aim as these proposals in relation to dog fouling, please provide them below:

Part B - Dog Control. We believe that walking/exercising dogs 'off lead' in public children's play areas can be dangerous. We also take the view that walking/exercising dogs 'off lead' in public cemeteries can cause nuisance or offence.

Our Neighbourhood Wardens report that many people are disregarding the current 'advisory signs' which are in place in these two areas.

We believe that the presence of dogs on the six busy amenity beaches, (Saunton Sands, Woolacombe Sands, Putsborough Sands, Instow, Croyde Bay and Combe Martin), can be a cause of nuisance to other beach users.

The owners of these beaches want controls in place during the summer season (Easter Day - 30th September) to ensure that the presence of dogs does not interfere with the enjoyment of other users who may be sunbathing, swimming or involved in other leisure activities.

We wish to consult on the following proposals:

• To issue FPN of £100 to people who walk or exercise their dogs 'off lead' in enclosed children's play areas. • To issue FPN of £100 to people who walk or exercise their dogs 'off lead' in public cemeteries. • To prohibit the presence of dogs on six amenity beaches identified above between Easter Day and 30th September, except in certain designated “dog friendly” areas. The beach owner will be responsible for identifying and promoting such designated “dog friendly” areas - including the provision of associated signage. • To issue FPN of £100 to people who allow their dogs to be present on these beaches - other than being in or travelling to the “dog friendly” areas as signed.

Page81 139 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

• To require a person to place their dogs on a lead of 2.0 metre length or less, as directed by a suitably delegated person/Officer. • To issue FPN of £100 to people who do not place their dogs on a lead of 2.0 metre length or less when directed by a suitable delegated person/Officer. • To increase the efficiency and effectiveness of enforcing this provision by giving delegated authority to approved third parties to issue FPN. • The above controls will not apply to people who are blind or partially sighted and have an assistance dog registered with a member organisation of Assistance Dogs UK.

Q1: Do you support us in addressing these issues through a PSPO? Yes No

Q2: Do you support the proposed controls in enclosed children's play areas? Yes No

Q3: If you have any other comments, or suggestions for alternative controls which would achieve the same aim as these proposals in children's play areas, please provide them below:

Q4: Do you support the proposed controls in public cemeteries? Yes No

Q5: If you have any other comments, or suggestions for alternative controls which would achieve the same aim as these proposals in public cemeteries, please provide them below:

Q6: Do you support the proposed controls on Saunton Sands? Yes No

Q7: Do you support the proposed controls on Woolacombe Sands? Yes No

Q8: Do you support the proposed controls on Putsborough Sands? Yes No

Page82 140 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Q9: Do you support the proposed controls on Instow beach? Yes No

Q10: Do you support the proposed controls on Croyde Bay? Yes No

Q11: Do you support the proposed controls on Combe Martin beach? Yes No

Q12: Do you support the proposal of designated areas of the beaches being promoted as being “dog friendly” - i.e. places where people can exercise their dogs without restrictions? Yes No

Q13: Do you support the proposed controls to require a person to place their dogs on a lead of 2.0 metre length or less, as directed by a suitably delegated person/Officer? Yes No

Q14: If you have any other suggestions for alternative controls which would achieve the same aims as these proposals on the beaches, please give them below:

Part C - Formal Sports Pitches. The presence of dog fouling on public and privately owned formal sports pitches, (e.g. football / rugby / cricket pitches, netball / tennis courts, bowling greens, athletics tracks), is a risk to health.

High levels of cleanliness in these locations are particularly important to us due to our desire to promote tourism, the economy, and support residents and visitors to have a healthy and active lifestyle.

We believe that regulatory controls should be considered as a result of: (i) The current level of regulatory activity. (ii) The observations of our Neighbourhood Wardens who patrol the district. (iii) Private sports pitch owners wanting dog controls enforced to enable these areas to be safely used for the purpose which they are designed.

Page83 141 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

We wish to consult on the following proposals:

• To issue FPN of £100 to people who do not pick up their dogs waste from all publicly owned formal sports pitches. • To issue FPN of £100 to people who do not pick up their dogs waste from all privately owned formal sports pitches, where the owner has requested such controls. • To prohibit the presence of dogs on all publicly owned formal sports pitches. • To prohibit the presence of dogs on all privately owned sports pitches, where the owner has requested such controls. • To issue FPN of £100 to people who allow their dogs to be present on all publicly owned sports pitches. • To issue FPN of £100 to people who allow their dogs to be present on all privately owned formal sports pitches, where the owner has requested such controls. • To increase the efficiency and effectiveness of enforcing this provision by delegated authority to approved third parties to issue FPN.

The above controls will not apply to people who are blind or partially sighted and have an assistance dog registered with a member organisation of Assistance Dogs UK.

The site owner will be responsible for the provision of associated signage and promotion of these restrictions.

Q1: Do you support us in addressing this area of community need through a PSPO? Yes No

Q2: Do you support the proposed controls on all public and privately owned sports pitches across the district? Yes No

Q3: Do you support us in giving delegated authority to approved third parties, (such as Police Officers, Parish/Town Councils, sports pitch owners, and other landowners), to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of enforcing these controls? Yes No

Q4: If you have any other comments, or suggestions for alternative controls which would achieve the same aim as these proposals for public and privately owned sports pitches, please give them below:

Page84 142 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Part D - Tarka Trail. We believe that the presence of dogs 'off lead' on the Tarka Trail can be dangerous and a cause of nuisance to other users of this multi-use trail. We believe that regulatory controls should be considered as a result of: (i) The current level of regulatory activity. (ii) The observations of our Neighbourhood Wardens who patrol the district.

We wish to consult on the following proposals to ensure that the presence of dogs does not interfere with the enjoyment of other users of the Tarka trail:

• To prohibit the presence of dogs 'off lead' on the Tarka Trail. • To issue FPN of £100 to people who walk or exercise their dogs 'off lead' on the Tarka Trail. • To require a person to place their dogs on a lead of 2.0 metre length or less, as directed by a suitably delegated person/Officer. • To issue FPN of £100 to people who do not place their dogs on a lead of 2.0 metre length or less when directed by a suitable delegated person/Officer. • To increase the efficiency and effectiveness of enforcing this provision by giving delegated authority to approved third parties to issue FPN.

The above controls will not apply to people who are blind or partially sighted and have an assistance dog registered with a member organisation of Assistance Dogs UK.

Q1: Do you support us in addressing these issues through a PSPO? Yes No

Q2: Do you support the proposed controls to prohibit the presence of dogs 'off lead' on the Tarka Trail? Yes No

Q3: Do you support the proposed controls to require a person to place their dogs on a lead of 2.0 metre length or less, as directed by a suitably delegated person/Officer? Yes No

Q4: If you have any other comments, or suggestions for alternative controls which would achieve the same aim as these proposals on the Tarka Trail, please provide them below:

Page85 143 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Part E - Braunton Burrows Special Area of Conservation (SAC). We are aware of concerns from Natural England, and the owners of land in and around Braunton Burrows regarding uncontrolled dogs disturbing grazing livestock. The suggestion is that this could adversely impact on their business. We believe that regulatory controls should be considered as a result of: (i) The current level of regulatory activity. (ii) The observations of our Neighbourhood Wardens who patrol the district. (iii) The need to support economic growth associated with the grazing of livestock in this area.

We wish to consult on the following proposals:

• To prohibit the presence of dogs 'off lead' in specific locations on Braunton Burrows at appropriate times of the year. • To issue FPN of £100 to people who walk or exercise their dogs 'off lead' in these areas at these times. • To require a person to place their dogs on a lead of 2.0 metre length or less, as directed by a suitably delegated person/Officer. • To issue FPN of £100 to people who do not place their dogs on a lead of 2.0 metre length or less when directed by a suitable delegated person/Officer. • To increase the efficiency and effectiveness of enforcing this provision by giving delegated authority to approved third parties to issue FPN.

Q1: Do you support us in addressing these issues through a PSPO? Yes No

Q2: Do you support the proposed controls to require a person to place their dogs on a lead of 2.0 metre length or less, as directed by a suitably delegated person/Officer? Yes No

Q3: Do you support the proposed controls to prohibit dogs 'off lead' in specific locations at appropriate times of the year? Yes No

Q4: If you have any other comments, or suggestions for alternative controls which would achieve the same aim as these proposals for the Braunton Burrows SAC, please provide them below:

Page86 144 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Part F - High Tide Roosting Sites. We are aware that a significant proportion of the community take enjoyment from watching the diverse range of birds which rest ('roost') on certain sites of the Taw/Torridge Estuary during the high tide cycle. These sites are in both public and private ownership. The presence of dogs 'off lead' in such areas displaces resting birds and has the potential therefore, to directly limit the ability of this group of the community to enjoy this activity.

We are aware that non-Government Organisations and local lobbyists have concerns about the impact of dogs 'off leads' on these sites, which are of high value as resting areas when feeding sites around the estuary are covered during periods of high tide. We believe that regulatory controls should be considered as a result of: (i) The current level of regulatory activity. (ii) The observations of our Neighbourhood Wardens who patrol the district. (iii) The concerns of non-Government Organisations and Local Lobbyists stated above.

We wish to consult on the following proposals to ensure that the presence of dogs does not interfere with the enjoyment of other users of the sites:

• To prohibit the presence of dogs in the locations identified in Figure 1, (Figure 1 can be viewed in the documents tab), at appropriate times of the year. • To issue FPN of £100 to people who walk or exercise their dogs 'off lead' in these areas during these times. • To require a person to place their dogs on a lead of 2.0 metre length or less, as directed by a suitably delegated person/Officer. • To issue FPN of £100 to people who do not place their dogs on a lead of 2.0 metre length or less when directed by a delegated person/Officer. • To increase the efficiency and effectiveness of enforcing this provision by giving delegated authority to approved third parties to issue FPN.

Q1: Do you support us in addressing these issues through a PSPO? Yes No

Q2: Do you support the proposed controls to prohibit the presence of dogs in the locations identified in Figure 1, which can be found under the documents tab, at appropriate times of the year? Yes No

Page87 145 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

Q3: Do you support the proposed controls to require a person to place their dogs on a lead of 2.0 metre length or less, as directed by a suitably delegated person/Officer? Yes No

Q4: If you have any other comments, or suggestions which would achieve the same aim as these proposals at High Tide Roosting Sites, please provide them below:

Page88 146 Agenda Item 15 Analysis of responses to the 2020 PSPO Dog Control Public ConsultationAppendix B

ANNEX B: Coombe Parish Council Dog Control Survey Results

The Chairman of Combe Martin Parish Council, Cllr David Woodbury, sent a letter to be considered as part of the consultation, which contained the results of a consultation held in their village on the proposed dog controls conducted by Combe Martin Parish Council jointly with the Combe Martin Water Watch Group (CMWWG).

They hand delivered a leaflet to approximately 1,500 to 2,000 households in Combe Martin and put details of the consultation on their website. They received 208 completed survey responses to this local consultation. In summary, over 90% of responses they received supported the existing dog controls in Combe Martin, with 35% of responses coming from dog owners. As a result of reviewing their local findings, at the Combe Martin Parish Council meeting on Monday 10 August 2020, Council Members voted to support the retention of the dog controls in Combe Martin. The full results of this local survey are set out below:

Page89 147 Agenda Item 15 Appendix B

Iigh, Pblic Clai, Reeach, Ealai, Se

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

EMAIL: [email protected]

FREEPHONE: 0800 188 40 34

WEB: WWW.TONIC.ORG.UK

Page 148 Agenda Item 16

Open NORTH DEVON COUNCIL

REPORT TO: STRATEGY AND RESOURCES Date: 2 November 2020 TOPIC: COMMERCIALISATION STRATEGY

REPORT BY: HEAD OF RESOURCES

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Council’s new Corporate Plan was approved in September 2019 to reflect the changing landscape we now face and the reality of the significant cuts to government grant support which have been extended into 2020-21. We are now forecasting reductions beyond 2020-21 as there are no indications that austerity measures will come to an end. The Corporate Plan identified four key priority areas, which are:

o We achieve financial security

o Become focused on delivering the best for our customers

o Our environment is cherished and protected

o We plan for North Devon’s future

1.2 Councils are currently dealing with unprecedented, complex and often difficult to predict financial pressures. We don’t and won’t know for some time the consequences of COVID-19, coupled with the outcomes of Brexit and new trade deals and rules. Set against a backdrop of already established cuts in funding, rising demand for services and economic growth challenges and with further funding cuts likely, we have to take control of our future viability by becoming commercially focused to help achieve financial security, which is one of our 4 corporate objectives.

1.3 Part of our drive towards financial security will include identifying new opportunities to generate income and investment in projects that provide good or even excellent financial returns. Whilst undertaking these commercial activities we should not lose sight of our values and our ambitions for our communities to achieve a promising future.

Page 149 Agenda Item 16

1.4 Sitting alongside the corporate priorities is a delivery plan which under the first priority of achieving financial security included the action of producing a Commercial Strategy that sets out the parameters moving forwards to enable the Council to become a more efficient, business like operation and increase revenue generation to contribute to bridging the future predicted budget gaps.

2 RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 That members note the context of the financial parameters the Council is currently working within and recommend to Full Council the adoption of the Commercialisation Strategy as set out in Appendix A.

3 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 It is important that there is a clearly defined strategy that the Council must work within when exploring commercial opportunities in order to generate additional revenue.

3.2 To ensure the Council has a savings plan in place to deliver the long-term financial strategy of the Council.

4 REPORT

4.1 In February 2020, Members approved the Revenue Budget for 2020-21 year and adopted the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) 2020-2024 which set out the forecast budget gaps for the 2021-22 to 2023-24 financial years.

4.2 The cumulative budget gap that was being forecast back in February 2020 was; Years 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 £m £m £m £m Budget gap / (surplus) 0 1.781 2.110 2.678

4.3 Clearly this creates a large budget gap to bridge moving forwards however it is crucial that both Officers and Members understand the potential financial context that we ‘could’ end up with, subject to any transitional arrangements the government put in place following the planned fair funding review. This clearly focuses minds on becoming more efficient within the services we currently provide and becoming entrepreneurial in the way we deliver services into the future and move towards a more commercially minded Council to generate additional income for the revenue budget

4.4 The first corporate priority of achieving financial security has of course become even more uncertain since the Medium Term Financial Plan was reviewed in February 2020; in light of Covid-19 with the Council experiencing significant

Page 150 Agenda Item 16

reductions in core income and additional costs being incurred in response to the pandemic.

4.5 A high-level refresh of the above forecast budget position in light of the current pressures being experienced has increased the predicted budget gaps further to; Years 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 £m £m £m £m Budget gap / (surplus) 0 1.995 2.898 3.371

4.6 We are awaiting the Comprehensive Spending Review which is anticipated to be November 2020 and announcements on Government funding for Local Authorities which we hope will see a 3-year funding settlement to provide some certainty into the medium term.

4.7 A separate report on the Medium Term Financial Plan funding gaps and options for Members to explore and make key decisions on moving forwards will be coming forwards to the December meeting; hopefully in light of any government announcement on funding for 2021-22 onwards.

4.8 However, one certainty we can be assured of is that we will still have a significant funding gap for future years to bridge and we need to ensure that we have clear parameters and strong governance in place within the financial context we are operating to look at exploring opportunities and business cases when they arise.

4.9 A Commercial Strategy sets these parameters, which we have clearly proposed as set out in Appendix A of this report.

4.10 Setting clear outcomes are important when devising any strategy and these have been defined as; o Commercial operating is increasing across the Council o The efficiency of the Council has been improved o Generating additional and sustainable income streams for the Council o Reducing the net budget of a service by reducing controllable costs of a service whilst still achieving service outcomes. o Having staff with a commercial ‘mind-set’ across the organisation through developing and upskilling our staff to be more enterprising and innovative.

5 RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

5.1 We are working through the details of our commercial outcomes and, once completed and risk-assessed, we will build these into our future Financial and Treasury Strategies. In the meantime the following aspirational targets have been proposed and will be further refined during the 2021/22 budget setting process which will incorporate the Medium Term Financial Plan:

Page 151 Agenda Item 16

o To deliver a minimum of £0.500m of new revenue income by 31st March 2023. o To reduce back office costs by 5% by 31st March 2024. o To develop and deliver commercial skills development to Council staff commencing in 2021 which will support this ambitious cultural change. o To make significant efficiencies in the way we manage our buildings and reduce cost or increase output by over 5% by 31st March 2024. o To deliver £1m of capital receipts by 2023.

5.2 The primary target is generating additional revenue income and the other targets above must complement and not be at the expense of this key objective.

5.3 It will be the responsibility of the Chief Financial Officer to report to Strategy & Resources and Full Council, progress against the timescales, outputs and commercial activities following the adoption of this strategy.

6 EQUALITIES ASSESSMENT

6.1 There are no equalities implications anticipated as a result of this report.

7 CONSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT

Article or Appendix Referred or and paragraph delegated power?

Part 3 Annexe 1 Delegated (para 1)

Part 4 Budget Procedure Rules Delegated

8 STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY

8.1 This report contains no confidential information or exempt information under the provisions of Schedule 12A of 1972 Act.

9 BACKGROUND PAPERS

9.1 The background papers are available for inspection and kept by the author of the report.

10 STATEMENT OF INTERNAL ADVICE

10.1 The author (below) confirms that advice has been taken from all appropriate Councillors and Officers. Author: Jon Triggs, Head of Resources Date: 16 October 2020

Page 152 Agenda Item 16 North Devon Council Appendix A

Commercial Strategy

Background and Purpose

Councils are currently dealing with unprecedented, complex and often difficult to predict financial pressures. We don’t and won’t know for some time the consequences of COVID-19, coupled with the outcomes of Brexit and new trade deals and rules. Set against a backdrop of already established cuts in funding, rising demand for services and economic growth challenges and with further funding cuts likely, we have to take control of our future viability by becoming commercially focused to help achieve financial security, which is one of our 4 corporate objectives.

Part of our drive towards financial security will include identifying new opportunities to generate income and investment in projects that provide good or even excellent financial returns. Whilst undertaking these commercial activities we should not lose sight of our values and our ambitions for our communities to achieve a promising future.

Our commercial strategy aligns closely with other planned approaches and components.

Approach Components Partnership / Collaborative Organisational Design Customer Centric & Digital Organisational Development Environment Technology / Digital Transformation

These elements provide a combined message that North Devon Council is entering a new era of business enterprise, growth and innovation. We will work with our partners who share our ambition and values and continue to put the best interests of North Devon residents’ at the heart of everything we do.

Our Vision

Government expects councils to make a significant contribution to reducing the national budget deficit through reductions in our ‘core’ funding over the next few years. These reductions will lead to difficult decisions and may require some ‘one off’ financial investments to enable longer-term savings to be delivered.

The principles’ of the latest finance settlement allows authorities to spend locally what is raised here locally which, is the major driver towards 75%/100% business rate retention and this means our commercial approach towards investment is critical to our future thinking for delivering savings and generating additional income. Our commercial vision is:

Commercial Vision: To become an enterprising and commercially focused Council which staff are proud to work for and which others want to work with. We will use our assets, skills and infrastructure to shape and improve public services and enable economic growth in the District. We shall generate significant levels of new income for the Council working towards the objective of enabling it to become financially sustainable by financial year 2023/24.

Page | 1 Page 153 Agenda Item 16 Our Principles Appendix A

. We will develop a commercial strategy and culture through the adoption of appropriate behaviours and decision making, whilst retaining strong public, community and social values. . We will collaborate with partners who share our ambition and values and put the best interests of our customers and communities at the heart of everything we do. . We will be creative and resourceful to create efficiencies. . We will invest in schemes and projects that improve productivity and reduce costs as well as seeking new ways of utilising our assets to generate additional income. . Whilst undertaking commercial activity we will not lose sight of our values and our ambitions for our communities to achieve a promising future. . We will engage our staff to build commercial awareness and invest in them to support and develop a commercial mind-set. . We will ensure governance, management and performance of new commercial enterprises, partnerships and contracts continue to be robust and subject to challenge. . We will adhere to statutory responsibilities and ensure public money continues to be appropriately spent and accounted for. . We will recognise that we need to be risk aware, not risk averse and drive behaviours that support the idea that failure must be viewed as a learning opportunity as well as pioneering new ways of working and learning.

Commercial Assets

North Devon Council has a rich source of assets, attributes and roles from which we can derive commercial value and these are summarised in Appendix 1. These assets and attributes will be applied and assessed against the following criteria:

. Financial objective . Revenue delivery . Risk . Control . Liquidity . Management oversight . Performance . Diversification

This will enable us to determine how we work, where we work, who we work with and influence how we take investment decisions.

Page | 2 Page 154 Agenda Item 16 Commercial Definitions Appendix A

There are lots of definitions in relation to commercialism and to ensure we all have the same shared understanding we have adopted the following four.

1. Commercialism

For us, ‘commercialism’ is an understanding of how we as an organisation need to operate in a more business like way. This involves working with our staff to help them to start thinking in a different way, in essence, helping them to develop a more commercial ‘mind-set’, creating an environment that allows them to be innovative, encouraging them to embrace new flexible working and agile approaches and where applicable, supporting them to develop approaches that enable ‘trading’ and the ‘selling’ of services. This essentially means making sound ‘business’ decisions in terms of resources and investments.

2. Enterprise

We see this as the ability to think and act differently when considering the ways we manage, operate, deliver and resource our services, to create best value for our residents and customers. We need to become resourceful, innovative and develop the confidence to consider options that would not previously have been considered. We need to drive behaviours that support the idea that failure must be viewed as a learning opportunity as well as pioneering new ways of working and learning.

Through our organisational development component we will develop behaviours that bring out the enterprising ‘spirit’ in our staff and volunteers giving them the confidence, skills and creating the environment enabling them to be inquisitive, innovative and enterprising. We will develop relationships and work with partners who share our ethos.

3. Trading

We are a multi-faceted organisation which commissions and provides a wide range of services across the district. Outside of the traditional treasury management instruments, we may wish to consider trading in markets and sectors beyond our boundary using the skills and expertise of our staff. We recognise that not all services have the opportunity to 'trade' or charge customers for services to generate income but our aim will be to explore new opportunities whilst ensuring existing trading relationships are working as efficiently as possible.

4. Investment

Our capital investment decisions go beyond the traditional Public Sector approach of achieving social and community goals, replacing infrastructure and improving land and buildings. Our principal focus will be on investing in projects and schemes that generate a financial return or investment for the Council.

This approach will provide the Council with greater resilience and support the vision of being a financially secure council by 2023/24.

Page | 3 Page 155 Agenda Item 16 Commercial Decision Making Appendix A

Our Capital Spending Decisions should focus on achieving at least one of our four main drivers:

1. Revenue Generation / Invest to Earn: For example, proposals that generate new sources of income for the Council such as investment in land and property development, rental property, green energy renewables, schemes that grow our business rates income, or proposals to enable existing revenue streams to be improved and maintained longer into the future.

2. Invest to Save: For example, proposals to introduce new technologies and redesign services to reduce demand and promote independence.

3. Social Value: For example, proposals that will bring collective benefit to a community.

4. Improving the environment or increasing natural capital

The Chief Financial Officer will oversee all commercial business activities ensuring they are appropriately governed, scrutinised, managed and monitored. Investment decisions will be made having applied a robust business case methodology and will be evaluated against key investment principles. A set of financial and non-financial criteria shall be used to assess which schemes and projects are taken forward.

Commercial Outcomes

The key outcomes that are directly linked to commercial activity can be summarised as:

. Commercial operating is increasing across the Council . The efficiency of the Council has been improved . Generating additional and sustainable income streams for the Council . Reducing the net budget of a service by reducing controllable costs of a service whilst still achieving service outcomes. . Having staff with a commercial ‘mind-set’ across the organisation through developing and upskilling our staff to be more enterprising and innovative.

We are working through the details of our commercial outcomes and, once completed and risk- assessed, we will build these into our future Financial and Treasury Strategies. In the meantime the following aspirational targets have been proposed and will be further refined during the 2021/22 budget setting process which will incorporate the Medium Term Financial Plan:

. To deliver a minimum of £0.500m of new revenue income by 31st March 2023. . To reduce back office costs by 5% by 31st March 2024. . To develop and deliver commercial skills development to Council staff commencing in 2021 which will support this ambitious cultural change. . To make significant efficiencies in the way we manage our buildings and reduce cost or increase output by over 5% by 31st March 2024. . To deliver £1m of capital receipts by 2023.

The primary target is generating additional revenue income and the other targets above must complement and not be at the expense of this key objective.

Page | 4 Page 156 Agenda Item 16 It will be the responsibility of the Chief Financial Officer to report to StrategyAppendix & AResources and Full Council, progress against the timescales, outputs and commercial activities that are set out in the Medium Term Financial Plan.

Develop our Communicate Collaborate staff to have Communicate to Raise with our commercial our results Awareness partners mindsets

Page | 5 Page 157 Agenda Item 16 Appendix 1 Appendix A Commercial Assets

Staff Using and developing the knowledge and skills of our workforce to create the culture of trust, empowerment and involvement in commercial activities. Land and Ensuring our land and property asset portfolio is fit for purpose, secures buildings increased income generation, maximises capital receipts and stimulates growth and investment in the District to generate capital receipts and reduce costs. Through master-planning of key strategic sites, using our land and buildings to promote and deliver housing and economic growth. Liquid assets Access to cash, cheap borrowing and liquid assets to enable investment. Infrastructure Using and developing our digital and ICT platforms, public open spaces, car parks, street furniture and other infrastructure for commercial gain. Partnerships Using and selecting the most appropriate private, public and third sector partner to deliver the schemes and projects that derive the maximum level of income for the Council and value for customers, residents and communities. Place shaping Using our strategic planning and economic development roles to shape role and create the market for growth and enterprise. Business We will use our vast amount of business and service data more intelligence intelligently to create new commercial opportunities and better service delivery models which will generate new income for the Council. Customer Using the various channels that the Council has to communicate with the intelligence public and use the customer information and contacts we have to help design and develop new commercial opportunities. Market strength Use our economic, infrastructure and asset strength to influence how the supply chain and infrastructure providers operate and partner with the Council to derive commercial benefits and new income streams. Brand and web Using the high value of our web presence, search engine optimisation and presence brand value to promote our trading and commercial activities and those which we can partner with others to receive a financial return. North Devon already has a strong brand image, we need to refresh this and make it relevant to a changing market, building on our strengths, and making sure we deliver beyond expectations. Democracy An ethos to develop commercially for the wider public good.

Page | 6 Page 158 Agenda Item 16b

NORTH DEVON COUNCIL

COUNCIL: 25 NOVEMBER 2020

COMMERCIALISATION STRATEGY

REPORT OF THE STRATEGY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE HELD ON 2 NOVEMBER 2020

Minute 208: Commercialisation Strategy

RECOMMENDED that the context of the financial parameters the Council was currently working within be noted and that the adoption of the Commercialisation Strategy as set out in Appendix A of the report be recommended to Full Council.

Page 159 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 17

Open NORTH DEVON COUNCIL REPORT TO: STRATEGY AND RESOURCES Date: 2nd November 2020 TOPIC: PERFORMANCE and FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT QUARTER 2 of 2020/20

REPORT BY: HEAD OF RESOURCES

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This is one of the series of regular quarterly reports on the council's overall operational and financial performance. The report covers financial as well as operational performance. It mainly covers the quarter from July to September 2020.

1.2 Sections 4 deals with headline financial performance. More detailed performance information is available in Appendix E.

2 RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 That the actions being taken to ensure that performance is at the desired level be noted.

2.2 That the contributions to/from earmarked reserves be approved (section 4.2)

2.3 That the movements on the Strategic Contingency Reserve (section 4.3) be noted.

2.4 That council approve the variations to the Capital Programme 2020/21 to 2022/23 (sections 4.4.4)

2.5 That funds are released for the capital schemes listed in section 4.4.11

2.6 That the sections dealing with Treasury Management (section 4.5), and Debt Management (sections 4.6 and 4.7) be noted.

3 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 To ensure that appropriate action is taken to allow the council to meet its objectives.

3.2 To inform Members of actual results compared to the approved Corporate Plan, as well as progress in delivering service within the revenue budget and Capital Programme

4 PRIORITY – RESOURCES 4.1 Revenue

4.1.1 The revenue budget for 2020/21 was approved at Council on 26th February 2020 at £13,380,000.

Page 161 Agenda Item 17

4.1.2 As at 30 September 2020, the latest forecast net budget is £13,516,000, which produces a forecast budget deficit of £136,000. (Q1 deficit was £385,000). Details of all variances are shown in “Appendix A – Variations in the Revenue Budget”.

4.1.3 The original budget for 2020/21 included a forecast to achieve £200,000 worth of salary vacancy savings. The current position forecasts this will be exceeded this year; we are currently predicting to achieve £245,000.

4.1.4 There is much pressure on the 2020/21 budget due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the Council’s income streams have been greatly affected in the first two quarters of 2020/21 and this is expected to continue through the financial year. Also additional costs have been incurred by the council in provision of temporary accommodation, additional agency staff for waste and recycling and in supporting the local community.

4.1.5 Central government have announced and paid local authorities 3 tranches of support funding totalling £1,189,000 for North Devon. We have also claimed £160,000 in respect of the job retention scheme and received £170,000 New Burdens grant for SBG and RHLG. Central government have announced they will help support local authorities for lost income by paying 75% of any lost income after Councils incur the first 5% variance. The expected lost income and additional costs have been factored into the figures in Appendix A along with the anticipated government support.

4.1.6 The figures shown in Appendix A include a projection for the rest of 20/21 based on the current environment and continuing Covid-19 impact on our income streams. Any further worsening of the predicted situation or increased restrictions imposed by government would need to be taken into account and built into the figures and members updated accordingly.

4.1.7 It is anticipated that there will be a reduction in both Council Tax and Business Rates income during 2020/21 as a result of the pandemic. However, no reduction for income is being reported for 2020/21 year as the financial effect of any deficit on the Collection Fund income will not have an impact on NDC finances until later years as the Government also announced that deficits on this taxation income can be spread over the next 3 financial years.

4.1.8 It is difficult to quantify the full impact of Covid-19 at this stage with any certainty, however the financial pressure on the Council will be substantial through 2020-21 and beyond – even after taking into account the above mentioned emergency Covid-19 funding announced by the Government. The Council does have both general fund and earmarked reserve balances which it could call upon in 2020-21 to mitigate the economic impact being experienced but clearly this would have much longer term solvency implications for the authority.

4.1.9 Moving forwards, the Council will reset its Medium Term Financial Strategy in recognition of the impact of the pandemic and the refresh of the Council’s strategic objectives. The changing environment and ‘new normal’ in which we are likely to find ourselves will require the Council to review the services it provides, how these are delivered and the outcomes that are of the highest priority.

Page 162 Agenda Item 17

4.1.10 The recommended level of general fund balance is 5%-10% of the council’s net revenue budget (£669,000 to £1,338,000). The forecast general fund reserve at 31 March 2021 is £1,161,000 which is a level of 8.7%.

4.1.11 At the 30th September 2020 total external borrowing was £500,000. The timing of any future borrowing is dependent on how the authority manages its treasury activity and due to current low interest rates and reduced returns on investments it is prudent for the Council to ‘internally borrow’ and use these monies to fund the Capital Programme.

4.2 Earmarked Reserves 2020/21

4.2.1 “Appendix B – Movement in reserves and Balances” details the movements to and from earmarked reserves in 2020/21.

4.3 Strategic Contingency Reserve

4.3.1 Full details of the Strategic Contingency Reserve movements and commitments are attached as “Appendix C – Strategic Contingency Reserve”

4.4 Capital

4.4.1 The 2020/21 to 2022/23 Capital Programme is attached as “Appendix D – Capital Programme”

4.4.2 The Budget and Financial Framework report to Full Council 26th February 2020 outlined the Capital Programme for the 2020/21 financial year of £12,622,028. Project under spends of £2,673,332 were brought forward from 2019/20 year and further variations of (£2,356,424) were approved as part of the performance and financial management report to Strategy and Resources to produce a revised 2020/21 Capital Programme of £12,938,936.

4.4.3 Two capital funding bids for a further £166,000 were submitted to the Project Appraisal Group (PAG) in relation to new Trade Waste software £36,000 and Repairs to the Queens Theatre’s flat roof £130,000. The projects are to be funded from the Improvement reserve and repairs fund respectively. The projects have been scored and have been put forward by the Project Appraisal Group.

Page 163 Agenda Item 17

4.4.4 Overall variations of (£2,526,908) are proposed to the 2020/21 Capital Programme as follows: . Other variations (+ and -) to 2020/21 Capital Programme £185,002

Scheme Amount (£) Notes

S106 South Molton Rugby Club, Drainage 9,002 Strategy and Resources works Committee 1st September 20

S106 Combe Martin Parish Council – 10,000 Strategy and Resources Clubhouse refurbishment Committee 1st September 20

Trade Waste software 36,000 Quarter 2 PAG business case

Queens Theatre – Flat roof repairs 130,000 Quarter 2 PAG business case

. Project movements (to) / from future years

Scheme Amount (£) Notes

Land Release Fund (1,500,000) Move from 2020/21 to 2021/22

Material Recovery Facility (760,000) Move from 2020/21 to 2021/22

Leisure Provision at Seven Brethren (500,000) Move from 2020/21 to 2021/22

Vehicle replacement reserve 48,090 Move from 2022/23 to 2020/21

Vehicle replacement reserve 468,892 Move from 2022/23 to 21/22

4.4.5 The revised Capital Programme for 2020/21 taking into account the budget variations above is £10,412,028.

4.4.6 Actual spend on the 2020/21 Capital Programme, as at 30 September 2020 is £1,630,714.

4.4.7 The overall Capital Programme for 2020/21 to 2022/23 is £29,729,999 and is broken down as follows:

 2020/21 £10,412,028

 2021/22 £17,033,383

 2022/23 £2,284,588

Page 164 Agenda Item 17

4.4.8 The Programme of £29,729,999 is funded by Capital Receipts / Borrowing (£14,844,331), External Grants and Contributions (£12,147,339) and Reserves (£2,738,329).

4.4.9 The timing and realisation of capital receipts can be impacted by events beyond the control of the Council and we have been able to manage cash flows for projects through internal borrowing.

4.4.10 We also have authority to borrow from the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) as outlined in the Treasury Management Annual Investment Strategy and the Council currently has external borrowing of £500,000.

4.4.11 Release of Funds – 2020/21 Capital Programme

4.4.12 Once funds have been included in the Capital Programme the Constitution requires a separate decision to release those funds. Accordingly the schemes below need the funds to be released so that spending can start within the following three months:  Trade Waste Software £36,000  Queens Theatre flat roof repair £130,000

4.5 Treasury Management

4.5.1 Bank Rate remained at 0.10% during the quarter.

4.5.2 The average 7 day LIBID (inter-bank bid rate), the Council’s benchmark rate at 30th September 2020, was -0.06% (previous year 0.57%).

4.5.3 The return earned on the Council’s investments was 0.24% (previous year 0.70%).

4.5.4 £40,689 investment interest was earned during the half year period. (The 2020/21 interest receivable budget is £50,000)

4.5.5 As at 30th September 2020, the Council had total external borrowing of £500,000.

4.5.6 £5,340 interest was paid at an average rate of 1.66% on the PWLB loans during the half year period. (2020/21 interest payable budget is £74,000)

4.6 Debt Management

4.6.1 The three major areas of credit income are Council Tax, Business Rates and General Debtors.

4.6.2 As billing authority, the Council annually raises the bills for Council Tax (£69,000,000) and Business Rates (£32,000,000).

4.6.3 Collection rates are controlled through monitoring: . the level of write offs . levels of previous years’ outstanding debt Page 165 Agenda Item 17

. the level of income collection in the year against the annual sums due to be collected. 4.6.4 The council’s budget is based on the assumption that eventually 97.5% of sums due will be collected. To ensure this level is achieved, year on year levels of write offs approved are controlled against a ceiling of 2.5% of annual debt.

4.6.5 The outstanding amounts at 30th September 2020 are as set out below: Council Tax Business Rates Age in Years 2019/20 2020/21 2019/20 2020/21 £’000 £’000 £’000 £’000 1 – 2 1,229 1,599 110 670 2 – 3 679 789 60 224 3 – 4 377 477 43 92 4 – 5 245 281 17 50 5 – 6 151 190 31 25 Over 6 213 275 43 69 4.6.6 Irrecoverable debts from previous years not exceeding £1,500 can be written off with the authorisation of the Chief Financial Officer. Decisions on whether to write off debts over £1,500 rest with the Chief Financial Officer, in consultation with the Leader of the Council. As at 30th September 2020 the amount of accounts written off was as follows: Less than £1,500 More than £1,500 No. of Amount No. of Amount accounts accounts 215 £15,797.69 Council Tax 20 £26,530.55* 19 £3,617.22 Business Rates 5 £20,792.85** 83 £16,398.95 Housing Benefits 5 £11,986.28

* £23,459.45 due to bankruptcy (see section 4.6.8)

** £20,383.67 due to bankruptcy and company insolvency (see section 4.6.8)

4.6.7 The monitoring of in year collection is carried out against national performance indicators targets of sums collected in year as a percentage of the Net Sums Due for that year.

4.6.8 The majority of the write offs are individual bankruptcy and company insolvency and in a number of cases include liabilities for previous years. In these cases we are unable to recover the debt. However, if at a later date a dividend is paid, the money is allocated to the account and the relevant amount written back on.

4.6.9 The other main reason for write offs is where the person has gone away (no trace). However, write offs are reviewed and where we find the persons contact address the write off is reversed and recovery action continues. Page 166 Agenda Item 17

4.6.10 The levels of collection are:

Achieved Achieved 2019/20 2020/21 Council tax 55.63% 54.63% Business rates 57.45% 57.23%

4.6.11 The Authority has received funding from major preceptors to help support the billing and collection of Council Tax and Business Rates which we hope will see an increase in the above collection levels.

4.7 General Debtors

4.7.1 The level of general invoices raised was £3,300,000 at 30th September 2020 (previous year £5,880,000).

4.7.2 A summary of outstanding debt, by age, is set out below with comparison to the previous year. Age of debt 30 Sept 30 Sept 2019 2020 £’000 £’000 3 weeks to 6 months 675 283 6 months to 1 year 172 226 1 to 2 years 136 394 2 to 6 years 300 367 Over 6 years 24 57 TOTAL 1,307 1,327

4.7.3 In accordance with the Constitution, irrecoverable debts not exceeding £1,500 can be written off with the authorisation of the Head of Financial Services. The Chief Financial Officer, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, must authorise write off of debts over £1,500.

4.7.4 As at 30th September 2020, the amounts written off were as follows:

Number Written offs - Number Written offs of £1,500 & of - over Invoices under Invoices £1,500 0 £0 0 £0

Page 167 Agenda Item 17

5 Equalities Assessment 5.1 There are no equality implications anticipated as a result of this report.

6 Constitutional context Article and Appendix Referred or A key In the paragraph and delegated decision? Forward paragraph power? Plan? Delegated 7.12 power No No 13, para 4.7

7 Statement of Internal Advice 7.1 The authors (below) confirm that advice has been taken from all appropriate Councillors and officers.

8 Background Papers None Author: Jon Triggs, Head of Resources Date: 16th Oct 2020 Lead Member: Councillor Ian Roome Ref: I:\Projects\Single Report\2020-21 Q2\Q2 Perf & FM - Exec.doc

Page 168 Agenda Item 17 Appendix A

APPENDIX A - VARIATIONS IN THE REVENUE BUDGET

Service and Cost Area Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Movement £ £ £ Temporary Accommodation 254,000 234,000 (20,000) Other (10,000) (10,000) 0 Environmental Health & Housing 244,000 224,000 (20,000) BEC Utilities (4,000) 0 4,000 Rental income 74,000 59,000 (15,000) Rates 21,000 21,000 0 Housing Benefits Subsidy 135,000 135,000 0 Covid-19 Initial Response - Work environment Re-configuration 45,000 45,000 0 Resources 271,000 260,000 (11,000) Museum income 25,000 25,000 0 Covid-19 Support - Leisure 200,000 200,000 0 Legal income (6,000) (6,000) 0 Democratic Representation & Management (13,000) (13,000) 0 Corporate & Community Services 206,000 206,000 0 Works & Recycling Employees Agency Covid-19 286,000 300,000 14,000 Works & Recycling Employees Other (50,000) 26,000 76,000 Works & Recycling Vehicle costs (Fuel) (43,000) (28,000) 15,000 Works & Recycling Trade Waste Tipping Charges 0 (81,000) (81,000) Works & Recycling Supplies & Services 0 34,000 34,000 Works & Recycling Trade Waste income 200,000 200,000 0 Works & Recycling Recycling Credits 0 6,000 6,000 Works & Recycling Shared Savings Scheme Covid-19 72,000 72,000 0 Works & Recycling Shared Savings Scheme 0 (66,000) (66,000) Works & Recycling Recycling Sales 236,000 238,000 2,000 Works & Recycling Other 6,000 (4,000) (10,000) Car Parks Pay & Display income 1,736,000 1,318,000 (418,000) Car Parks Other income (Ringo, Season Tickets, PCN) 330,000 268,000 (62,000) Operational Services 2,773,000 2,283,000 (490,000) Harbour reduced income 22,000 22,000 0 HR Professional Fees, Further Education, Management Development (28,000) (60,000) (32,000) Land Charges fees & Supplies 11,000 11,000 0 Other (5,000) (6,000) (1,000) Corporate Services 0 (33,000) (33,000) Place Employees (10,000) 12,000 22,000 Planning fee income 80,000 80,000 0 Building Control income 65,000 60,000 (5,000) Pannier Market income 108,000 98,000 (10,000) Place 243,000 250,000 7,000 Covid-19 Initial Response - PPE, ICT hardware 95,000 95,000 0 National pay award 0.75% higher than budgeted 0 97,000 97,000 Additional Vacancy saving 0 (45,000) (45,000) Borrowing costs 0 (132,000) (132,000) Job Retention Scheme (160,000) (160,000) 0 New Burdens SBG RHLG (170,000) (170,000) 0 Estimated 75% Government Reimbursement for lost income (1,928,000) (1,550,000) 378,000 Additional Government Funding Covid-19 (1,189,000) (1,189,000) 0 Other (3,352,000) (3,054,000) 298,000

Total 385,000 136,000 (249,000)

Page 169 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 17 Appendix B

Appendix B - Movement in Reserves & Balances

Opening Transfer Transfer Closing Transfer Transfer Balance from from Balance Earmarked Reserves to between 1st April Reserves Reserves (to 31st March Reserves Reserves 2020 (to Capital) Revenue) 2021 Collection Fund Reserve 732,620 732,620 Community Housing Fund -Housing Enabling 569,400 569,400 Capital Funding Reserve 397,587 -31,447 366,140 Vehicle Renewals Fund 171,790 250,000 -117,790 304,000 Crem Equipment Replacement Reserve 240,000 240,000 Transformation Reserve 0 250,000 -13,020 236,980 Crem Earmarked Reserve 199,948 199,948 Flexible Homelessness Support Grant 200,990 -6,000 194,990 Planning Enquiries Fund 190,133 -20,000 170,133 Local Plans Fund 144,125 144,125 Digital Transformation Financial Systems 168,895 -33,894 -4,330 130,671 Economic Development Reserve 143,987 -22,820 121,167 Repairs Fund 400,003 236,290 -321,500 -236,290 6,000 84,503 Tarka Tennis Surface replacement 70,873 13,000 83,873 Strategic Contingency Reserve 193,842 -117,240 76,602 Self Build & Custom Housebuild 72,302 72,302 Leisure Centre Replacement Reserve 63,099 63,099 Office Technology Reserve 193,099 115,000 -230,180 -17,498 60,421 Council Tax Support Scheme Reserve 79,919 -27,420 52,499 Rough Sleeper Initiative - DCLG grant 78,577 -29,216 49,361 CCTV Reserve 117,000 -69,000 48,000 Prevention CLG Grant Reserve 45,317 45,317 Improvement Programme Reserve 95,817 -52,546 43,271 P C Planned Maintenance Fund 40,156 40,156 Car Parking Reserve 30,496 30,496 External Legal Services Reserve 30,000 30,000 Brownfield Land Registers and Permission 26,263 26,263 Internal Audit Plan 25,687 25,687 Brexit Exports EH 25,000 25,000 District Council Election 0 25,000 25,000 Community Protection Vehicles Reserve 18,000 6,000 24,000 Community Consultation 38,383 -14,700 23,683 Neighbourhood Planning 23,250 23,250 Climate & Environmental Grants 0 20,000 20,000 Specialist Domestic Abuse Reserve 18,901 18,901 Building Control Reserve 18,000 18,000 Development Control Fund 15,600 15,600 Lynton Agency Reserve 13,522 13,522 IER Funding 13,138 13,138 Ilfracombe Harbour Repairs 10,000 10,000 Members Technology Reserve 0 6,070 6,070 Town & Parish Fund 5,159 5,159 Greensweep Replacement Fund 32,703 -30,000 2,703 Noise Equipment reserve 129 2,000 2,129 New Homes Bonus Reserve 125,147 45,050 -168,355 1,842 Ilfracombe Watersports Centre Reserve 3,180 -1,880 1,300 Habitat Directive Reserve 945 945 Museum development fund 10,539 -9,689 850 Local Welfare Support reserve 541 541 Office Accommodation Reserve 41 41 Second Homes Council Tax Reserve 125,289 -125,289 0 Theatres Reserve 6,000 -6,000 0 Covid-19 Funding Reserve 52,672 1,136,391 -1,189,063 0 Provision for Brexit Reserve 52,452 -52,452 0 Future High Street Fund FHSF 45,271 -45,271 0 RS Rapid Rehoming Pathway 19,782 -19,782 0 5,395,568 2,104,801 -1,194,701 -1,811,971 0 4,493,697

Page 171 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 17 Appendix C

“APPENDIX C - STRATEGIC CONTINGENCY RESERVE”

Resources Available £ Balance brought forward 1st April 2020 (193,842) Contribution to reserve 2020/21 (0) (193,842) 2020/21 Commitments £ Junction 27 – Economic impact on North Devon (Exec 03/03/15) 10,000 Water Sports Centre, Ilfracombe (Exec 05/09/16) 11,740 North Devon Fisherman’s Association (Exec 04/06/19) 500 Funding of potential Judicial review (Full Council 20/11/19) 3,000 Blue Glass Recycling Boxes (Strategy and Resources 01/06/20) 92,000

Total projected spend in Year 117,240 Balance Remaining at 31 March 2021 (76,602)

Page 173

Page 174 Page Agenda Item 17 Appendix C APPENDIX D - CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2020/21 TO 2022/23 Original Original Original Spend as at Budget Budget Budget Project 30th Sept Variance 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2020 £ £ £

Chief Executive and Corporate

Website Improvement 5,455 0 5,455 0 0

ICT Capital Investment 22/23 0 0 0 0 432,570 Office Technology Fund - End User Assets and IT Assets in Data Centre 160,873 0 160,873 357,770 0

ICT Improve Back-up and Recovery Capabilities 216,140 0 216,140 0 0 ICT Skype for Business 137,110 51,755 85,355 0 0 519,578 51,755 467,823 357,770 432,570 Page 175 Page

Corporate and Community

Museum of Barnstaple - Long Bridge Wing 39,573 0 39,573 0 0

Queens Theatre - Flat roof 130,000 0 130,000 0 0 21:21 (Transformation Project) 16,546 5,750 10,796 0 0

Committee Administration System 255 0 255 0 0 Agenda Item 17 Appendix D Online Consultation Software System 14,700 0 14,700 0 0 S106 Contributions - Various projects 456,344 250,698 205,646 0 0

Fremington Quay Wall Repair - Phase 1 30,000 0 30,000 0 0

Tarka Tennis Artificial Grass Pitch 4,560 0 4,560 0 0

Leisure Provision at Seven Brethren 3,921,315 415,819 3,505,496 10,438,608 0 4,613,293 672,267 3,941,026 10,438,608 0

Original Original Original Spend as at Budget Budget Budget Project 30th Sept Variance 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2020 £ £ £

Environmental Health & Housing

Affordable Housing delivery Grant 5,000 0 5,000 0 0

Affordable Housing Fund 90,000 0 90,000 0 0 S106 Affordable Housing - Higher Westaway, Newton Tracey 45,000 0 45,000 0 0

ECO Warm up Grants 586,046 24,777 561,269 0 0

Disabled Facilities Grant Programme 1,571,867 423,721 1,148,146 979,000 979,000 Boyton House 173,459 16,209 157,250 0 0

Page 176 Page Provision of temporary accommodation 285,674 0 285,674 0 0 2,757,046 464,707 2,292,339 979,000 979,000

Operational Services

Works Unit Vehicles 443,000 146,000 297,000 1,372,000 773,018

Rolling Road - for Workshop 31,790 30,795 995 0 0 Agenda Item 17 Trade Waste Software 36,000 0 36,000 0 0 Appendix D

HGV Ramps 950 0 950 0 0

Material Recovery Facility - Infrastructure 0 0 0 760,000 0 511,740 176,795 334,945 2,132,000 773,018

Place

Land Release Fund - Seven Brethren 529,670 3,200 526,470 1,500,000 0

CCTV service 115,000 0 115,000 0 0

Replacement Planning ICT system 10,730 0 10,730 0 0 Original Original Original Spend as at Budget Budget Budget Project 30th Sept Variance 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2020 £ £ £ 655,400 3,200 652,200 1,500,000 0

Resources

Barnstaple Bus Station re-furbishment 0 0 0 51,394 0

Marine Drive Car Park Resurfacing - Ilfracombe 0 0 0 65,000 0

Ilfracombe Harbour - Kiosks 53,772 1,269 52,503 0 0 Jubilee Gardens reserved car park retaining wall 31,447 0 31,447 0 0

Resurfacing to various car parks 0 0 0 54,796 0

Retaining Wall - Watersmeet Car Park Lynton 22,000 0 22,000 0 0 Page 177 Page Retaining Wall - Cross Street Car Park Lynton 9,500 0 9,500 0 0

Esplanade Wall 49,208 0 49,208 0 0 Public Maintenance - Public House corner of Castle Street and 16 Castle Street 90,000 0 90,000 0 0 Refurbishment Lower Lyndale Public Toilets, Lynmouth 30,000 0 30,000 0 0

HR and Payroll System 33,894 13,821 20,073 0 0 Agenda Item 17 Pannier Market Re-roofing works 100,000 0 100,000 300,000 100,000 Appendix D

Water Sports Centre Ilfracombe 200,000 0 200,000 1,154,815 0

Acquisition of Land off Frankmarsh, Barnstaple 335,900 246,900 89,000 0 0 Planned Maintenance Seven Brethren 109,250 0 109,250 0 0 Digital Transformation Asset and Financial Management System 40,000 0 40,000 0 0 1,104,971 261,990 842,981 1,626,005 100,000

Original Original Original Spend as at Budget Budget Budget Project 30th Sept Variance 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2020 £ £ £

Resources - Non Treasury

Acquisition of Corporate Property 250,000 0 250,000 0 0

250,000 0 250,000 0 0

10,412,028 1,630,714 8,781,314 17,033,383 2,284,588

Page 178 Page Agenda Item 17 Appendix D

Appendix E

Table A: High level status of all service plan actions tracked on Pentana

Completed Overdue Cancelled Not due Total

Totals 422 2 51 67 542

Since the last report 4 included 179 Page in the total

Agenda Item 17 Appendix E

Table B: Service plan actions that have been cancelled authorised by SMT

Action Reason

P PBP 12 19/20 Viable and sustainable Barnstaple This action duplicates CE PM 01 17/18 and therefore cancellation requested. Pannier Market. Explore development options for Barnstaple Pannier Market

Table C: Service Plan Actions (4) completed Action Closure Note Due Date Completed Date L 01 20/21 Review charge out rates. Enhance Completed 24/09/2020. Updated Legal charging rates in place 31-Jul-2020 24-Sep-2020 integration with financial systems from 09/09/2020. Legal Income/Expenditure spreadsheet Page 180 Page shared with Accountants.

P 01 20/21 Procurement of new cashless parking Cashless provider (RingGo) procured. Contracts signed. 30-Jun-2020 12-Oct-2020 provider Completed for NDC.

Place 01 20/21 Future High Streets Fund Delivery - The final business case has been submitted to MHCLG for a 31-Jul-2020 19-Oct-2020 Barnstaple capital ask of over £9m. A decision will be given in the Autumn as per Government guidelines.

R 05 20/21 Implement new Council Tax support Scheme went live April 2020. 31-Mar-2021 24-Sep-2020 Agenda Item 17 Appendix E scheme for 2020/21

Table D: Actions where Heads of Service have requested a revision to the due date and these have been approved by SMT

HoS Code Description Current due Revised due Reason & (if applicable Officer) requesting date date request this change

C&C Review the Design Print and 30-Sep-2020 31-Dec-2020 Progress is being made but other more KEN MILES C&C 01 Post service business critical priorities have taken 19/20 precedence.

Page 181 Page C&CS 01 Streamline administrative process 31-Aug-2020 31-Jan-2020 Follow up meeting to be arranged with Andrew KEN MILES 20/21 and implement an automated Hughes, ICT regarding its effectiveness and process for the administration of consider whether to continue with using the back the Councillors grant and new off system. Parish Council grant scheme OS Carry out review of the parking 30-Sep-2020 01-Dec-2020 Request revised due date: 1st Dec 2020 KEN MILES PARK 04 team and parking policies. 19/20 OS W&R Recycling Process Hall 30-Sep-2020 30-Sep-2021 The Baling equipment Tender is due to start in KEN MILES 10 17/18 November 2020. Stuart from Taunton Council is Agenda Item 17 managing this for us. Appendix E We are just waiting to publish the vehicle tender before he starts the process hall project. PARK 06 To take operational control and 30-Apr-2020 01-Oct-2021 Resurfacing and lining now complete. Not KEN MILES 16/17 enforcement of the Park & currently operational due to raised drains on Change site at Chivenor access/exit road, ticket machine needing service and updates, fencing blocking pedestrian access and no charges/name boards. C&C Castle Mound Improvement 30-Sep-2020 30-Sep-2023 Historic England work now complete. Next phase KEN MILES PL&C 01 Project is to finalise interpretation and protection of castle 17/18 mound project scope. Submit application to the HLF and deliver work Table D: Actions where Heads of Service have requested a revision to the due date and these have been approved by SMT

Place 03 Develop a Climate Change and 31-May-2020 31-Mar-2021 Climate Action Team work has been delayed due MICHAEL 20/21 Biodiversity Action Plan to focus being given to Covid19 response and TICHFORD recovery work. Enviromental Policy has been developed by the CAT and was approved by Policy Development Committee on 16 July 2020.

PRO 01 To continue to provide support 30-Apr-2020 31-Jan-2021 Due to staff shortage & Covid-19, an extension of MICHAEL 16/17 and guidence on the procurement time is requested. TICHFORD process. From the business planning it will be clear how much procurement is needed over the authority and relevent support provided Place 02 Develop a database to integrate 31-Aug-2020 30-Jun-2021 A consultant (from Plymouth Univ) agreed to help MICHAEL 20/21 natural capital into decision develop the specification, funded by SWEEP TICHFORD making as part of future (South West Partnership for Environmental and Page 182 Page sustainability appraisals Economic Prosperity). After several meetings the scope of what was needed has been agreed and the relevant published data sources identified. A method summary has been published. Paul Trodd has been involved and is ready to develop the database once the specification is finalised. However progress on the project has been delayed by Covid-19 restrictions, the lead consultant changing jobs and delays in a key data Agenda Item 17 source (Devon natural capital atlas) being Appendix E published

Table E: Outstanding Service Plan Actions (2)

Code Original Due Description Progress Bar Latest Note Due Date Date H 10 16/17 Discounted sale processes No change from last update. Tracked changes on the draft SPD submitted to planning policy in Nov-19 still not received from planning policy due to other priorities. Until this is made a corporate priority, it is difficult to keep giving revised deadlines until housing enabling know when this will be received to incorporate into 30-Jun-2016 30-Jun-2020 a final draft. This would then have to go to Local Plan Working Group; then out for public consultation; then revise where necessary, then Page 183 Page to LPWG then to Policy or S&R Committee to adopt. I would like to escalate this concern as the policy gap leaves us open to challenge on many important affordable housing issues. H 13 16/17 Off-site contributions process No change from last update. Tracked changes on the draft SPD submitted to planning policy in Agenda Item 17 Nov-19 still not received from Appendix E planning policy due to other priorities. Until this is made a corporate priority, it is difficult to keep giving revised deadlines until 30-Sep-2016 30-Jun-2020 housing enabling know when this will be received to incorporate into a final draft. This would then have to go to Local Plan Working Group; then out for public consultation; then revise where necessary, then to LPWG then to Policy or S&R Committee to adopt. I would like to Table E: Outstanding Service Plan Actions (2)

escalate this concern as the policy gap leaves us open to challenge on many important affordable housing issues.

Table F: Key Performance Indicators : Last year’s data + this year’s results

PI Code & Short Name Performance Performance Performance Performance Year End Year End Current Latest Note & Page 184 Page Data Q1 Data Q2 Data Q3 Data Q4 Target Result Target History 2019/20 & 2019/20 & 2019/20 & 2019/20 & 2020/21 2020/21 2020/21 2020/21

Planning

NI 155 Number of affordable 28 45 74 178 178 homes delivered (cumulative1) 5 40 Agenda Item 17 Appendix E NI 157a Percentage of major 83% 90% 100% 100% 45% 93.25% 45% applications processed within 13 weeks 100% 100% NI 157b Percentage of minor 91% 95.19% 96.6% 95% 94.45% 75% planning applications processed within 8 weeks 97% 93%

95% 95.68% 94.1% 96% 85% 95.2%

1 NI 155 changed from Gross to Cumulative NI 157c Percentage of other 91% 98% 85% applications processed within 8 85.00% weeks

Waste & Recycling

L82(i) Total percentage 50.91% 50.77% 47.78% 46.07% Quarter 2 figures not domestic waste recycled 51.9% 46.00% yet available

Finance

BV8 Percentage of invoices 96.52% 95.76% 95.7% 95.7% 97.00% 95.92% paid on time 96.20% 93.30% 97.00% 97.00%

28.59% 55.63% 82.33% 96.81% 98.00% BV9 Percentage of Council Tax 27.47% 54.63% 98.00% 98.00% collected BV78a (M) Speed of processing 21.5 17.3 17.8 21.3 28.00 Page 185 Page - new Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit claims 27 27.6 28.00 28.0

BV10 Percentage of Non- 31.96% 57.45% 81.30% 97.07% 99.05% domestic Rates Collected 21.07% 57.23% 99.05% 99.05%

PI Code & Short Name Performance Performance Performance Performance Year End Year End Current Latest Note & Agenda Item 17 Data Q1 Data Q2 Data Q3 Data Q4 Target Result Target History Appendix E 2019/20 & 2019/20 & 2019/20 & 2019/20 & 2020/21 2020/21 2020/21 2020/21

Property & Technical L728 Percentage of the gross 95.21% 98.26% 98.28% 98.26% internal area of the investment 98.16% 95.21% estate currently let L168 Income per car park P&D June £1.69 Sept £1.74 Dec £1.62 March £1.41 ticket July £1.79 Sept £1.79 £1.76

PI Code & Short Name Performance Performance Performance Performance Year Year Current Latest Note & Data Q Data Q2 Data Q3 Data Q4 End End Target History Target Result 2019/20 & 2019/20 & 2019/20 & 2019/20 & 2020/21 2020/21 2020/21 2020/21

Building Control

Page 186 Page L300 Building Regulation Full 99% 96% 100% 100% 95% 98.75% 95% Plan applications determined in

2 months 98% 99% 95% 98.75%

L301 Building Regulation 84% 90% 98% 99% 95% 92.75% 95% Applications examined within 3 weeks 99% 100% 95% Agenda Item 17 L302 Average time to first 12 10 8 7 10 Appendix E response (Days) 10

5 7 10

Customer Services & Communications

L999 Feedback Customer 57% 49% 40% 59% 50% No results for this Satisfaction % quarter as software 50% N/A N/A failed. Currently waiting further PI Code & Short Name Performance Performance Performance Performance Year Year Current Latest Note & Data Q Data Q2 Data Q3 Data Q4 End End Target History Target Result 2019/20 & 2019/20 & 2019/20 & 2019/20 & 2020/21 2020/21 2020/21 2020/21

advice re new software

L997 Customer Service 95% 92% 93% 93% 90% 93% No results for this Satisfaction % quarter as software 90% 83% N/A 90% failed. Currently waiting further advice re new software

L998 Media Satisfaction % Annual Annual 90% 100% 90% Page 187 Page

Environmental Health & Housing

91 301 457 796 646 796 NIL food visits due to Covid best practice. LEHH014 Food Hygiene 16 2 892 Interventions Completed Agenda Item 17 Appendix E

LEHH015 Percentage of Food 10.2% 43.8% 66.3% 88.7% 100% 88.7% 100 Hygiene Due Interventions

Completed 2.5% 0.3% 100%

LEHH016 Housing Options - 162 165 113 166 606 Data Prevent 98 Number of Homelessness only Prevented & Relieved 102 153 Relief 55 LEHH017 Housing Options - 24 37 29 30 Data Number of Households Only 121 Accommodated in Temporary Accommodation 33 36

LEHH019 Housing Standards - 20 68 104 167 167 Data £315,250.54 Number of DFG's Completed & only

Monies Paid 30 56

LEHH026 Number of NDC Lets 70 71 87 88 Data Through DHC only 48 98

Page 188 Page LEHH020 Housing Standards – 269,616 163,468 293,164 361,260 Data the level of unmet demand for only DFGs £366,156 £227,416 Data only

Agenda Item 17 2. Constitution Context Appendix E

Appendix and Referred or paragraph delegated power? 5.5 Delegated

3. Statement of Internal Advice

3.1 The author (below) confirms that advice has been taken from all appropriate Councillors and officers.

Author: Sarah Higgins Date: 21st October 2020 Reference: Executive Performance Report November 2020

Page 189 Page Agenda Item 17 Appendix E This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 17b

NORTH DEVON COUNCIL

COUNCIL: 25 NOVEMBER 2020

PERFORMANCE AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT QUARTER 2 OF 2020/21

REPORT OF THE STRATEGY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE HELD ON 2 NOVEMBER 2020

Minute 205: Performance And Financial Management Quarter 2 Of 2020/21

RESOLVED:

(a) That the actions being taken to ensure that performance was at the desired level be noted;

(b) That the contributions to/from earmarked reserves be approved as detailed in paragraph section 4.2;

(d) That funds be released for the capital schemes listed in paragraph 4.4.11;

(e) That the sections dealing with Treasury Management (paragraph 4.5), and Debt Management (paragraphs 4.6 and 4.7) be noted;

RECOMMENDED:

(f) That Council approve the variations to the Capital Programme 2020/21 to 2022/23 (paragraph 4.4.4)

Page 191 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 18

Open NORTH DEVON COUNCIL

REPORT TO: STRATEGY AND RESOURCES Date: 2ND NOVEMBER 2020 TOPIC: Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Annual Investment Strategy MID-YEAR REVIEW REPORT 2020/21

REPORT BY: CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This mid year report has been prepared in compliance with CIPFA’s Code of Practice on Treasury Management (revised 2017), and covers the following:

 An economic update for the first part of the 2020/21 financial year (appendix A);

 A review of the Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Annual Investment Strategy;

 The Council’s capital expenditure and prudential indicators;

 A review of the Council’s investment portfolio for 2020/21;

 A review of the Council’s borrowing strategy for 2020/21;

 A review of any debt rescheduling undertaken during 2020/21;

 A review of compliance with Treasury and Prudential Limits for 2020/21.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee is asked to recommend to full Council that:

2.1 The changes to the prudential indicators be approved. 2.2 The report and the treasury activity be noted.

3. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 This Council is required through regulations issued under the Local Government Act 2003 to produce a mid year treasury report reviewing treasury management activities and the prudential and treasury indicators for 2020/21. This report meets the requirements of the CIPFA Code of Practice on Treasury Management (revised 2017).

Page 193 Agenda Item 18

3.2 This Council is also required under the Code to give prior scrutiny to the treasury management reports by the Policy Development Committee before they are reported to the full Council.

4. REPORT

4.1 Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Annual Investment Strategy update The Treasury Management Strategy Statement (TMSS) for 2020/21 was approved by this Council on 26th February 2020. The underlying TMSS approved previously requires revision in the light of economic and operational movements during the year. The proposed changes are set out below:

Prudential Indicator 2020/21 Revised Original Prudential Estimate Indicator £000 £000 Capital Financing Requirement 8,770 7,169 Operational Boundary 8,250 2,250

Section 4.3 of this report gives further information on the Capital Financial Requirement and the Operational Boundary.

4.2 The Council’s Capital Position (Prudential Indicators)

This part of the report is structured to update:

 The Council’s capital expenditure plans;

 How these plans are being financed;

 The impact of the changes in the capital expenditure plans on the prudential indicators and the underlying need to borrow; and

 Compliance with the limits in place for borrowing activity.

Prudential Indicator for Capital Expenditure

This table shows the revised estimates for capital expenditure and the changes since the capital programme was agreed at the budget.

Page 194 Agenda Item 18

Capital Expenditure by Service 2020/21 2020/21 Current Original Position Revised Estimate 30/09/20 Estimate £000 £000 £000 Chief Executive & Corporate 506 52 520 Corporate & Community 5,234 672 4,613 Environmental Health & Housing 1,801 465 2,757 Operational Services 876 177 512 Place 2,026 3 655 Resources 2,179 262 1,355 Total 12,622 1,631 10,412

Changes to the Financing of the Capital Programme

The table below draws together the capital expenditure plans (above), and the expected financing arrangements of this capital expenditure. The borrowing element of the table increases the underlying indebtedness of the Council by way of the Capital Financing Requirement (CFR), although this will be reduced in part by revenue charges for the repayment of debt (the Minimum Revenue Provision).

Capital Expenditure 2020/21 2020/21 Original Revised Estimate Estimate £000 £000 Total capital spend 12,622 10,412 Financed by: Capital receipts (600) (400)

Capital grants (7,285) (5,854)

Capital reserves (1,207) (1,195)

Total financing (9,092) (7,449)

Borrowing requirement 3,530 2,963

Page 195 Agenda Item 18

4.3 Changes to the Prudential Indicators for the Capital Financing Requirement, External Debt and the Operational Boundary

The table below shows the borrowing requirement (above), the reduction for the Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) and impact on the CFR, which is the underlying external need to incur borrowing for a capital purpose. It also shows the expected debt position over the period, which is termed the Operational Boundary.

2020/21 2020/21 Original Revised

Estimate Estimate £000 £000 Prudential Indicator – Capital Financing Requirement Borrowing requirement 3,530 2,963 Minimum Revenue Provision (626) (540) Movement in CFR 2,904 2,423 Revised Total CFR 8,770 7,169 Prudential Indicator – the Operational Boundary for external debt Borrowing 8,000 2,000

Other long term liabilities 250 250 Total debt (year-end position) 8,250 2,250

Prudential Indicator – Capital Financing Requirement

The forecast Capital Financing Requirement has reduced by circa £1.6m. This reduction can be broken down into £1.12m for the 19/20 estimate and £0.48m for the 20/21 estimate (as shown in the CFR movement above). However, the majority of this reduction relates to the slippage in the Leisure Centre capital project. In the Strategy the projected capital spend on this scheme by March 21 was £6.37m, although the current projection is spend of £4.57m to March 21. Please note that this reduction is a timing issue only with the project spend re-profiled into future years. Despite the reduction in CFR from the forecast, it should still be noted that the current capital programme is adding circa £2.4m to the Council’s overall need to incur borrowing. Prudential Indicator – the Operational Boundary for external debt

The forecast operational boundary has reduced by £6m. Delays to the capital programme expenditure, stronger reserve forecasts and the strategy of postponing or delaying external borrowing means that the external borrowing position is not now expected to exceed £2.25m this financial year. Section 4.5 looks at the borrowing strategy in more detail. Page 196 Agenda Item 18

4.4 Limits to Borrowing Activity The first key control over the treasury activity is a prudential indicator to ensure that over the medium term, net borrowing (borrowings less investments) will only be for a capital purpose. Gross external borrowing should not, except in the short term, exceed the total of CFR in the preceding year plus the estimates of any additional CFR for 2020/21 and next two financial years. This allows some flexibility for limited early borrowing for future years. The Council has approved a policy for borrowing in advance of need, which will be adhered to if this proves prudent.

2020/21 Current 2020/21

Original Position Revised Estimate 30/09/20 Estimate £000 £000 £000 Gross borrowing 5,500 500 1,500 Plus: other long term liabilities 0 0 0 Total debt 5,500 500 1,500 CFR (year end position) 8,770 7,169

A further prudential indicator controls the overall level of borrowing. This is the Authorised Limit that represents the limit beyond which borrowing is prohibited, and needs to be set and revised by Members. It reflects the level of borrowing which, while not desired, could be afforded in the short term, but is not sustainable in the longer term. It is the expected maximum borrowing need with some headroom for unexpected movements. This is the statutory limit determined under section 3 (1) of the Local Government Act 2003.

Authorised limit for external 2020/21 2020/21

debt Original Revised Indicator Indicator £000 £000 Borrowing 22,000 22,000

Other long term liabilities 500 500

Total 22,500 22,500

The Leisure Provision at Seven Brethren report considered by Full Council on 13th March 2019, approved the increase in authorised borrowing limit to £22m from 2020/21.

Page 197 Agenda Item 18

4.5 Borrowing The Council’s capital financing requirement (CFR) for 2020/21 is £7.2m. The CFR denotes the Council’s underlying need to borrow for capital purposes. If the CFR is positive the Council may borrow from the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB), or the market (external borrowing), or from internal balances on a temporary basis (internal borrowing). The balance of external and internal borrowing is generally driven by market conditions.

At present, the Council has projected total external borrowing of £1.5m and utilising £5.7m of cash flow funds in lieu of borrowing. This is a prudent and cost effective approach in the current economic climate but will require ongoing monitoring of economic conditions.

In May 2020 a PWLB loan of £0.75m matured, leaving the Council’s total external borrowing at £0.5m. Whilst the borrowing projection prudently anticipates a further £1m of external borrowing might be required this financial year, however that is subject to the full capital programme being spent.

The Council’s borrowing strategy remains to delay any external borrowing for as long as possible, or at least until the outcome of the PWLB consultation on the margins applied by HM Treasury is known, as there is an expectation that borrowing rates might reduce. At present we have been using internal borrowing from the Council’s own cash flows, as this is a low cost financing option and reduces the net interest cost to the Council, but we will continue to monitor our cash position and amend the borrowing position as necessary.

PWLB Rates 1st April 2020 to 30th September 2020

1 Year 5 Year 10 Year 25 Year 50 Year Low 1.70% 1.67% 1.91% 2.40% 2.13% Date 18/09/2020 30/07/2020 31/07/2020 18/06/2020 24/04/2020 High 1.94% 1.99% 2.19% 2.80% 2.65% Date 08/04/2020 08/04/2020 08/04/2020 28/08/2020 28/08/2020 Average 1.80% 1.80% 2.04% 2.54% 2.33%

Page 198 Agenda Item 18

Long-term borrowing projections

10 Year Capital Strategy 25,000

20,000

15,000 Borrowing

£'000s CFR 10,000 Borrowing & cash balance 5,000

0 20/21 22/23 24/25 26/27 28/29 30/31

The current forecast for next financial year (2021/22) shows CFR increasing by £9.9m with the bulk of the Leisure centre spend in year, giving a total CFR of £17m. This would be funded from £14.5m of external borrowing and a further £2.5m of internal borrowing.

4.6 Debt Rescheduling

Debt rescheduling opportunities have been very limited in the current economic climate and following the various increases in the margins added to gilt yields which have impacted PWLB new borrowing rates since October 2010. No debt rescheduling has therefore been undertaken to date in the current financial year.

4.7 Compliance with Treasury and Prudential Limits

It is a statutory duty for the Council to determine and keep under review the affordable borrowing limits. During the half year ended 30th September 2020, the Council has operated within the treasury and prudential indicators set out in the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy Statement for 2020. The Chief Finance Officer reports that no difficulties are envisaged for the current or future years in complying with these indicators.

All treasury management operations have also been conducted in full compliance with the Council's Treasury Management Practices.

Page 199 Agenda Item 18

4.8 Annual Investment Strategy The Treasury Management Strategy Statement (TMSS) for 2020/21, which includes the Annual Investment Strategy, was approved by the Council on 26th February 2020. In accordance with the CIPFA Treasury Management Code of Practice, it sets out the Council’s investment priorities as being:  Security of capital  Liquidity  Yield The Council will aim to achieve the optimum return (yield) on its investments commensurate with proper levels of security and liquidity and with the Council’s risk appetite. In the current economic climate it is considered appropriate to keep investments short term to cover cash flow needs, but also to seek out value available in periods up to 12 months with high credit rated financial institutions, using the Link suggested creditworthiness approach.

As shown by the interest rate forecasts in Appendix A, it is now impossible to earn the level of interest rates commonly seen in previous decades as all investment rates are barely above zero now that Bank Rate is at 0.10%, while some entities, including more recently the Debt Management Account Deposit Facility (DMADF), are offering negative rates of return in some shorter time periods. Given this risk environment and the fact that increases in Bank Rate are unlikely to occur before the end of the current forecast horizon of 31st March 2023, investment returns are expected to remain low.

Negative investment rates While the Bank of England has said that it is unlikely to introduce a negative Bank Rate, at least in the next 6 -12 months, some deposit accounts are already offering negative rates for shorter periods. As part of the response to the pandemic and lockdown, the Bank and the Government have provided financial markets and businesses with plentiful access to credit, either directly or through commercial banks. In addition, the Government has provided large sums of grants to local authorities to help deal with the Covid crisis; this has caused some local authorities to have sudden large increases in investment balances searching for an investment home, some of which was only very short term until those sums were able to be passed on.

Investor cash flow uncertainty, and the need to maintain liquidity in these unprecedented times, has meant there is a glut of money swilling around at the very short end of the market. This has seen a number of market operators, now including the Debt Management Account Deposit Facility (DMADF), offer nil or negative rates for very short term maturities. This is not universal, and Money Market Funds are still offering a marginally positive return, as are a number of financial institutions.

Creditworthiness. Although the credit rating agencies changed their outlook on many UK banks from stable to negative outlook during the quarter ended 30th June 2020 due to upcoming risks to banks’ earnings and asset quality during the economic downturn caused by the pandemic, the majority of ratings were affirmed due to the continuing strong credit profiles of UK banks. The Council will continue to monitor the creditworthiness of its counterparties with our Treasury Advisors Links Asset Services. Page 200 Agenda Item 18

Investment Counterparty criteria The current investment counterparty criteria selection approved in the TMSS is meeting the requirement of the treasury management function

Investment balances The Council held £24.7m of investments as at 30 September 2020 (£16.25m at 31 March 2020) and the investment portfolio yield for the first six months of the year was 0.24% against the benchmark 7 day LIBID of -0.06%.

The Council’s budgeted investment return for 2020/21 was £50,000. As at 30th September 2020 £40,689 investment interest was earned in the half-year period.

The Chief Financial Officer confirms that the approved limits within the Annual Investment Strategy were not breached during the first six months of 2020/21.

Non-Treasury Management Investments

The PWLB consultation included the proposal to end any PWLB loans for ‘debt for yield’ projects where financial assets and property where purchased primarily for financial return. This could also mean no PWLB loans for the rest of the capital programme in that year.

We will need to review the new lending arrangements once they are finalised and released by HM Treasury and access the potential impact on the borrowing strategy, non-treasury investments and the Council’s commercialisation strategy.

Bank Rate & LIBID rates 1st April 2020 to 30th September 2020

Page 201 Agenda Item 18

5. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

5.1 As detailed in the report.

6. EQUALITIES ASSESSMENT

6.1 There are not any equalities implications anticipated as a result of this report, as the purpose of this report is to present the Council’s financial position only.

7. CONSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT

Article and Referred or paragraph delegated power? Part 4 Delegated Financial Procedure Rules (Article 13.8)

Part 2, Article 4.4

8. STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY

8.1 This report contains no confidential or exempt information under the provisions of Schedule 12A of 1972 Act.

9. BACKGROUND PAPERS

9.1 Background papers will be available for inspection and will be kept by the author of the report.

10. STATEMENT OF INTERNAL ADVICE

10.1 The author (below) confirms that advice has been taken from all appropriate Councillors and Officers.

Author: Jon Triggs, Head of Resources Date: 19th October 2020 Reference: T:\Technical\Adam\Treasury Management\ TM Mid Year Report 2020_21.doc

Page 202 Agenda Item 18 Appendix A

APPENDIX A: ECONOMICS AND INTEREST RATES

1) Economic Update  As expected, the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee kept Bank Rate unchanged on 6th August. It also kept unchanged the level of quantitative easing at £745bn. Its forecasts were optimistic in terms of three areas:

o The fall in GDP in the first half of 2020 was revised from 28% to 23% (subsequently revised to -21.8%). This is still one of the largest falls in output of any developed nation. However, it is only to be expected as the UK economy is heavily skewed towards consumer-facing services – an area which was particularly vulnerable to being damaged by lockdown. o The peak in the unemployment rate was revised down from 9% in Q2 to 7½% by Q4 2020. o It forecast that there would be excess demand in the economy by Q3 2022 causing CPI inflation to rise above the 2% target in Q3 2022, (based on market interest rate expectations for a further loosening in policy). Nevertheless, even if the Bank were to leave policy unchanged, inflation was still projected to be above 2% in 2023.

 It also squashed any idea of using negative interest rates, at least in the next six months or so. It suggested that while negative rates can work in some circumstances, it would be “less effective as a tool to stimulate the economy” at this time when banks are worried about future loan losses. It also has “other instruments available”, including QE and the use of forward guidance.  The MPC expected the £300bn of quantitative easing purchases announced between its March and June meetings to continue until the “turn of the year”. This implies that the pace of purchases will slow further to about £4bn a week, down from £14bn a week at the height of the crisis and £7bn more recently.  In conclusion, this would indicate that the Bank could now just sit on its hands as the economy was recovering better than expected. However, the MPC acknowledged that the “medium-term projections were a less informative guide than usual” and the minutes had multiple references to downside risks, which were judged to persist both in the short and medium term. One has only to look at the way in which second waves of the virus are now impacting many countries including Britain, to see the dangers. However, rather than a national lockdown, as in March, any spikes in virus infections are now likely to be dealt with by localised measures and this should limit the amount of economic damage caused. In addition, Brexit uncertainties ahead of the year-end deadline are likely to be a drag on recovery. The wind down of the initial generous furlough scheme through to the end of October is another development that could cause the Bank to review the need for more support for the economy later in the year. Admittedly, the Chancellor announced in late September a second six month package from 1st November of government support for jobs whereby it will pay up to 22% of the costs of retaining an employee working a minimum of one third of their normal hours. There was further help for the self-employed, freelancers and the hospitality industry. However, this is a much less generous scheme than the furlough package and will inevitably mean there will be further job losses from the 11% of the workforce still on furlough in mid September.

Page 203 Agenda Item 18 Appendix A

 Overall, the pace of recovery is not expected to be in the form of a rapid V shape, but a more elongated and prolonged one after a sharp recovery in June through to August which left the economy 11.7% smaller than in February. The last three months of 2020 are now likely to show no growth as consumers will probably remain cautious in spending and uncertainty over the outcome of the UK/EU trade negotiations concluding at the end of the year will also be a headwind. If the Bank felt it did need to provide further support to recovery, then it is likely that the tool of choice would be more QE.  There will be some painful longer term adjustments as e.g. office space and travel by planes, trains and buses may not recover to their previous level of use for several years, or possibly ever. There is also likely to be a reversal of globalisation as this crisis has shown up how vulnerable long-distance supply chains are. On the other hand, digital services is one area that has already seen huge growth.  One key addition to the Bank’s forward guidance was a new phrase in the policy statement, namely that “it does not intend to tighten monetary policy until there is clear evidence that significant progress is being made in eliminating spare capacity and achieving the 2% target sustainably”. That seems designed to say, in effect, that even if inflation rises to 2% in a couple of years’ time, do not expect any action from the MPC to raise Bank Rate – until they can clearly see that level of inflation is going to be persistently above target if it takes no action to raise Bank Rate  The Financial Policy Committee (FPC) report on 6th August revised down their expected credit losses for the banking sector to “somewhat less than £80bn”. It stated that in its assessment “banks have buffers of capital more than sufficient to absorb the losses that are likely to arise under the MPC’s central projection”. The FPC stated that for real stress in the sector, the economic output would need to be twice as bad as the MPC’s projection, with unemployment rising to above 15%.  US. The incoming sets of data during the first week of August were almost universally stronger than expected. With the number of new daily coronavirus infections beginning to abate, recovery from its contraction this year of 10.2% should continue over the coming months and employment growth should also pick up again. However, growth will be dampened by continuing outbreaks of the virus in some states leading to fresh localised restrictions. At its end of August meeting, the Fed tweaked its inflation target from 2% to maintaining an average of 2% over an unspecified time period i.e.following periods when inflation has been running persistently below 2%, appropriate monetary policy will likely aim to achieve inflation moderately above 2% for some time. This change is aimed to provide more stimulus for economic growth and higher levels of employment and to avoid the danger of getting caught in a deflationary “trap” like Japan. It is to be noted that inflation has actually been under-shooting the 2% target significantly for most of the last decade so financial markets took note that higher levels of inflation are likely to be in the pipeline; long term bond yields duly rose after the meeting. The Fed also called on Congress to end its political disagreement over providing more support for the unemployed as there is a limit to what monetary policy can do compared to more directed central government fiscal policy. The FOMC’s updated economic and rate projections in mid-September showed that officials expect to leave the fed funds rate at near-zero until at least end-2023 and probably for another year or two beyond that. There is now some expectation that where the Fed has led in changing its inflation target, other major central banks will follow. The increase in tension over the last year between the US and China is likely to lead to a lack of momentum in progressing the initial positive moves to agree a phase one trade deal.

Page 204 Agenda Item 18 Appendix A

 EU. The economy was recovering well towards the end of Q2 after a sharp drop in GDP, (e.g. France 18.9%, Italy 17.6%). However, the second wave of the virus affecting some countries could cause a significant slowdown in the pace of recovery, especially in countries more dependent on tourism. The fiscal support package, eventually agreed by the EU after prolonged disagreement between various countries, is unlikely to provide significant support and quickly enough to make an appreciable difference in weaker countries. The ECB has been struggling to get inflation up to its 2% target and it is therefore expected that it will have to provide more monetary policy support through more quantitative easing purchases of bonds in the absence of sufficient fiscal support.  China. After a concerted effort to get on top of the virus outbreak in Q1, economic recovery was strong in Q2 and has enabled it to recover all of the contraction in Q1. However, this was achieved by major central government funding of yet more infrastructure spending. After years of growth having been focused on this same area, any further spending in this area is likely to lead to increasingly weaker economic returns. This could, therefore, lead to a further misallocation of resources which will weigh on growth in future years.  Japan. There are some concerns that a second wave of the virus is gaining momentum and could dampen economic recovery from its contraction of 8.5% in GDP. It has been struggling to get out of a deflation trap for many years and to stimulate consistent significant GDP growth and to get inflation up to its target of 2%, despite huge monetary and fiscal stimulus. It is also making little progress on fundamental reform of the economy. The resignation of Prime Minister Abe is not expected to result in any significant change in economic policy.  World growth. Latin America and India are currently hotspots for virus infections. World growth will be in recession this year. Inflation is unlikely to be a problem for some years due to the creation of excess production capacity and depressed demand caused by the coronavirus crisis.

Page 205 Agenda Item 18 Appendix A

2) Interest rate forecasts The Council’s treasury advisor, Link Group, provided the following forecasts on 11th August 2020 (PWLB rates are certainty rates, gilt yields plus 180bps):

Link Group Interest Rate View 11.8.20 Dec-20 Mar-21 Jun-21 Sep-21 Dec-21 Mar-22 Jun-22 Sep-22 Dec-22 Mar-23 Bank Rate View 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 3 month average earnings 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 - - - - - 6 month average earnings 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 - - - - - 12 month average earnings 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 - - - - - 5yr PWLB Rate 1.90 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 10yr PWLB Rate 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.30 2.30 2.30 25yr PWLB Rate 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 50yr PWLB Rate 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 The coronavirus outbreak has done huge economic damage to the UK and economies around the world. After the Bank of England took emergency action in March to cut Bank Rate to first 0.25%, and then to 0.10%, it left Bank Rate unchanged at its meeting on 6th August (and the subsequent September meeting), although some forecasters had suggested that a cut into negative territory could happen. However, the Governor of the Bank of England has made it clear that he currently thinks that such a move would do more damage than good and that more quantitative easing is the favoured tool if further action becomes necessary. As shown in the forecast table above, no increase in Bank Rate is expected within the forecast horizon ending on 31st March 2023 as economic recovery is expected to be only gradual and, therefore, prolonged.

GILT YIELDS / PWLB RATES. There was much speculation during the second half of 2019 that bond markets were in a bubble which was driving bond prices up and yields down to historically very low levels. The context for that was heightened expectations that the US could have been heading for a recession in 2020. In addition, there were growing expectations of a downturn in world economic growth, especially due to fears around the impact of the trade war between the US and China, together with inflation generally at low levels in most countries and expected to remain subdued. Combined, these conditions were conducive to very low bond yields. While inflation targeting by the major central banks has been successful over the last 30 years in lowering inflation expectations, the real equilibrium rate for central rates has fallen considerably due to the high level of borrowing by consumers. This means that central banks do not need to raise rates as much now to have a major impact on consumer spending, inflation, etc. The consequence of this has been the gradual lowering of the overall level of interest rates and bond yields in financial markets over the last 30 years. Over the year prior to the coronavirus crisis, this has seen many bond yields up to 10 years turn negative in the Eurozone. In addition, there has, at times, been an inversion of bond yields in the US whereby 10 year yields have fallen below shorter term yields. In the past, this has been a precursor of a recession. The other side of this coin is that bond prices are elevated as investors would be expected to be moving out of riskier assets i.e. shares, in anticipation of a downturn in corporate earnings and so selling out of equities. Gilt yields had therefore already been on a generally falling trend up until the coronavirus crisis hit western economies during March. After gilt yields spiked up during the initial phases of the health crisis in March, we have seen these yields fall sharply to unprecedented lows as major western central banks took rapid action to deal with excessive stress in financial markets, and started massive quantitative easing purchases Page 206 Agenda Item 18 Appendix A of government bonds: this also acted to put downward pressure on government bond yields at a time when there has been a huge and quick expansion of government expenditure financed by issuing government bonds. Such unprecedented levels of issuance in “normal” times would have caused bond yields to rise sharply. At the close of the day on 30th September, all gilt yields from 1 to 6 years were in negative territory, while even 25-year yields were at only 0.76% and 50 year at 0.60%. From the local authority borrowing perspective, HM Treasury imposed two changes of margins over gilt yields for PWLB rates in 2019-20 without any prior warning. The first took place on 9th October 2019, adding an additional 1% margin over gilts to all PWLB period rates. That increase was then at least partially reversed for some forms of borrowing on 11th March 2020, but not for mainstream General Fund capital schemes, at the same time as the Government announced in the Budget a programme of increased infrastructure expenditure. It also announced that there would be a consultation with local authorities on possibly further amending these margins; this was to end on 4th June, but that date was subsequently put back to 31st July. It is clear HM Treasury will no longer allow local authorities to borrow money from the PWLB to purchase commercial property if the aim is solely to generate an income stream (assets for yield). Following the changes on 11th March 2020 in margins over gilt yields, the current situation is as follows: -  PWLB Standard Rate is gilt plus 200 basis points (G+200bps)  PWLB Certainty Rate is gilt plus 180 basis points (G+180bps)  PWLB HRA Standard Rate is gilt plus 100 basis points (G+100bps)  PWLB HRA Certainty Rate is gilt plus 80bps (G+80bps)  Local Infrastructure Rate is gilt plus 60bps (G+60bps) It is possible that the non-HRA Certainty Rate will be subject to revision downwards after the conclusion of the PWLB consultation; however, the timing of such a change is currently an unknown, although it would be likely to be within the current financial year. As the interest forecast table for PWLB certainty rates, (gilts plus 180bps), above shows, there is likely to be little upward movement in PWLB rates over the next two years as it will take economies, including the UK, a prolonged period to recover all the momentum they have lost in the sharp recession caused during the coronavirus shut down period. Inflation is also likely to be very low during this period and could even turn negative in some major western economies during 2020/21.

The balance of risks to the UK  The overall balance of risks to economic growth in the UK is probably relatively even, but is subject to major uncertainty due to the virus.  There is relatively little UK domestic risk of increases or decreases in Bank Rate and significant changes in shorter term PWLB rates. The Bank of England has effectively ruled out the use of negative interest rates in the near term and increases in Bank Rate are likely to be some years away given the underlying economic expectations. However, it is always possible that safe haven flows, due to unexpected domestic developments and those in other major economies, could impact gilt yields, (and so PWLB rates), in the UK.

Page 207 Agenda Item 18 Appendix A

Downside risks to current forecasts for UK gilt yields and PWLB rates currently include:  UK - second nationwide wave of virus infections requiring a national lockdown  UK / EU trade negotiations – if it were to cause significant economic disruption and a fresh major downturn in the rate of growth.  UK - Bank of England takes action too quickly, or too far, over the next three years to raise Bank Rate and causes UK economic growth, and increases in inflation, to be weaker than we currently anticipate.  A resurgence of the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis. The ECB has taken monetary policy action to support the bonds of EU states, with the positive impact most likely for “weaker” countries. In addition, the EU recently agreed a €750bn fiscal support package. These actions will help shield weaker economic regions for the next year or so. However, in the case of Italy, the cost of the virus crisis has added to its already huge debt mountain and its slow economic growth will leave it vulnerable to markets returning to taking the view that its level of debt is unsupportable. There remains a sharp divide between northern EU countries favouring low debt to GDP and annual balanced budgets and southern countries who want to see jointly issued Eurobonds to finance economic recovery. This divide could undermine the unity of the EU in time to come.  Weak capitalisation of some European banks, which could be undermined further depending on extent of credit losses resultant of the pandemic.  German minority government & general election in 2021. In the German general election of September 2017, Angela Merkel’s CDU party was left in a vulnerable minority position dependent on the fractious support of the SPD party, as a result of the rise in popularity of the anti-immigration AfD party. The CDU has done badly in subsequent state elections but the SPD has done particularly badly. Angela Merkel has stepped down from being the CDU party leader but she intends to remain as Chancellor until the general election in 2021. This then leaves a major question mark over who will be the major guiding hand and driver of EU unity when she steps down.  Other minority EU governments. Austria, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Ireland and Belgium also have vulnerable minority governments dependent on coalitions which could prove fragile.  Austria, the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary now form a strongly anti- immigration bloc within the EU. There has also been a rise in anti-immigration sentiment in Germany and France.  Geopolitical risks, for example in China, Iran or North Korea, but also in Europe and other Middle Eastern countries, which could lead to increasing safe haven flows.  US – the Presidential election in 2020: this could have repercussions for the US economy and SINO-US trade relations.

Page 208 Agenda Item 18 Appendix A

Upside risks to current forecasts for UK gilt yields and PWLB rates  UK - stronger than currently expected recovery in UK economy.  Post-Brexit – if an agreement was reached that removed the majority of threats of economic disruption between the EU and the UK.  The Bank of England is too slow in its pace and strength of increases in Bank Rate and, therefore, allows inflationary pressures to build up too strongly within the UK economy, which then necessitates a later rapid series of increases in Bank Rate faster than we currently expect.

Page 209 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 18b

NORTH DEVON COUNCIL

COUNCIL: 25 NOVEMBER 2020

TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY STATEMENT AND ANNUAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY: MID YEAR REVIEW REPORT 2020/21

REPORT OF THE STRATEGY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE HELD ON 2 NOVEMBER 2020

Minute 206: Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Annual Investment Strategy: Mid Year Review Report 2020/21

RECOMMENDED:

(a) The changes to the prudential indicators be approved;

(b) The report and the treasury activity be noted.

Page 211 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 19

Open NORTH DEVON COUNCIL

REPORT TO: COUNCIL Date: 25th November 2020 TOPIC: APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEES FOR 2019/20

REPORT BY: CHIEF EXECUTIVE

1. Following Councillor Lane’s resignation from the Conservative Group and joining the Independent Group, a notice requesting a review has been received from the Leaders of the Independent and Conservative group in accordance with regulations. 2. It is now necessary to review the political balance again. 3. Under the Constitution the Council’s Strategy and Resources Committee is to be made up of a minimum of 9 members and, if political balance allows, should also consist of all Group Leaders. At the meeting of Council on 24 July 2019, it was resolved that the number of Councillors sitting on the Strategy and Resources Committee be increased to 11 to allow representation from all Groups 4. Following discussions with and between Group Leaders, the following political balance has been agreed. This satisfies, so far as possible, the requirements of the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990. 5. It should be noted that the below also reflects an agreement between the Group Leaders that the Green and Liberal Democrat groups would each drop a seat on the Planning Committee with the recommendation being that these seats are allocated to the Independent Group. This reflects the fact that those Groups are not able to fill the seats themselves. 6. A table showing the individual Councillors to serve on each Committee will be tabled at Full Council.

Politically Balanced Committees

Group

Number of Cllrs Liberal Democrat Conservative Independent Green Building Control Joint Committee 2 1 1

Governance Committee (see note 9 5 2 2 0 below) Harbour Board 4 2 1 1 0

Page 1 of 2 Page 213 Agenda Item 19

Licensing and Community Safety 15 7 4 3 1 Committee

North Devon Crematorium Joint 7 4 2 1 0 Committee Planning Committee 15 6 4 5 0

Policy Development Committee (see 10 5 2 2 1 note below) Strategy and Resources Committee 11 5 3 2 (see note below) 1

Total 73 35 19 16 3

Notes on Table 1: Seats have been allocated to political groups in accordance with the rules laid down in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990. Governance Committee  Cannot include Strategy and Resources Committee Members. Strategy and Resources Committee:  The Chair of this Committee shall be the Leader of the Council and membership will include all Group Leaders where political balance allows. Policy Development Committee  The Chair of the Committee may not be a Member of the Strategy and Resources Committee.

7. In addition 9 appointments are required to a Reserve List of members from which any substitutes required to sit on the Planning Committee shall be drawn, provided that Council will ensure so far as is practicable that the composition of the Reserve List reflects the political balance on Full Council. Again the names of the individual Councillors will be tabled at Full Council.

Author: Ken Miles Date: 16th November 2020 Reference: T:\Democratic\Committee\Reports\Council\2020.11.25\2020.11.25 Appointment of committees.doc

Page 2 of 2 Page 214 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 20a Governance Committee - 5 October 2020

NORTH DEVON COUNCIL

Minutes of a meeting of Governance Committee held at Virtual - Online meeting on Monday, 5th October, 2020 at 6.30 pm

PRESENT: Members:

Councillor Roome (Chair)

Councillors Henderson, Jenkins (present for item 9), Luggar, Topps and Walker

Officers:

Head of Resources and Senior Solicitor/Monitoring Officer

99. VIRTUAL MEETINGS PROCEDURE - BRIEFING AND ETIQUETTE

The Corporate and Community Services Officer advised the Committee of the virtual meetings procedure.

100. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Campbell.

101. ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD WHICH IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE MEETING AS A MATTER OF URGENCY.

There were no items to be brought forward as a matter of urgency.

102. DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS.

No Declarations of Interests were declared.

103. LETTER OF REPRESENTATION

The Committee considered the Letter of Representation presented by the Head of Resources (circulated previously).

The Head of Resources explained that the Letter of Representation outlined formally, to the External Auditors, the governance arrangements in place and the Authority’s responsibilities on the financial statements presented. The Letter was presented to the Committee today, in advance of the Full Council meeting on 7th October 2020. The Letter was required as part of the final process for the approval of the Statement of Accounts for 2019/20.

1 Page 215 Agenda Item 20a Governance Committee - 5 October 2020

RECOMMENDED that the Letter of Representation be approved by Full Council.

104. EXTERNAL AUDIT - FINDINGS REPORT

The Committee considered Grant Thornton’s External Audit Findings Report (circulated previously).

The External Auditor (PB) explained:

 The Audit Findings Report set out the key findings for 2019-2020.  The deadline for the sign-off of the accounts had been extended due to the challenges presented by the Covid-19 pandemic. The revised date for the sign-off of the accounts had been moved to the end of November.  The external auditor was pleased that the audit was substantially completed and wished to thank those concerned at the Authority for their works in enabling this to happen.  The report provided the Auditor’s opinion and the Value for Money conclusion.

The External Auditor (PB) wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the following details:

 The materiality level for the financial statements had reduced to £1m and the accounts would be signed off to that level of accuracy.  There were no material errors or uncertainty in the draft accounts for 2019/20.  The opinion on the accounts would be that of ‘Unqualified’.  The Auditors were satisfied that Authority had the appropriate governance in place.  Property, Plant and Equipment represented the largest figure at the top of the balance sheet. Therefore even a small movement could have material effect. This work remained in progress.  Covid 19 had an impact on the ‘emphasis of matter’ on the value of land and buildings in the accounts. Notes had been added to the accounts, since the pandemic started, to reflect this in the revised statements. This was consistent in the accounts of all Local Authorities.  The Pension Fund net liability was considered a significant estimate due to its value (£55.6m) in proportion to the overall balance sheet.  The Devon Pension Fund had been contacted by the External Auditor in relation to the accuracy of the Pension Fund liability. It was anticipated that there may be a change to the value of investments. A response was expected by the end of the month.  The Value for Money Conclusion was that the Council had adequate arrangements in place to deliver financial sustainability during 2019-20. The Council delivered against budget with a surplus of £0.241m. Covid had brought challenges and would add additional financial burden. The Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) had already indicated a shortfall of £2.7m by the year 2023/24 which would now be exasperated by Covid 19. It was

2 Page 216 Agenda Item 20a Governance Committee - 5 October 2020

expected that the additional Central Government funding would offset some of the shortfall in the year 2020/21.  The Value for Money Conclusion was that adequate arrangements were in place with appropriate responses to Covid 19.  There would be a need for difficult decisions moving forwards as Government reduced central funding, whilst expectations from the general public increased.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Head of Resources confirmed that:

 Debtors outstanding on the Car Parking system could still be recovered as the historic data was retained on a back-office system. The figure in the accounts was an extract of the outstanding balance recorded at the year end.  A workshop had been arranged with the Senior Management Team (SMT) to look at the current MTFS in light of the effects of Covid 19 on the finances of the Authority, and any changes to Government funding. The MTFS would then be re-presented to the Members, at Full Council, via the Strategy and Resources Committee.  The Council would need to plan ahead to try to limit the impacts of significant reductions in income. The MTFS showed that the original budget gap was a shortfall of £2.7m in three years’ time.  Options regarding commercial ventures would be considered, although he noted that some Authorities had suffered from the loss of commercial rental income which would not be recompensed by Central Government.

In response to a question from the Committee, the External Auditor confirmed that many Authorities were looking at different strategies to reduce costs. Some difficult decisions lay ahead. Authorities faced financial challenges pre-Covid, which now have been increased. Many were waiting for further clarity from Central Government before further action. The ramifications for the medium term would need to be assessed.

RESOLVED that the External Audit Findings Report be noted.

105. EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS AND RESTRICTION OF DOCUMENTS

RESOLVED

(a) That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the following item as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined by Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of the Schedule 12A of the Act (as amended from time to time), namely information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

(b) That all documents and reports relating to the item be confirmed as “Not for Publication”.

3 Page 217 Agenda Item 20a Governance Committee - 5 October 2020

106. CORPORATE RISK REGISTER

The Committee considered the Corporate Risk Register report by the Chief Executive (circulated previously).

The Head of Resources advised the Committee that each item on the Corporate Risk Register had been re-evaluated following the Covid 19 outbreak. Each item had an update note except for Governance CRR 053, for which the relevant Head of Service was present to provide an update.

In relation to specific items on the Corporate Risk Register, the Head of Resources confirmed:

 Finance CRR 00 and CRR 03 were both subject to risk level changes due to the financial pressures and Central Government funding. Pre-covid income levels were unlikely to be received.  Finance CRR 54 was a new risk. There was no legal duty to assist, but there was a moral duty.  Governance CRR 04a had previously been removed but now re-emerged in advance of a Government White Paper due shortly.  Governance CRR 08 had been reassessed to take into account the increased volume in home workers and building changes in response to Covid 19.  Governance CRR 09 had been covered in greater detail at the previous Governance Committee on Business Continuity.  Governance CRR 10 had no change to policy although the notes had been updated.  Governance CRR 52 had been renamed as D20. Nine areas of potential impact had been identified. Officers were currently reviewing this.  Resources CRR 00 had been added prior to the lockdown in March 2020. Extensive changes to working practice had been assessed as a result.  Resources CRR 40 and CRR 41 had increased risk ratings to reflect the current financial pressures.

The Head of Place addressed the Committee in relation to risk CRR53. This had been created following an Inspector’s decision. This risk involved both North Devon Council (NDC) and Torridge District Council (TDC). Works to resolve this were ongoing. The update would be added to the register.

In response to concerns from the Committee, the Head of Resources confirmed that the impacts of Covid 19 on the local area, and the Local Council, had been examined and the Corporate Risk Register had been updated as a result. Consideration of the risks were ongoing. During the pandemic the Authority had worked alongside all Devon Local Authorities and local voluntary organisations. This work would continue.

RESOLVED that the Corporate Risk Register be noted.

Chair

4 Page 218 Agenda Item 20a Governance Committee - 5 October 2020

The meeting ended at 7.54 pm

NOTE: These minutes will be confirmed as a correct record at the next meeting of the Committee.

5 Page 219 Agenda Item 20a

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 220 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 20a Governance Committee - 3 November 2020 Appendix A

NORTH DEVON COUNCIL

Minutes of a meeting of Governance Committee held at Virtual - Online meeting on Tuesday, 3rd November, 2020 at 6.30 pm

PRESENT: Members:

Councillor Roome (Chair)

Councillors Jenkins, Luggar and Walker

Officers:

Chief Executive, Accountancy Services Manager and Senior Solicitor/Monitoring Officer

107. VIRTUAL MEETINGS PROCEDURE - BRIEFING AND ETIQUETTE

The Committee Clerk advised the Committee of the rules and etiquette for remote meetings.

108. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies were received from Councillors Bushell and Henderson.

109. TO APPROVE AS A CORRECT RECORD THE MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS HELD ON 8TH SEPTEMBER 2020 AND 5TH OCTOBER 2020.

The Committee approved the minutes of the Governance meetings of 8th September 2020 and 5th October 2020.

110. ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD WHICH IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE MEETING AS A MATTER OF URGENCY.

There were no items to be brought forward as a matter of urgency.

111. DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS.

There were no Declarations of Interests announced.

112. TO AGREE THE AGENDA BETWEEN PART 'A' AND PART 'B' (CONFIDENTIAL RESTRICTED INFORMATION).

There were no ‘Part B’ agenda items.

1 Page 221 Agenda Item 20a Governance CommitteeAppendix - 3 November A 2020

113. INTERNAL AUDIT - ASSURANCE OPINIONS - STANDARDISATION ACROSS PUBLIC SECTOR

The Committee considered a report by Devon Audit Partnership (DAP) regarding the Internal Audit Assurance Opinions – Standardisation across Public Sector (circulated previously).

Internal Auditor (DC) addressed the Committee and explained the background to the report:

 This report concerning the Assurance Opinions was used to set the scene on the additional reports provided by DAP.  The Audit opinion itself was the Auditor’s judgement and not based on any scientific calculation. Whether the opinion was ‘substantial’ or ‘reasonable’ it would be discussed with their client, in this instance; North Devon Council.  The opinion of Reasonable Assurance was given in the majority of cases.  Opinions were given in consultation with the Management Board at DAP, following the CIPFA standards.  This was now the standard approach, used across the board, in order to establish a constant approach.  The new system provided a colour-coded rating for the Assurance Mapping (Red/amber/green) to enable clearer and quicker interpretation or both an overall position, and specific areas of concern.

RESOLVED that the Internal Audit Assurance Opinions – Standardisation across Public Sector report be noted.

114. INTERNAL AUDIT ASSURANCE MAPPING

The Committee considered a report by Devon Audit Partnership regarding Internal Audit Assurance Mapping (circulated previously).

The Committee was advised of the following:

 This report was now colour coded, as explained previously, using a colour- coded rating system (red/amber/green). The Map was set out as a table.  It had been a new process to both the DAP and the Authority in the preparation and delivery of the report. Due to the constraints of working during the pandemic, the work had been delivered remotely so adjustment had to be made to the methods of audit, and the approach.  Public Sector Insurance Standards expect the Audit map to be completed alongside the Risk Register, however, it was accepted the issues faced had prevented this. In future it was hoped that the map and register would be produced together.  The Map was ‘live’ and would be amended over the financial year. It was hoped it would make identification of any hotspots on the control network easier.

2 Page 222 Agenda Item 20a Governance CommitteeAppendix - 3 November A 2020

 The Map/Table was set out in three sections – each line of defence; Business Operation, Financial Corporate and Governance, and Independent Assurance.  DAP had built this based on the work of the previous auditors, however their work had been re-examined, as DAP had been required to do.  Based on what had been seen in 2019-20 it was expected that many of the areas currently ‘amber’ would be moved to ‘green’ as the year progressed. Some area were yet to be classified/coloured.  The Map was specifically tailored for each Local Authority, although the base template was the same for all.  It was considered that the Assurance Mapping report would be continuously updated and could be presented to the Governance Committee regularly if required.

The Chair advised that he thought it would be a valuable visual tool and appeared easy to understand. It could also be used as a benchmark against other Authorities’ progress.

The Auditor advised that it would not be suitable as a benchmark as such, as there was no league table, although it could help to identify where other Las may be of use in order to learn from each other and provide advice and assistance in particular areas.

The Chair advised he felt it could be used to examine progress and concentrate on particular areas of work. He hoped that within a year that any currently uncoloured issues would be coloured.

RESOLVED that Internal Audit Assurance Mapping be noted.

115. INTERNAL AUDIT PROGRESS REPORT

The Committee considered a report by Devon Audit Partnership regarding the Internal Audit progress report for 2020-21 (circulated previously).

The Committee was introduced to the new Auditor and given an update on his background and experience.

The Committee was advised of the following in relation to the Internal Audit Progress Report 2020-21:

 Progress had been slow over the past year due to the pandemic.  The introduction gave a useful indicator of the overall opinion of the annual report which was indicative of the Annual Assurance Opinion.  The Opinion Statement contained the definitions of the assurance ratings.  The “Summary of Audit Reports and Findings for 2020-21” provided information on three core key financial systems. It listed the core audits and some of the initial findings. The summary was in the form of a table. The information was assessed at an opinion of Reasonable Assurance. The Auditors would speak to managers if areas required improvement. The LA

3 Page 223 Agenda Item 20a Governance CommitteeAppendix - 3 November A 2020

would need to focus on core risks and ensure that the managers were considering these. Generally the risks were being managed and escalated appropriately.  The delivery of the signed plan was delayed as resources were redirected to Covid-19 works. The auditors would be speaking to the Head of Resources in the next couple of weeks to get any remaining audits scheduled.  ANA refers to the Audit Needs Assessment. It was hoped that the LA’s software would pick up the scoring from the Risk Register to give an overall context. The columns on the right hand side of the summary table covered the recommendations and the direction or travel. The direction of travel was a pictorial indication of the way the item was headed, i.e. towards or away from a green/red/amber rating.

In response to questions from the committee the Auditor advised:

 The opinion of Reasonable Assurance was unlikely to change.  Auditors were unable to compare officers’ performance when working from home against when working in the offices. Audits could be used to see if the controls in place were suitable for the changes which come from working remotely, e.g. the use of e-signatures to authorise payments, or the ability to do ICT system updates when users were active remotely.  The audits were in place to provide individual assurance to ensure controls continue to be effective as procedures change.

The Chief Executive advised that any issues regarding staff performance whilst working from home would be a management issue, rather than for the auditors.

RESOLVED that the Internal Audit Progress report 2020-21 be noted.

116. EXTERNAL AUDIT PROGRESS REPORT AND SECTOR UPDATE

The Committee considered a report by Grant Thornton regarding the External Audit Progress report and Sector Update (circulated previously).

The External Auditor confirmed:

 The report set out the progress made against the 2019-20 audit. The findings had been presented in October 2020 and now, only a few items were outstanding.  Progress had been made and many items cleared.  The final Letter of Representation, the Draft Accounts, and the Annual Governance Statement had all been signed.  Still outstanding were completion of work on PPE and Investment Properties, receipt and review of the letters of assurance from the Devon County Council (DCC) Pension Fund Auditor. These were also being waiting on by other Devon Authorities. DCC were hoping to issue these by the end of November 2020.  The Value for Money conclusion was expected to be that of ‘Unqualified’.

4 Page 224 Agenda Item 20a Governance CommitteeAppendix - 3 November A 2020

 The Housing Benefit Subsidy Claim work was ongoing. Additional ‘40+’ testing was being carried out by the Benefits Officers. When this was completed it would be reviewed. The auditors intended to complete this work by the original 30th November 2020 deadline. It was noted that the Department for Works and Pensions (DWP) had extended the deadline to 31st January 2021. The findings would be presented to the Committee in the Certification Letter in January 2021.  The Report included information on the Redmond Review which discussed the effectiveness of local audit; suggesting the creation of a new regulator, and re-assessment of fees. The review also made reference to the possible streamlining of the Annual Accounts as the information required from LAs had increased. The Auditor noted that as accounts were so complex any such action would require legislation change. The review also suggested the appointment of an independent person to Audit Committees. Not necessarily a Councillor, but someone with relevant business or financial experience.

The report contained additional articles in relation to the Sector Update, Code of Audit Practice and Revised Approach to Value for Money Audit Work, Local Government Reorganisation in Two-Tier Shire Counties, along with a number of reports relating to Covid-19 and economic recovery

In response to questions from the Committee, the External Auditor confirmed that:

 The target to sign off the audit was the end of November 2020. The DCC Pension Fund Auditor (who was also a Grant Thornton employee) would provide their reports by that target date although were unable to give a definitive date currently.  Some Committees had appointed one or even two independent members. There was the opinion that the skill set of Audit Committee Members varied across the country and that the addition of an independent person could facilitate change and bring additional knowledge and ideas from a different perspective. The challenge however was the ability to attract people with appropriate skills to the role.  The Auditors regularly met with the Chief Executive and the Head of Resources and the reports would come to this Governance committee. The report could however be presented to Full Council if required.  There were no penalties if the audits were not signed off by the deadline, although the LA would have to publish the reason(s) for the delay. If the reason was the delay of the DCC Pension Fund report then there would be other LAs with the same issue.

The Chief Executive echoed the issues in appointing independent people to committees and suggested that the LA’s Monitoring Officer could attend.

RESOLVED that the External Audit Progress Report and Sector Update be noted.

5 Page 225 Agenda Item 20a Governance CommitteeAppendix - 3 November A 2020

117. AUDIT RECOMMENDATION TRACKER

The Committee considered the Audit Recommendation Tracker report by the Chief Executive in respect of actions taken to address internal and external audit recommendations (circulated previously). The Chief Executive advised the Committee of the following updates:

 Table A detailed the ten Recommendations currently in progress.  No recommendations had been included in table B (recommendations completed since the last meeting of the Governance Committee).  Table C detailed three recommendations for which time extensions were being requested. Of these, item 20 FB&E 03 could not be completed now many staff were working remotely who had been unable to undertake the training required. Staff would be required to compete an e-learning module.  Table D confirmed there were no outstanding recommendations.

Councillor Walker wished to pass on her thanks to those involved for their hard work in completing the recommendations to date.

RESOLVED:

(a) that that the extensions to time scales requested in the Audit Recommendation Tracker be approved; and

(b) that the Audit Recommendation Tracker be noted.

118. WORK PROGRAMME

The Committee considered the work programme for 2020-21 (circulated previously).

RESOLVED that the work programme for 2020-21 be noted.

Chair The meeting ended at 8.00 pm

NOTE: These minutes will be confirmed as a correct record at the next meeting of the Committee.

6 Page 226 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 20b Licensing and Community Safety Committee - 13 October 2020

NORTH DEVON COUNCIL

Minutes of a meeting of Licensing and Community Safety Committee held as a Virtual - Online meeting on Tuesday, 13th October, 2020 at 10.00 am

PRESENT: Members:

Councillor Tucker (Chair)

Councillors Biederman, Chesters, Gubb, Henderson, Luggar, Mack, D. Spear, L. Spear and York

Officers:

Senior Solicitor/Monitoring Officer and Licensing Service Lead

39. VIRTUAL MEETINGS PROCEDURE - BRIEFING AND ETIQUETTE

The Corporate and Community Services Officer confirmed who was in attendance and outlined the virtual meeting procedure and etiquette to the Committee and attendees. 40. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bulled, Hunt and Orange. 41. TO APPROVE AS A CORRECT RECORD THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 8TH SEPTEMBER 2020

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 8th September 2020 (circulated previously) be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 42. DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS

There were no declarations of interest made. 43. COMMUNITY SAFETY WORK DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC

The Committee received a presentation from the Community Protection Officer regarding the Community Safety Work during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The following summary of the work carried out by the Community Safety Partnership was given:  The Safer Summer Scheme, was funded by the Police Crime Commissioners Office and Devon County Council  It had been in operation in Croyde and Woolacombe ensuring visitors were as safe as possible over the summer months

1 Page 227 Agenda Item 20b Licensing and Community Safety Committee - 13 October 2020

 The Beach Marshalls employed from a Security Firm based in South Molton were providing safety guidance on Covid-19 matters as well as being a visible presence on the beaches reassuring the public  The two Marshalls were employed for 49 hours a week, were first aid trained and able to dissipate anti-social behaviour  The scheme ran from the end of July 2020 to the end of September 2020  The beaches were privately owned so access to the beaches had to be sought from the owners. Park Dean owners of Croyde beach were very receptive to the scheme  Daily meetings with the Police, North Devon Council Officer, beach rangers and Parish Clerk attended to discuss issues arising and share information  Issues with street traders, in particular a henna tattooist raised concerns over Covid-19 safety and was addressed quickly  A lessons learnt and findings report was being drafted for the Crime Commissioners Office. The biggest frustration found was the limitations of power that the Marshalls had.  This was highlighted by the gridlocking of Woolacombe due to high numbers of visitors. Locals were distressed by parking issues and the Marshalls were powerless to help.  Being in a high vis vest meant the public expectation was that the Marshalls were there to act on the requests for action from locals  Devon County Council had not provided the assistance necessary to alleviate the parking issue  Overall the scheme worked very well and the collaboration with the private sector had been successful  If the funding were available it would be good to run a similar scheme next summer, albeit not necessarily related to Covid-19 secure safety measures  Praise from the public had been received in relation to the helpful Marshalls working on the beaches  A new anti-social behaviour working group had been formed and met for the first time. This was a multi-agency group that had been created due to the rising numbers of homeless or street attached people drinking on the streets in Barnstaple  Representatives from the charities Encompass and the Freedom Centre were helping  If any members wished to be involved were invited to contact the Community Protection Officer  The Community Safety Partnership had received funding from the Police Crime Commissioners Office through the Safer Town Scheme to help tackle issues with homelessness and in particular street begging  The £5000 received was to be used to install pay points where members of the public could donate cash using a debit card as an alternative to giving cash to people on the street  It was hoped three machines would be installed at three locations in Barnstaple; in the Pannier Market, Green Lanes shopping centre and

2 Page 228 Agenda Item 20b Licensing and Community Safety Committee - 13 October 2020

in the High Street  Local charities Encompass and the Freedom Centre would benefit from the donations. These charities were working with the homeless population  The installation of pay points for members of the public to use to donate to homeless charities was already in operation in Bristol  A fact finding mission had been undertaken and it was discovered that £40,000 had been donated to local homeless charities  Video shorts were being created by representatives from the local homeless charities highlighting the harm caused from substance abuse as a result of cash being given to people on the street

The Community Protection Officer gave the following responses to questions asked:  Representations had been made to Devon County Council and would continue to be made regarding the lack of support and assistance with on street parking during the summer months at the coastal towns  The anti-social working group was made up of members from local Police teams – community safety officers, Community Safety Partnership Officer, the Drug and Alcohol services as well as the charities Freedom Centre and Encompass  Members of the public wishing to make donations to the homeless charities could do so directly to the charity online if it was not possible to visit Barnstaple town  The parking issues experienced were beyond our control and this would need to be addressed for any similar scheme to be successfully run  Braunton was a busy village in the summer months and when the beach Marshalls were less busy on the beaches they were deployed to the village to help at known hotspots  Barnstaple Town Council were represented on the Anti-social behaviour working group and were very engaged it was unfortunate that they could not attend the first meeting  As the scheme for pay points was rolled out, further options such as donating using the Ringo app to widen the opportunity for the public to make donations would be looked at

44. HACKNEY CARRIAGE AND PRIVATE HIRE POLICY - THE STATUTORY TAXI AND PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE STANDARDS

The Committee considered a report from the Service Lead Licensing Officer (circulated previously) regarding the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Policy – The Statutory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards.

The Committee heard the following:  Appendix C of the agenda was an assessment of how North Devon Council were currently performing against the statutory standards

3 Page 229 Agenda Item 20b Licensing and Community Safety Committee - 13 October 2020

 A progress report would be sent to the Department for Transport as well as the publication of North Devon Council’s recommendations of the adopted standards  Standards new to the Council included reviewing all existing driver licences against the new standards, as well as mandatory safeguarding and county lines training. It would be mandatory for all new drivers to sign up to the enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), which notified the authority of any changes to a licence so appropriate action could be taken  It was hoped to run an eight week consultation on 18 items before the end of January 2021 and report back to committee with the results

The Service Lead Licensing Officer gave the following responses to questions raised:  Meeting with members of the trade would need to be carefully planned so that views expressed were properly representative of the drivers and operators  The cost of the enhanced DBS checks would be incurred by the driver  The mandatory safeguarding training options would be explored if this was to be provided in-house it would keep costs down but would put extra pressure on officer time. There was an external training provider who specifically focussed on vulnerable children and adult safeguarding as well as county lines awareness and they would also run refresher sessions. The costs of these options would be investigated  The DBS checks were carried out through an external company and there would be a cost to the Council in staff undertaking checks. There were over 250 drivers to be checked every six months but it was an easier way to access up-to-date driver information.  The cost of the mandatory training might have to be passed onto the driver, but the Police Crime Commissioner may offer a set number of free places on courses. As North Devon and Torridge District Council were the last two authorities yet to start mandatory training any funding available may already have been spent  It was not possible to work jointly with another authority to share these costs as every authority had its own policy in place unlike, for example, the Gambling policy which was set as a national template adopted by all authorities  Six-weekly meetings do take place with all Devon authorities to discuss issues. There is the possibility of another authority authorising our Officers so they are delegated to take enforcement action against drivers operating in our area holding a licence from another authority area  The register of refused drivers was a costly item this may be an area we could look to work jointly with another authority, to share costs

RESOLVED that:

4 Page 230 Agenda Item 20b Licensing and Community Safety Committee - 13 October 2020

(a) The report be noted, (b) Consultation process be carried out on the measures and recommendations, and to the timescales, as outlined in Appendix C of the report, (c) A proposed policy be brought back to Committee as a result of the consultation, (d) Funding towards the cost of mandatory training for Drivers in relation to Safeguarding and County Lines issues be sought from Devon County Council or the Police Crime Commissioners Office, and (e) All drivers undertake mandatory safeguarding training

Chair The meeting ended at 11.29 am

NOTE: These minutes will be confirmed as a correct record at the next meeting of the Committee.

5 Page 231 Agenda Item 20b

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 232 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 20c Planning Committee - 14 October 2020

NORTH DEVON COUNCIL

Minutes of a meeting of Planning Committee held at Virtual - Online meeting on Wednesday, 14th October, 2020 at 10.00 am

PRESENT: Members:

Councillor Ley (Chair)

Councillors Chesters, Davies, Fowler, Gubb, Knight, Leaver, Mackie, Prowse, D. Spear, L. Spear and Tucker

Officers:

Head of Place, Lead Planning Officer (South), Senior Planning Officer and Solicitor

Also Present:

Councillor Luggar (Ward Member)

102. VIRTUAL MEETINGS PROCEDURE - BRIEFING AND ETIQUETTE

The Chair outline the virtual meeting procedure and etiquette to the Committee and attendees.

The Senior Corporate and Community Services Officer confirmed the names of those Councillors and officers present and advised that members of the public were also in attendance to listen to proceedings.

103. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

There were no apologies for absence received.

104. TO APPROVE AS A CORRECT RECORD THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 9TH SEPTEMBER 2020

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting 9th September 2020 (circulated previously) be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

105. ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD WHICH IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE MEETING AS A MATTER OF URGENCY

(a) Development at Larkbear: Planning application 61119

Councillor Knight addressed the Committee in reference to the lack of progress on the creation of pavements and access junction at the site. He noted that the houses

1 Page 233 Agenda Item 20c Planning Committee - 14 October 2020

had been started prior to the access works commencing, which contravened condition 15 of the planning permission granted. It was believed that a section of Devon bank had been removed, and the creation of a Bus Gate had also not progressed.

The Head of Place advised the Committee that a site inspection had taken place recently with Councillors to understand the works that had commenced on site. Negotiations were on-going between the developers and Devon County Council (DCC) in relation to the Bus Gate. There was a need to seek compliance and discussions would take place with the appropriate officers regarding the options available.

The Lead Planning Officer advised that there was an open enforcement case for the site and that she would work with the enforcement team to seek compliance and arrange a site visit in order to clarify the situation, which the Ward Members would be invited to attend, before considering any further action.

(b) Solar Farm and Yelland Quay sites – site inspections

The Head of Place addressed the Committee in relation to the sites which would normally require the Committee to make visits to the sites, and also to view the sites from various vantage points around the district.

The Committee discussed the possible solutions as site visits (by the whole Committee) could not be safely undertaken due to the current pandemic. Individual visits could not be recommended either from a health and safety perspective. The use of drones to provide the visual information was also discussed, along with the implications of cost, licences and legality.

The Head of Place suggested that in place of the Committee undertaking accompanied site inspections, that officers present videos and images of the site including vantage points to the Committee at a specially convened meeting of the Committee so that Members have a full understanding of the site prior to the application being determined by Committee.

RESOLVED (unanimous):

(a) that the Committee do not undertake accompanied site visits as it was irresponsible for Members to go on site and that officers present videos and images of the site including vantage points to the Committee at a specially convened meeting of the Committee so that Members have a full understanding of the site prior to the application being determined by the Committee; and

(b) That the Head of Place investigate the possible option of using a drone in future to provide the visual information.

106. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

2 Page 234 Agenda Item 20c Planning Committee - 14 October 2020

No declarations of interest were declared.

107. 65528: OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION OF PROSPECT HOUSE AND ERECTION OF 17 DWELLINGS AND ACCESS (ALL OTHER MATTERS RESERVED), LAND OFF DENES ROAD, LANDKEY, DEVON

The Committee considered a report by the Head of Place (circulated previously).

The Senior Planning Officer advised the Committee of an error on the application on page 33, paragraph 3 of the report, which should refer to three affordable properties, rather than two as stated.

In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:  The demolition of Prospect House was required in order to meet the required visibility for the junction. Much discussion had taken place between the applicant and Devon County Highways who had confirmed that without this the scheme would not be acceptable.  The length of time taken since the submission of application was due to the ongoing discussions which were taking place in relation to viability of the scheme.  The contextual street elevation drawings would be detailed further at the reserved matters stage.  DCC had requested pre-commencement conditions regarding the drainage on site.  The Heads of Terms agreed as part of the scheme viability were detailed on page 34 of the report which did not include public open space contribution.  Following consultation with Devon County Council Lead Local Flood Authority, pre-commencement conditions had been included within the recommendations (conditions 9 to 12) regarding permanent surface water drainage.

The Lead Planning Officer advised that Prospect House was owned by the applicant and its purchase was calculated into the viability assessment. To move the access, and therefore avoid its demolition, could render the project financially unviable.

Councillor Luggar (in his capacity as Ward Member) addressed the Committee.

In response to questions, the Lead Planning Officer advised that it had taken a long time to negotiate the site in order to reach an acceptable scheme. Although only three affordable homes were being offered, instead of the five as set out in policy (this equated to 17.6% rather than 30% of properties on the site being ‘affordables’) the officer had agreed to the three and was not optimistic that any increase could be negotiated. The section 106 contributions proposed to be directed to education could be split with an amount also directed to public open space contributions. However, the amount could not exceed £100,000.

3 Page 235 Agenda Item 20c Planning Committee - 14 October 2020

RESOLVED that (11 for, 1 against) that the application be APPROVED as recommended by the Head of Place subject to the Section 106 contribution being split as follows:

(a) Education contribution - £70,000

(b) Public Open Space contribution - £30,000

108. APPEALS REPORT

The Committee considered and noted a report by the Head of Place (circulated previously) regarding planning and enforcement appeal decisions received since those reported at the last meeting of the Committee.

Chair The meeting ended at 11.27 am

NOTE: These minutes will be confirmed as a correct record at the next meeting of the Committee.

4 Page 236 Agenda Item 20e

NORTH DEVON COUNCIL

COUNCIL: 25 NOVEMBER 2020

RECOMMENDATION OF THE STRATEGY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE HELD ON 2 NOVEMBER 2020

Minute 203: Review of North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031

RECOMMENDED that the Council:

(a) Commit to working in partnership with Torridge District Council to carry out a comprehensive review and update of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan on a joint basis;

(b) Review the governance arrangements for the preparation of the Local Plan to ensure inclusive, effective and efficient oversight and engagement;

(d) Arrange Member workshops to enable early involvement in identifying key issues and potential options to be addressed through a new Local Plan.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STRATEGY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE HELD ON 13 NOVEMBER 2020 (to follow)

Minute 218: Public Spaces Protection Orders

Minute 219: Approval and Release of Section 106 Public Open Space Funds – Chulmleigh

Minute 220: Approval and Release of Section 106 Public Open Space Funds – North Molton

Minute 221: Approval and Release of Section 106 Public Open Space Funds – Instow

Minute 222: Approval and Release of Section 106 Public Open Space Funds - Fremington

Page 237 This page is intentionally left blank Public Document Pack Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources Committee - 5 October 2020 Appendix A

NORTH DEVON COUNCIL

Minutes of a meeting of Strategy and Resources Committee held at Virtual - Online meeting on Monday, 5th October, 2020 at 10.00 am

PRESENT: Members:

Councillor Worden (Chair)

Councillors Barker, Leaver, Lofthouse, Patrinos, Pearson, Prowse, L. Spear and Yabsley

Officers:

Chief Executive, Head of Resources, Lead Officer - Planning Policy, Senior Solicitor/Monitoring Officer, Service Lead - Environmental Protection, Customer and Corporate Services Manager, Contracts Delivery Manager, Head of Environmental Health and Housing, Public Protection Manager and Head of Place

Also Present:

Councillors Knight, Luggar, Roome, D. Spear, Tucker and York

181. VIRTUAL MEETING PROCEDURE - BRIEFING AND ETIQUETTE

The Chair outlined the virtual meet procedure and etiquette to the Committee and attendees.

The Senior Corporate and Community Services Officers confirmed the Members of the Committee, Members, Officers and external attendees who were present. 182. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Wilkinson. 183. TO APPROVE AS A CORRECT RECORD THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 1 SEPTEMBER 2020 (ATTACHED) SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CORRECTION BEING INCLUDED IN MINUTE 173 (B):

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 1 September 2020 (circulated previously) be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the typographical error in minute 179 being amended from “RECOMMENDED” to “RESOLVED” and the following correction being included in minute 173 (b):

“The Emergency Planning Officer had previously informed the Committee that there was no weather warning in force prior to the

1 Page 239 Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources CommitteeAppendix - 5 AOctober 2020

flooding. She had since realised that this was incorrect and the record should read that there was a Met Office yellow weather warning for thunderstorms issued on Monday 17th August 2020 but this covered many parts of England. There was no weather warning that specifically identified Barnstaple/North Devon as high risk and due to the uncertainty in the forecast it was not possible to predict what areas would be impacted, so this would not have changed our response to the flooding.” 184. ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD WHICH IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE MEETING AS A MATTER OF URGENCY.

(a) Affordable Housing

Councillor Prowse advised that there was currently no supplementary planning document in place regarding securing section 106 contributions from developers in relation to the provision of affordable housing. A Supplementary Planning Document was in place in 2005/06, however it had not been included as part of the new Joint Local Plan. Due to the current affordable housing crisis, there was a need for both Councils to consider as a priority producing either a Supplementary Planning Document or Code of Practice in relation to securing section 106 contributions from developers for the provision of affordable housing. This issue could then be considered at a future meeting of the Joint Local Plan Working Group. 185. DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS.

There were no declarations of interest announced. 186. BATSWORTHY CROSS WINDFARM

The Committee considered a report by the Service Lead Environmental Protection (circulated previously) regarding Batsworthy Cross Windfarm.

The Service Lead Environmental Protection highlighted the following:

 Noise compliance monitoring at six locations close to Batsworthy Cross Windfarm had confirmed compliance with the noise related planning conditions at five of these six locations.  The Operator had since made further representations to Officers’ concerning certain aspects of the meteorological data used in the noise assessments to date. Having reviewed the representation received, the Council’s acoustic consultant had concluded that the wording of the planning condition does not allow The Operator to utilise an alternative wind speed location at this time. Internal legal opinion also agreed with the view of the Council’s acoustic consultant.  The Operator was advised of this position on 16 September 2020 asking them again to submit the information identified in paragraph 4.3 of the report within 30 days of the request having been made. The 30 days expired on 16 October 2020.

2 Page 240 Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources CommitteeAppendix - 5 AOctober 2020

 A report would be brought to the next meeting of the Committee on 2 November 2020.

The Committee noted the current position. 187. FUNDING FOR VICTIMS OF BARNSTAPLE FLOODING

The Committee considered a report by the Public Protection Manager (circulated previously) regarding funding for victims of Barnstaple floods which occurred on 17 August 2020.

The Public Protection Manager highlighted the following:

 The flash flooding which occurred in Barnstaple on 17 August 2020 affected 117 residential and commercial properties.  A number of agencies including North Devon Council responded to the incident and a Recovery Co-ordinating group was set up.  The Committee was asked to consider whether to utilise part of the Covid 19 Hardship fund to support householders who were flooded in Barnstaple on 17 August 2020. The suggested funding structure was detailed in paragraph 4.2 of the report. The views of the Recovery Co-ordinating Group had been sought.  The Council had promoted the use of the Devon County Council Flood Online Reporting Tool (FORT) as part of the recovery stage. One property in Bishops Tawton was shown to be flooded on the FORT map  The Council had been advised that properties in Landkey and North Molton had been flooded, but these had not been reported through the online reporting tool. Any future flooding needed to be reported using the online tool and guidance would be provided on how to report incidents.  If the Committee approved the funding, then applicants would be requested to provide evidence of the flooding that had occurred.

Councillor Roome addressed the Committee.

In response to questions, the Chief Executive advised the following:

 The NDC Covid 19 Hardship fund was for private individuals and not businesses and had been awarded to the Council by Devon County Council. Devon County Council (DCC) had confirmed that the Council’s own policy could determine eligibility in order to respond to local circumstances and there was discretion to use some for hardship caused by flooding and that DCC would support use of the funds for this purpose.  Since the flooding had occurred, the impact of Covid 19 on North Devon’s economy had been firmed up and 7 out of 10 worst affected wards in Devon were within North Devon. Nationally the full impact of Covid 19 was unknown. One third of UK employers were planning on making redundancies and the major impacts on individuals and families was still to be felt.  If the Covid 19 Hardship fund was used to support householders who were flooded, this fund would not be replaced by DCC and potentially one third of the total fund would be used for this purpose.

3 Page 241 Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources CommitteeAppendix - 5 AOctober 2020

 The flash flood was not a one off event and was likely to occur again and there was concern that this would set a precedent and pressure on North Devon Council to provide funding.  The Covid 19 Hardship Fund was there to provide funding to those experiencing hardship and could be used to purchase such items as school uniforms, face masks, travel to medical appointments.  The additional flooding that had occurred over the weekend of the 3rd and 4th October had not been reported to the Council.  The Committee had discretion to make a decision regarding the use of the Covid 19 hardship fund. The Council was prioritising helping people experiencing hardship. He referred to a recent email that had been sent to all Councillors thanking the Council for helping an individual who was experiencing financial hardship to buy school uniform.

In response to a question, Councillor Prowse advised that the Environment Agency’s flood protection schemes were dependent upon developer contributions. The Economic Development team was currently working with landowners regarding cells 3 and 4. However, this would not have an impact on this type of flooding as it was fluvial.

Councillors Luggar and York addressed the Committee.

In response to questions, the Head of Resources advised the following:

 The Council had not previously awarded grants to householders who had been flooded.  The impact of Covid 19 on individuals was likely to worsen due to furlough scheme ending in October. The Covid 19 fund was for individuals experiencing hardship.  The Contingency Reserve fund could be used to provide grants to householders, although this would affect future availability of this fund if it was used for this purpose. There was currently approximately £75,000 within the fund.  Contributions from Councillors as part of the Community Councillor fund could be considered.  The Council had awarded individuals in receipt of Council Tax support a further £150 reduction as part of a Government scheme.  It would be difficult for the Council to administer interest free loans, as the Council was not a bank and was suffering financially.  An update would be reported to Members regarding the current position on the Mill Road flood defence scheme.  Devon County Council was in the process of undertaking a review to identify specific problems, which would be reported to Members in the future.

Marc Rostock, North Devon Homes addressed the Committee.

Councillor Yabsley declared a personal interest as a Member of Devon County Council. He advised that Devon County Council was responsible for drainage and a report would be presented to Barnstaple County Councillors shortly. Many drains

4 Page 242 Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources CommitteeAppendix - 5 AOctober 2020

were combined with sewerage. In urban areas, drains were cleaned on a three yearly cycle and on a one yearly cycle in rural areas.

RESOLVED:

(a) That funding be provided to the victims of the flash floods which occurred on 17 August 2020 in accordance with the funding structure outlined in the report and that the financing of the scheme be delegated to the Chief Executive to find alternative sources of funding;

(b) That reassurance be sought from Devon County Council that the drains would be cleaned and kept clear and that representations be made to the Environment Agency requesting an update on the flood defence schemes. 188. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING

RESOLVED that the meeting be adjourned for five minutes to enable a comfort break and be reconvened at 11.45 a.m. 189. AMENDED AIR QUALITY SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT

The Committee considered a report by the Head of Place (circulated previously) regarding an amended Air Quality Supplementary Planning Document.

The Lead Officer Planning Officer highlighted the following:

 Subsequent to the adoption of the Air Quality Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) by the Committee on 1st June 2020, Natural England had provided the Council with positive feedback. However Natural England had also identified a minor inconsistency with the advice being provided and the need for clarification, despite the original wording being what they had requested. They had recommended minor changes to paragraph 7.5 as detailed in the report. The proposed wording changes to paragraph 7.5 were set out in Appendix A.  The revised version of the SPD was being recommended for adoption by Torridge District Council at a meeting tonight.

RESOLVED:

(a) That the Air Quality SPD be readopted to include the proposed wording changes set out in Appendix A;

(b) That the amended SPD be treated as a material consideration in determining relevant planning applications.

5 Page 243 Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources CommitteeAppendix - 5 AOctober 2020

190. EXTEND ROYAL MAIL CONTRACT

The Committee considered a report by the Customer and Corporate Communications Manager (circulated previously) regarding the extension of the Royal Mail contract.

The Customer and Corporate Communications Manager highlighted the following:

 The Council currently had a contract with Royal Mail for the delivery and collection of mail and the contract was due for renewal in December 2020.  An extension was requested to that contract to allow for a pilot of “hybrid mail” to take place, whereby all mail was sent to their headquarters, printed and sent out the same day. Vigorous checks were carried out.  It was requested that the recommendation be amended to also request approval to extend the contract with CFH who manage the mailing out of annual council tax and business rates bills. This was because it was likely that any new hybrid mail project would include the annual billing mailings and the Council did not want to be tied into a separate contract for annual billing when it was likely one contract would cover that as well as the day to day mailing. The contract was due to expire in November.

RESOLVED:

(a) That a six month extension of the Royal Mail contract to allow for a pilot of hybrid mail to take place before the contract expires be approved;

(b) That the contract with CFH who manage the mailing out of our annual council tax and business rates bills be extended for six months.

191. LEISURE CONTRACT PAYMENTS

The Committee considered a report by the Contracts Delivery Manager (circulated previously) regarding Leisure Centre payments.

The Contracts Delivery Manager highlighted the following:

 Parkwood Leisure have issued claims to the Council for further payments for the months of June and July and have indicated that further financial assistance was likely to be required for August, September and beyond in order to keep North Devon’s leisure facilities viable and open to the public as the Covid 19 crisis continued.  Parkwood’s recent claims showed a loss of just under £38,000 in June and £54,000 in July, totalling £92,000. However, the Head of Resources had scrutinised the claim and was agreeable to a payment of £80,000 to Parkwood for June and July losses incurred.  The position of Parkwood nationally as outlined in paragraph 4.5 of the report.

6 Page 244 Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources CommitteeAppendix - 5 AOctober 2020

 At the time of writing the report, since the pools reopened at the start of September 2,000, public swimming lane sessions have been booked and attended and 681 children have returned to their weekly out of school swimming lessons. If the pools close again, then 400 local, schoolchildren will miss their weekly swimming sessions. If the pools were to close there would be an immediate impact on nine swimming clubs as detailed in paragraph 4.9 of the report.  Parkwood had not received a public subsidy for the past two years.  The Council would have no maintenance and subsidy costs as part of the new leisure centre contract.  There was real threat that if Parkwood was no longer able to continue, then there was uncertainty regarding whether the current leisure provision, Tarka Tennis centre and all weather pitch would be re-opened.  The Government was due to make an announcement regarding financial assistance for leisure providers.  It was anticipated that Parkwood would request further financial assistance up until October 2020 due to the furlough scheme coming to an end and the re- opening of the swimming pool and may be further requests depending on future lockdown restrictions.

The Chief Executive highlighted the following:

 The Council had a good working relationship with Parkwood and therefore was in a good position compared to other local authorities whereby other leisure providers were in a dire financial situation.  The Council was campaigning for funding through the South West Region and nationally.  Many other Local Authorities had not re-opened their leisure facilities such as Torridge District Council and Cornwall Council.  If Parkwood walked away from the contract, it would be very unlikely that another leisure provider would be found and it may also have an impact on the new Leisure Centre.  The Head of Resources advised that:

 Monthly accounts submitted by Parkwood were thoroughly scrutinised.  The new Leisure Centre contract would provide the Council with a revenue stream for a 20 year period.  If Parkwood walked away from the contract, the Council would become responsible for the building, overhead and rates bill.

RESOLVED:

(a) That the Council makes a grant payment of £80,000 to Parkwood Leisure to cover losses experienced in the month of June and July due to Covid 19;

(b) That the Council considers extending the COVID Relief period as defined in the interim leisure contract to maintain the provision of

7 Page 245 Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources CommitteeAppendix - 5 AOctober 2020

leisure services throughout the COVID crisis. 192. URGENT DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

The Committee noted the urgent decisions that had been made by the Chief Executive in accordance with paragraph 3.48, Annex 2, Part 3 of the Constitution (circulated previously), regarding the dangerous structure at Rustic Cottage, Gunn.

Councillor Prowse provided the Committee with an update regarding the owners of the cottage

The Head of Place provided an update to the Committee regarding the history and condition of the building and advised that the only option available was to demolish the building. Work would commence on the adjoining property to ensure that was adequately protected. The Council would be undertaking the appropriate actions to recover the costs from the owner.

Councillor Worden advised the Committee that following the meeting Councillor Leaver would be standing down from the Committee and on behalf of the Committee thanked her for her contribution.

Chair The meeting ended at 12.29 pm

NOTE: These minutes will be confirmed as a correct record at the next meeting of the Committee.

8 Page 246 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources Committee - 19 October 2020 Appendix B

NORTH DEVON COUNCIL

Minutes of a meeting of Strategy and Resources Committee held at Virtual - Online meeting on Monday, 19th October, 2020 at 10.00 am

PRESENT: Members:

Councillor Worden (Chair)

Councillors Knight, Lofthouse, Pearson, Prowse, L. Spear and Yabsley

Officers:

Chief Executive, Head of Resources, Head of Place, Lead Officer - Planning Policy, Senior Planning Policy Officer and Planning Policy Officer

Also Present:

Councillors Luggar, Mackie, D. Spear and Tucker

193. VIRTUAL MEETING PROCEDURE - BRIEFING AND ETIQUETTE

The Chair outlined the virtual meet procedure and etiquette to the Committee and attendees.

The Senior Corporate and Community Services Officers confirmed the Members of the Committee, Members, Officers and external attendees who were present. 194. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Barker, Patrinos and Wilkinson. 195. ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD WHICH IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE MEETING AS A MATTER OF URGENCY.

The Chair advised the Committee that there would be an informal briefing for Members following the Committee regarding the Council’s financial position. 196. DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS.

There were no declarations of interest announced. 197. PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE WHITE PAPER

The Committee considered the questions contained within the Planning for the Future White Paper (circulated previously).

1 Page 247 Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources CommitteeAppendix - 19 BOctober 2020

Following consideration of the verbal report by the Lead Officer Planning Policy and Senior Planning Policy Officer, the Committee agreed that the following comments formulate the response to the questions contained in the Planning for the Future White Paper:

Pillar 1

1. What three words do you associate most with the planning system in England? Democratic, under-resourced and contentious.

2(a). Do you get involved with planning decisions in your local area? Yes as local planning authority

2(b). If no, why not? Not applicable.

3. Our proposals will make it much easier to access plans and contribute your views to planning decisions. How would you like to find out about plans and planning proposals in the future? [Social media / Online news / Newspaper / By post / Other – please specify] Other – All of these options and to also include library, neighbourhood and newsletter as recognised the importance of digital communications. However, it was not only about online since traditional media/approaches remained important in North Devon due to the rurality of the area and lack of comprehensive broadband coverage, plus an ageing population.

4. What are your top three priorities for planning in your local area?

[Building homes for young people / building homes for the homeless / Protection of green spaces / The environment, biodiversity and action on climate change / Increasing the affordability of housing / The design of new homes and places / Supporting the high street / Supporting the local economy / More or better local infrastructure / Protection of existing heritage buildings or areas / Other – please specify]. Other – All of the above – they are all important and about delivering sustainable development and place making. Also include more or better local infrastructure.

5. Do you agree that Local Plans should be simplified in line with our proposals? No. The White Paper lacked detailed of how it would operate. Agree that it should be simplified and quicker to produce and welcome certainty it could provide to developers and the local community. However, there were many unanswered questions due to the lack of detail including: o How do we articulate a vision and strategy for the plan?– Focus only on specific development proposals loses important aspect of planning and place making o Is the categorisation system over simplified? - Need to be able to differentiate between places and take account of local circumstances. o Unclear if can sub-divide the categories and apply different approaches to respond to different needs and context.

2 Page 248 Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources CommitteeAppendix - 19 BOctober 2020

o Should be specific control for growth and which design parameters should need. o Concerns regarding the three zones including:

. Protected areas – how does the council take account of local issues, ambitions, vision, etc. if having to use national policies? . Renewal areas – Concerns about areas that would traditionally be subject to overlapping approaches – i.e. town centres that are also conservation areas.

6. Do you agree with our proposals for streamlining the development management content of Local Plans, and setting out general development management policies nationally? No. Consider that there was scope for streamlining the development management content of Local Plans, and that some of these Policies should not need to be repeated if they appear within a revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (such as amenity considerations, design principles (where not detailed within a design code) etc). It was essential that there must be scope for the inclusion of locally drafted Development Management (DM) Policies at the discretion of the Local Planning Authorities. It was essential that such flexibility was available to meet the varying needs of differing Local Authorities’ particular circumstances and to ensure successful place making in accordance with Members’ vision for the area. For example: include DM Policies relating to both rural development supporting the rural communities and tourism and leisure development within a rural district where these sectors are of considerable importance. The proposed ‘alternative option’ was therefore considered to be appropriate to allow the flexibility to respond to the individual needs of differing Authorities and allow these areas the ability to flourish in a planned for and sustainable manner. Concern was expressed regarding the practicality of producing rules without local influence, the reduction of local DM policies and removal of officers’ and Members’ flexibility to be able to respond.

7(a). Do you agree with our proposals to replace existing legal and policy tests for Local Plans with a consolidated test of “sustainable development”, which would include consideration of environmental impact? Not sure. There was insufficient detail in this proposal and it would be dependent upon content of the consolidated ”sustainability test”. Current tests were clear and simple to apply, but do recognise that a substantial amount of evidence and documentation was required to support the examination of the local plan. Accept that a sustainability appraisal was a large undertaking, but it does provide checks and balances including the justification for the chosen strategy and sites in the Plan. Key questions include:  What would be the definition of sustainable development?, It’s important to include all three strands  How will the plan be examined – what would be the rules?

7(b). How could strategic, cross-boundary issues be best planned for in the absence of a formal Duty to Cooperate? Clear that the Duty to Cooperate does not work in current form and welcome consideration of review. However essential that some mechanism for cross boundary strategic planning, with neighbours and across tiers. There was need for reform rather than wholescale removal. For

3 Page 249 Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources CommitteeAppendix - 19 BOctober 2020

example it can’t be met after submitting the local plan, which has caused several plans to fail across the country, even when solutions have been found.

8(a). Do you agree that a standard method for establishing housing requirements (that takes into account constraints) should be introduced? Not sure. Welcome certainty provided by guidance on approach to be taken, but it should not be binding on local authorities as it needed to be able to take account of local circumstances. Planning was meant to be about place making incorporating sustainable development factors. It cannot be derived from an algorithm. Consider the Standard methodology was a shift from need to the delivery of Government ambitions. Further questions include: how would the local constraints be factored into the calculation? Will there be discussion with Local Planning Authorities (LPAs)? The reality was the imposed numbers would not result in delivery if the housing market was unable to absorb the new requirement and potentially setting up the LPA to fail from the beginning. If the figure was binding on the LPA then delivery should be binding on development industry with sanctions if it failed to deliver. Welcome the removal of five year land supply. The Government have put in place increasingly stringent tests, which have been interpreted inconsistently by inspectors. It results in a developers’ charter and not a truly plan led system. Under the current local plan system the number of houses required was linked to the growth agenda and this was not included in the proposed new calculation. There should be a standard methodology for the calculation for the number of houses required in local areas and consideration of local environmental constraints were required to determine the local outcome and capacity to deliver.

8(b). Do you agree that affordability and the extent of existing urban areas are appropriate indicators of the quantity of development to be accommodated? No. No empirical link between affordability and housing numbers. Increasing numbers would not assist affordability or result in higher delivery where there is a constrained housing market, which is dependent on a range of other factors such as:  development finance,  wider housing market,  access to lending.

The scale of an existing urban area was not a good proxy for need which was dependent upon demographics, for example young single households vs inter- generational housing, etc. It should be based on need. There would be a failure to deliver starting with the artificial 300,000 figure which had not been justified and evidence based through projected births, deaths, migration, etc.

9(a). Do you agree that there should be automatic outline permission for areas for substantial development (Growth areas) with faster routes for detailed consent? Not sure. Agree with principle however need clarity of detail. In theory, an existing Local Plan (LP) allocation should already provide that certainty. Is this a question for the development industry to answer as to why they submit outline applications on allocated sites? It provides confidence. Concerns over level of work/ evidence/skills required at LP stage to enable certainty. Who would carry this out, how would it be funded, how would it fit in timeframes? Need to include greater

4 Page 250 Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources CommitteeAppendix - 19 BOctober 2020

consideration of principles. How would this be achieved within current resources? How would community engagement and technical evidence be achieved for assessing 600 sites and allocating 100 of these sites.for drainage, ecology etc. Concerns over ability to still have route for non-conforming uses. For example, faster routes to detailed consent still need to cover all issues and be supported by sufficient evidence. What happens if ecological issues change over time from the point of inclusion in the Plan to delivery on site? Importance of continued community and democratic engagement? What about design codes/ masterplans – should these be in place at LP stage? What was a growth area and how was it defined? What was substantial and could it be applied to villages? It should be relative. Should include small sites on edge of villages. Does not ensure deliverability for the LPA or community. Developers are restricting supply to maintain prices.

9(b). Do you agree with our proposals above for the consent arrangements for Renewal and Protected areas? No. Could agree with the approach to ‘protected’ area, albeit with the flexibility added via the use of exceptional local DM Policies as discussed in (6) above. Consider that the consent arrangements for ‘renewal’ areas could lead to a complex consenting regime, adding uncertainty to local communities and delay to the planning system. A permission route which gives automatic consent if a scheme meets design and prior approval requirements may be open to interpretation and contention again resulting in uncertainty and delay. This had been the case with the introduction of historic ‘prior-approvals’ which have required the extensive use of the appeals process in order to gain case law which aids interpretation. The use of design codes was supported, although interpretation of the design code may differ, and automatic consent may not allow the ‘added value’ which a more traditional DM process adds in improving submitted schemes for communities and developers benefit. The ability to submit a planning application for a scheme which departs from the plan was essential to aid consideration of individual developments which, due to other material considerations, may be acceptable. In addition, suggest that the ability for all proposals to be considered by neighbours and other interested parties where the principle of development had been established via the Local Plan be required to allow consideration of material issues at the point of a scheme coming forward, which could be a number of years after a Local Plan was adopted. 9(c). Do you think there is a case for allowing new settlements to be brought forward under the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects regime? No. Significant Infrastructure Projects are major infrastructure projects which have a separate development consent regime with the Planning Inspectorate examining applications for development consent.Should be a local decision responding to local circumstances and local views about how to accommodate required growth. Need to retain local decision making on proposals when they come forward.

10. Do you agree with our proposals to make decision-making faster and more certain? No. The Council does not agree with the specific proposals to make decision making faster and more certain and do not feel that the proposals will benefit the quality of development or the democratic process. The well-established time limits of 8 and 13 weeks are currently able to be extended by agreement with applicants. ‘Extensions of time’ (EoT) are not a ‘get around’ as stated within the White Paper, more a tool that was equally valuable to applicant and communities as well as a Local Planning Authority. The use of EoT’s allows for

5 Page 251 Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources CommitteeAppendix - 19 BOctober 2020

proper consideration and continued improvement of schemes to the benefit of all parties. (If an applicant felt that there was no benefit, it was open to the applicant not to agree an EoT). An unintended consequence of this could be more applications being refused due to having to achieve a firm deadline, resulting in further delay and costs via the appeal process, which could have expediently been dealt with via a short agreed EoT. Suggest a more appropriate solution would be to allow a further single EoT for additional matters to be dealt with, following which an application must be determined. Disagree that following consideration at planning committee, applicants should be entitled to an automatic rebate of the planning fee if they are successful at appeal. The White Paper indicates that consideration of detailed matters is principally a matter for professional planning judgement. However, the Council believes that true planning judgement, be it professional or Member led, should not be influenced by considerations of a financial matters in terms of potential significant financial impacts on a Local Authority. Also decision making can in some instances be either subjective (in matters such as design), a case of Policy interpretation, or indeed a matter of weighting factors in the planning balance. A differing, but reasoned, professional judgement on these matters should not warrant the automatic rebate of fees. The current appeal costs regime ensures that there were sufficient penalties to discourage any ‘unreasonable’ decision making. Concerns that the determination of detailed planning decisions should be solely delegated to Planning Officers where the principle of development has been established. Whilst principally a matter of professional planning judgement, community and democratic engagement can add value to this stage of the process and allow the input of views from parties whom may not have been engaged with consultation at the Local Plan drafting stage. This engagement often results in better place making, with opportunities for enhanced quality of development and place which would may not be achieved through the strict following of a design code to the benefit of intended occupiers and the surrounding area and communities. The Plantech innovation should be encouraged to help achieve more efficient processes. Such innovation would need to be adequately resourced and standardisation was supported where appropriate.

11. Do you agree with our proposals for accessible, web-based Local Plans? Not Sure. The principle of accessible, web-based Local Plans was supported but a proposed template or structure was required. However, Local Plans and engagement on their preparation must also remain easily accessible for residents without access to the internet. Small rural authorities may have issues of access to technology and expertise. Mindful of those without access to technology and alternatives were required.

12. Do you agree with our proposals for a 30 month statutory timescale for the production of Local Plans? No. Welcome principles of speeding up process but the timetable was unrealistic. Process doesn’t allow for place making as it was an iterative process not only front loaded engagement. Plan making should be more organic process. Efficiencies from parts removed is not going to make up for the additional detail that would be required or the engagement that should occur. Far more important to engage with the community than previously but it does not allow for meaningful engagement. Difficult to understand how it could be achieved without sufficient detail in proposal. Contradiction between speeding up and front loading to

6 Page 252 Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources CommitteeAppendix - 19 BOctober 2020

the plan stage. Could be counter-productive and may be minded to leave out sites or areas if not forthcoming in the first 6 months.

13(a). Do you agree that Neighbourhood Plans should be retained in the reformed planning system? Yes, agree that should be retained. Can be a powerful tool for local communities, although recognise they are a big undertaking to produce. Unclear what they will be able to achieve under new proposals. Often about providing locally distinctive policies for development, which are often DM type policies, which the government are considering removing from the planning system. Will they just become design codes for development? Neighbourhood Plans should be retained as input from local communities was vital and further adequate resources were required to support communities with this process.

13(b). How can the neighbourhood planning process be developed to meet our objectives, such as in the use of digital tools and reflecting community preferences about design? Capacities, skills and knowledge – willingness and access to software and associated costs.

14. Do you agree there should be a stronger emphasis on the build out of developments? And if so, what further measures would you support? Yes – need to focus on this. No tools for LPAs. There was a requirement for the delivery of 17,200 houses. The current Local Plan required over 20,000. Developers need to be more accountable for the progress of their sites, with sanctions on developers who do not deliver.

Pillar 2

15. What do you think about the design of new development that has happened recently in your area? [Not sure or indifferent / Beautiful and/or well-designed / Ugly and/or poorly-designed / There hasn’t been any / Other – please specify] Other. Design relates to the appearance of buildings but also the space around them and how they fit into the surrounding community and how the buildings and locality function. It is about place making and not just about the external aesthetics of a building:  Subjective judgement but varied – Often Uninspiring or Indifferent. Often anodyne, not enhancing a locality  If you walk/drive through new housing estates there are often rows of standard house types with limited open spaces, green infrastructure & inadequate off-street parking?  Lack of creativity – often standard designs for major house builders. Lack of industry skills and capacities.  Lack of focus on design nationally – appeal decisions do not support importance of design. Does not give confidence to LPAs to challenge.  Other priorities / 5 Year Housing Land Supply / Viability – quality often costs more.

16. Sustainability is at the heart of our proposals. What is your priority for sustainability in your area? [Less reliance on cars / More green and open spaces / Energy efficiency of new buildings / More trees / Other – please specify]. Other.

7 Page 253 Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources CommitteeAppendix - 19 BOctober 2020

Sustainability relates to all of the above as well as other factors. Social, economic and environmental considerations need to be considered together in a holistic way. They are all important. Importance of infrastructure coming alongside development.

17. Do you agree with our proposals for improving the production and use of design guides and codes? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.] Yes. It is proposed that design guides and codes must have effective input from the local community and that decisions must be made in line with them. Can provide context and key design requirements, such as height, layout, materials, but concern that they should not stifle creativity. Support preparation in principle for Growth Areas (allocations). Unsure what level of detail or master planning can be set out in a design code. Unclear if prepared alongside Local Plan (LP) or after it or whether examined as part of LP examination. Big resource implications for design codes for each Growth Area and every Renewal Area. Within Renewal Areas, if too vague they can endorse development delivering more standard house types. Potential that will stifle creativity. Concern over capacities, skills and experience in LPAs to facilitate delivery. Timings of preparation alongside LP otherwise would impact of slowing down development.

18. Do you agree that we should establish a new body to support design coding and building better places, and that each authority should have a chief officer for design and place-making? Not Sure. Design and place making are important, although difficult to see exactly what the role would do different to Chief Planning Officer? Need more detail. An enhanced national recognition of the role of the Chief Planning Officer in championing design would be better. A Lead Member should also be in place to drive design coding and building better places. Is the development industry willing to support designs that may not fit their standard house type?

19. Do you agree with our proposal to consider how design might be given greater emphasis in the strategic objectives for Homes England? Yes it was important and should be welcomed.

20. Do you agree with our proposals for implementing a fast-track for beauty? No. Proposals which comply with pre-established principles of good design (ie design codes and designs informed by the community) get consent more quickly. Allow pre-approval of popular and replicable designs through PD. Propose a limited set of form-based development types, which can be modified by those most popular locally. Not supported as stifling creativity, and not reflecting local context. Seek to move away from standard house types and monotonous estates, even if brick colours can be changed. Unclear who determines whether a proposal is in accordance with design code principles. If determined by developer then effectively granting themselves prior approval. Good designs should reflect the surrounding character and context not inserting pre-approved patterns that may not be appropriate there. Too much emphasis on physical ‘beauty’ and not function. Beauty is only one aspect of a proposal. Needs to be part of the planning judgement. Insufficient detail to fully comment. Concerns over pattern books, etc. and standardisation which are not high quality and locally distinctive – not responsive to context. Importance of negotiation to improve outcomes.

8 Page 254 Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources CommitteeAppendix - 19 BOctober 2020

Pillar 3

21. When new development happens in your area, what is your priority for what comes with it? [More affordable housing / More or better infrastructure (such as transport, schools, health provision) / Design of new buildings / More shops and/or employment space / Green space / Don’t know / Other – please specify]. Other. Good ‘place making’ requires consideration of all of these matters, and many more. They are all important and need to be considered in combination. Important to create mixed and balanced communities.

22(a). Should the government replace the Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 planning obligations with a new consolidated Infrastructure Levy, which is charged as a fixed proportion of development value above a set threshold? Not Sure. Recognise that Section 106 was slow and complicated through viability assessments, negotiations with sometimes many recipients needing to agree and sign. For different issues, some developers may not have an urgency to sign and complete agreement. A levy would be simpler and would apply to all scales and types of development. However express concerns over: o who sets the threshold and how often it’s reviewed o at what level it was set o who establishes changes in land value o what will happen with low value areas Clarification was required on most of the details and regulations. Note need to retain s106 for other purposes. Concern that lower value areas will not achieve funds to deliver infrastructure/ affordable housing if thresholds were set incorrectly. Section 106 delays often not responsibility of LPA. Practicalities plus administrative burden for small authorities.

22(b). Should the Infrastructure Levy rates be set nationally at a single rate, set nationally at an area-specific rate, or set locally? Not sure. Should probably be set locally as if it’s set nationally, there was no local control or influence. It’s unclear at what scale an area-specific rate would be set e.g. regional, sub-regional, county, district, housing market area. There were big differences in viability across a small area. If it’s set locally, we may need to commission viability assessments and may need examination or accordance with regulations to agree them. Concerns over impact on regeneration / schemes with abnormals if floor set incorrectly

22(c). Should the Infrastructure Levy aim to capture the same amount of value overall, or more value, to support greater investment in infrastructure, affordable housing and local communities? More value. There was currently inadequate infrastructure delivery, ideally more but need to be mindful of deliverability and need for sufficient value to make attractive to land owner, particularly in low value areas.

22(d). Should we allow local authorities to borrow against the Infrastructure Levy, to support infrastructure delivery in their area? Yes. Support the ability to borrow against the Infrastructure Levy to forward fund it but not a requirement to do so. Developers should fully fund infrastructure requirements. Risks for any councils

9 Page 255 Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources CommitteeAppendix - 19 BOctober 2020

that borrows against future receipts and there is no certainty of when homes will be occupied and when funds will be collected.

23. Do you agree that the scope of the reformed Infrastructure Levy should capture changes of use through permitted development rights? Yes. There were many prior approvals existing and more proposed. Suggest that self-build and custom-build homes should not be exempt as they were under CIL regulations. Such development still puts a strain on local infrastructure. Practicalities and clarification on how it would be administered and enforced. Would it undermine some of the principles of what PD intended to achieve – i.e. quicker , simpler?

24(a). Do you agree that we should aim to secure at least the same amount of affordable housing under the Infrastructure Levy, and as much on-site affordable provision, as at present? Yes, but should be locally set and the mix of sizes and tenures rioritised locally on the basis of need.

24(b). Should affordable housing be secured as in-kind payment towards the Infrastructure Levy, or as a ‘right to purchase’ at discounted rates for local authorities? Support In principle the right to purchase affordable housing from developers i.e. guaranteed provision on site. Delivery on site was an in-kind payment in lieu of levy contributions. The difference between the price it was sold to the Registered Provider (RP) and open market price would be offset from the final cash liability to the levy. Unclear what discounted rates were proposed. Alternative was ‘first refusal’ right for LAs (or RPs) to buy up to a set proportion of onsite units. How do you secure it in perpetuity? Need to retain section 106 mechanisms. May wish for different proportions in different value areas? Hybrid – in-kind first, but with option to buy more.

24(c). If an in-kind delivery approach is taken, should we mitigate against local authority overpayment risk? Not sure. Advised that if cost of in-kind provision is greater than the final levy liability then the developer had no rights to reclaim overpayments. Unclear what happens to rural exception sites. Likely overpayment but then no levy towards education and POS etc. Need clarification whether they should be exempt from levy?

24(d). If an in-kind delivery approach is taken, are there additional steps that would need to be taken to support affordable housing quality? Yes. Currently if homes are not of sufficient quality (or wrong type), developers were unable to sell them to RPs. To ensure developers were not rewarded for low-standard homes, Local Authorities have option to revert back to cash contributions if RPs unwilling to buy homes. Suggest all homes were built to meet national standards (quality and size) so appropriate for use as affordable homes. Also sizes of homes reflect local needs.

25. Should local authorities have fewer restrictions over how they spend the Infrastructure Levy? Not Sure. Unclear what restrictions were envisaged i.e. those for CIL? Says flexibility for levy collected once core infrastructure obligations met but unlikely to receive enough levy to meet all core infrastructure obligations. Levy should be collected and spent to deliver affordable housing and key

10 Page 256 Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources CommitteeAppendix - 19 BOctober 2020

infrastructure. Inappropriate to use for other purposes such as funding planning department or reducing council tax.

RESOLVED that it being 1.00 p.m. that the meeting continue in order for the remaining business to be transacted.

25(a). If yes, should an affordable housing ‘ring-fence’ be developed? Not Sure. Levy was calculated based on increase in land value. There is not a specified about collected for affordable housing so unclear what proportion could or should be ring-fenced. Affordable Housing would be high priority but so will other key infrastructure. Individual Authorities should be able to decide how to divide the Infrastructure Levy based on priorities.

26. Do you have any views on the potential impact of the proposals raised in this consultation on people with protected characteristics as defined in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010? No. Provision of public transport, health facilities and employment opportunities would mitigate against protected characteristics need to be taken into account.

RESOLVED that the views of the Committee form the basis of the Council’s response to the Planning for the Future White Paper and that the final wording of the consultation response be delegated to the Head of Place in consultation with the Leader and Lead Member for Economic Development and Planning Policy.

Chair The meeting ended at 1.07 pm

NOTE: These minutes will be confirmed as a correct record at the next meeting of the Committee.

11 Page 257 Agenda Item 20e Appendix B

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 258 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources Committee - 2 November 2020 Appendix C

NORTH DEVON COUNCIL

Minutes of a meeting of Strategy and Resources Committee held at Virtual - Online meeting on Monday, 2nd November, 2020 at 10.00 am

PRESENT: Members:

Councillor Worden (Chair)

Councillors Knight, Lofthouse, Patrinos, Pearson, Prowse, L. Spear, Wilkinson and Yabsley

Officers:

Chief Executive, Head of Resources, Lead Officer - Planning Policy, Senior Solicitor/Monitoring Officer, Service Lead - Environmental Protection, Accountancy Services Manager and Exchequer and Technical Manager

Also Present:

Councillors Roome, D. Spear and Tucker

198. VIRTUAL MEETING PROCEDURE - BRIEFING AND ETIQUETTE

The Chair outlined the virtual meet procedure and etiquette to the Committee and attendees.

The Senior Corporate and Community Services Officers confirmed the Members of the Committee, Members, Officers and external attendees who were present. 199. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

The Senior Corporate and Community Services Officer advised that Councillors Prowse and L. Spear were now present at the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Barker. 200. TO APPROVE AS A CORRECT RECORD THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 5 OCTOBER 2020 (ATTACHED).

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 5 October 2020 (circulated previously) be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

1 Page 259 Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources CommitteeAppendix - 2 November C 2020

201. ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD WHICH IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE MEETING AS A MATTER OF URGENCY.

The Chair advised the Committee that an informal briefing would be held for Members following the conclusion of the meeting regarding the Government’s announcement of a further National Lockdown. 202. DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS.

There were no declarations of interest announced. 203. REVIEW OF NORTH DEVON AND TORRIDGE LOCAL PLAN 2011-2031

The Committee considered a report by the Head of Place (circulated previously) regarding the review of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031.

The Lead Officer Planning Officer highlighted the following:

 The North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 had been adopted by both District Councils on 29 October 2018. Since that time the local context for it had changed substantially across a number of key policy areas which warranted an early review.  National planning policy required a review of a Local Plan to be completed within five years of its adoption, however local planning authorities were entitled to undertake an early review should they wish to do so.  The Government’s consultation on proposed changes to the planning system in early 2020, set out a deadline of December 2023 for all local planning authorities to have an up-to-date local plan. The joint local plan would have been adopted over five years at that time and would not be considered as up- to-date at that point.  The Joint Local Plan Working Group had endorsed the move towards a formal review of the Local Plan and it had been agreed that associated reports be prepared in parallel and consistent manner for consideration by both Councils.  The first stage in reviewing the Local Plan required a formal decision by each Council to agree the fundamental principles as detailed in the report.  Once the key principles had been agreed by both Councils, a range of actions would be required as part of the early stages of plan preparation as outlined in the report.  Active engagement with all elected Members from both Councils would commence at an early stage to enable them to identify key issues and options to be addressed within a new Local Plan, whilst identifying any particular approaches, policies or policy gaps they wish to be considered.

RECOMMENDED that the Council:

(a) Commit to working in partnership with Torridge District Council to carry out a comprehensive review and update of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan on a joint basis;

2 Page 260 Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources CommitteeAppendix - 2 November C 2020

(b) Review the governance arrangements for the preparation of the Local Plan to ensure inclusive, effective and efficient oversight and engagement;

(d) Arrange Member workshops to enable early involvement in identifying key issues and potential options to be addressed through a new Local Plan. 204. BATSWORTHY CROSS WINDFARM

The Committee considered a report by the Service Lead Environmental Protection (circulated previously) regarding Batsworthy Cross Windfarm.

The Service Lead Environmental Protection highlighted the following:

 Noise compliance monitoring at six locations close to Batsworthy Cross Windfarm had confirmed compliance with the noise related planning conditions at five of these six locations.  The Council re-issued a request to the Operator asking them to provide details of a proposed further mitigation strategy for properties in the vicinity of Birchwood House within 30 days. A response from the Operator was received on 8th October 2020 detailing a proposed strategy and approach to verify the outcome of this strategy.  This response was currently being reviewed by Officers’ and the Council’s acoustic consultant and to consider the next steps.  A meeting with the Community had been arranged on Tuesday 10 November 2020 and the information provided by the Operator would be circulated to the Community group prior to the meeting.  An update would be provided to the Committee when the review of the Operator’s response was complete.

In response to a question, the Service Lead Environmental Protection advised that the process had taken longer than hoped or anticipated to give the Operator the opportunity to achieve compliance in the 6th location. It was hoped that the situation would be resolved as soon as possible.

The Committee noted the current position. 205. PERFORMANCE AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT QUARTER 2 OF 2020/21

The Committee considered a report by the Head of Resources (circulated previously) regarding the Performance and Financial Management for quarter 2 of 2020/21.

3 Page 261 Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources CommitteeAppendix - 2 November C 2020

The Accountancy Services Manager highlighted the following:

 The revenue budget for 2020/21 was approved at Council on 26th February 2020 at £13,380,000.  As at 30 September 2020, the latest forecast net budget is £13,516,000, which produced a forecast budget deficit of £136,000. (Q1 deficit was £385,000). Details of all variances were shown in “Appendix A – Variations in the Revenue Budget”.  The original budget for 2020/21 included a forecast to achieve £200,000 worth of salary vacancy savings. The current position forecasts this will be exceeded this year; we were currently predicting to achieve £245,000.  There was much pressure on the 2020/21 budget due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the Council’s income streams have been greatly affected in the first two quarters of 2020/21 and this was expected to continue through the financial year. Also additional costs have been incurred by the council in provision of temporary accommodation, additional agency staff for waste and recycling and in supporting the local community.  Central government have announced and paid local authorities three tranches of support funding totalling £1,189,000 for North Devon. We have also claimed £160,000 in respect of the job retention scheme and received £170,000 New Burdens grant for SBG and RHLG. Central government have announced they will help support local authorities for lost income by paying 75% of any lost income after Councils incur the first 5% variance. The expected lost income and additional costs have been factored into the figures in Appendix A along with the anticipated government support. Figures relating to the forthcoming national lockdown would be worked on this week.  It was anticipated that there would be a reduction in both Council Tax and Business Rates income during 2020/21 as a result of the pandemic. However, no reduction for income was being reported for 2020/21 year as the financial effect of any deficit on the Collection Fund income will not have an impact on NDC finances until later years as the Government also announced that deficits on this taxation income can be spread over the next 3 financial years.  It was difficult to quantify the full impact of Covid-19 at this stage with any certainty, however the financial pressure on the Council would be substantial through 2020-21 and beyond – even after taking into account the above mentioned emergency Covid-19 funding announced by the Government. The Council does have both general fund and earmarked reserve balances which it could call upon in 2020-21 to mitigate the economic impact being experienced but clearly this would have much longer term solvency implications for the authority.  “Appendix B – Movement in reserves and Balances” detailed the movements to and from earmarked reserves in 2020/21.  Full details of the Strategic Contingency Reserve movements and commitments are attached as “Appendix C – Strategic Contingency Reserve”.  The 2020/21 to 2022/23 Capital Programme is attached as “Appendix D – Capital Programme”.  Project under spends of £2,673,332 were brought forward from 2019/20 year and further variations of (£2,356,424) were approved as part of the

4 Page 262 Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources CommitteeAppendix - 2 November C 2020

performance and financial management report to Strategy and Resources to produce a revised 2020/21 Capital Programme of £12,938,936.  Two capital funding bids for a further £166,000 were submitted to the Project Appraisal Group (PAG) in relation to new Trade Waste software £36,000 and Repairs to the Queens Theatre’s flat roof £130,000. The projects were to be funded from the improvement reserve and repairs fund respectively. The projects have been scored and have been put forward by the Project Appraisal Group.  Overall variations of (£2,526,908) were proposed to the 2020/21 Capital Programme as detailed in paragraph 4.4.4.  The overall Capital Programme for 2020/21 to 2022/23 is £29,729,999 and is broken down as follows: 2020/21 - £10,412,028; 2021/22 - £17,033,383; 2022/23 - £2,284,588.  The Programme of £29,729,999 was funded by Capital Receipts / Borrowing (£14,844,331), External Grants and Contributions (£12,147,339) and Reserves (£2,738,329).  Once funds have been included in the Capital Programme the Constitution required a separate decision to release those funds. Accordingly the schemes below need the funds to be released so that spending can start within the following three months: Trade Waste Software £36,000; Queens Theatre flat roof repair £130,000.  Treasury Management (paragraph 4.5), Debt Management (paragraph 4.6) and General Debtors (paragraph 4.7).  Performance information as detailed in Appendix E.

In response to a question regarding ICT Skype for Business (page 41), the Accountancy Services Manager advised that there was currently a dispute with the supplier and once resolved the final payment would be made.

In response to questions the Chief Executive advised:

 Park and Change site at Chivenor (page 47) - once the land ownership issues had been resolved, the Council would adopt the site and manage the car park in line with other Council managed car parks.  Discounted sale processes action (page 49) – there were a number of supplementary planning documents to be produced. Discussions would be undertaken with the team shortly regarding progress on the production and adoption of these documents.

In response to questions, the Head of Resources advised:

 Action “Develop a Climate Change and Biodiversity Action Plan” (page 48) - the Environmental Policy had now been approved and that the action would be updated by the Head of Place.  Appendix A Government funding – the Council had received three tranches of funding from the Government for Covid 19 totalling £1.189m. Since the publication of the agenda, the Council had received further Government funding of £385,000. However, following the next national lockdown there would be further financial impact on the Council. The report for the next

5 Page 263 Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources CommitteeAppendix - 2 November C 2020

quarter would detail the net financial impact on the Council. The claim for reimbursement of lost income for the first four months had been claimed. The forecast loss of income was until the end of the financial year. A further claim would be made for the reimbursement of income for the remainder of the year.

RESOLVED:

(a) That the actions being taken to ensure that performance was at the desired level be noted;

(b) That the contributions to/from earmarked reserves be approved as detailed in paragraph section 4.2;

(d) That funds be released for the capital schemes listed in paragraph 4.4.11;

(e) That the sections dealing with Treasury Management (paragraph 4.5), and Debt Management (paragraphs 4.6 and 4.7) be noted;

RECOMMENDED:

(f) That Council approve the variations to the Capital Programme 2020/21 to 2022/23 (paragraph 4.4.4)

206. TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY STATEMENT AND ANNUAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY: MID YEAR REVIEW REPORT 2020/21

The Committee considered a report by the Chief Financial Officer (circulated previously) regarding the Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Annual Investment Strategy Mid Year Review Report 2020/21.

The Exchequer Manager highlighted the following:

 The Treasury Management Strategy Statement (TMSS) for 2020/21 was approved by this Council on 26th February 2020.  The underlying TMSS approved previously required revision in the light of economic and operational movements during the year as detailed in paragraph 4.1 of the report.  The Council’s Capital Position (Prudential Indicators) as detailed in paragraph 4.2 of the report.  Changes to the Prudential Indicators for the Capital Financing Requirement, External Debt and Operational Boundary as detailed in paragraph 4.3 of the

6 Page 264 Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources CommitteeAppendix - 2 November C 2020

report. The forecast Capital Financing Requirement had reduced by circa £1.6m from the original estimate. The majority of this reduction related to the slippage in the Leisure Centre capital project with the spend re-profiled into future years.  The forecast operational boundary has reduced by £6m. Delays to the capital programme expenditure, stronger reserve forecasts and the strategy of postponing or delaying external borrowing means that the external borrowing position was not now expected to exceed £2.25m this financial year.  Limits to borrowing activity as detailed in paragraph 4.4. of the report.  Borrowing strategy as detailed in paragraph 4.5 of the report, which remains to delay external borrowing whilst we can use internal cash flow balances. The current forecast for next financial year (2021/22) shows CFR increasing by £9.9m with the bulk of the Leisure centre spend in year, giving a total CFR of £17m. This would potentially require £14.5m of external borrowing in addition to internal borrowing.  Annual Investment Strategy as detailed in paragraph 4.8 of the report. As shown by the interest rate forecasts in Appendix A, it was now impossible to earn the level of interest rates commonly seen in previous decades as all investment rates were barely above zero now that Bank Rate was at 0.10%. The Council held £24.7m of investments as at 30 September 2020 (£16.25m at 31 March 2020). The Council’s budgeted investment return for 2020/21 was £50,000. As at 30th September 2020 £40,689 investment interest was earned in the half-year period.  Economic and Interests Rates as detailed in Appendix A.

RECOMMENDED:

(a) The changes to the prudential indicators be approved;

(b) The report and the treasury activity be noted. 207. TEST AND TRACE PAYMENT SCHEMES

The Committee considered a report by the Revenues and Benefits Manager (circulated previously) regarding policies for the Test and Trace Support Payments Scheme and Discretionary Payments Scheme.

The Head of Resources highlighted the following:

 From 28th September 2020, Government had changed legislation so that certain people would have to self-isolate due to the current COVID-19 crisis.  A package of legislative measure had been introduced both to ensure that those who are required to self-isolate do so and that those on a low income receive a payment to assist their finances to encourage compliance with the legislation.  The Government had set down the requirements for two payment schemes to be set up by the Council: Test and Trace Support Payments Scheme (standard scheme) and Test and Trace Discretionary Payments Scheme (discretionary scheme).

7 Page 265 Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources CommitteeAppendix - 2 November C 2020

 The eligibility criteria for the standard scheme was detailed in paragraph 4.1 of the report.  Where individuals meet all of those requirements but were not in receipt of a qualifying benefits they could be considered for a payment from the discretionary scheme. The discretionary scheme had been approved by Devon Chief Executives and Leaders as detailed in paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6 of the report.  The Council had received a fixed amount of funding from Government for the four months that the discretionary scheme was intended to last. Government had confirmed that no additional monies will be given to the Council.  Arrangements were quickly put in place to administer these payments, including the design of an on-line claim, and this went live on 12 October 2020.

In response to questions, the Head of Resources advised the following:

 To date 15 payments of £500 had been made under the standard scheme.  It was anticipated that the take up of the scheme would be low and was for individuals on low income and were required to self isolate.  The funding received for the discretionary scheme (£24,000) would allow for approximately 50 payments to be made.  It was anticipated that the funding received from Government should be sufficient, however if it was not then the Council would make representation to the Government for additional funding.  The schemes would be administered in house and the online application form had been designed in house. Therefore if required some of the funding received from Government for administration costs could potentially be used.

RESOLVED that the adoption of the policies for the Test and Trace Support Payments Scheme and the Test and Trace Discretionary Payments Scheme with effect from 28 September 2020 as detailed in Appendices A and B be approved. 208. COMMERCIALISATION STRATEGY

The Committee considered a report by the Head of Resources (circulated previously) regarding the Commercialisation Strategy.

Councillor Roome, Lead Member for Commercialisation outlined the reasons why a Commercialisation Strategy had been produced for the Council.

The Head of Resources highlighted the following:

 The financial position of the Council was uncertain and a budget gap was forecast beyond 2021/22.  We were awaiting the Comprehensive Spending Review which was anticipated to be November 2020 and announcements on Government funding for Local Authorities which we hope would see a 3-year funding settlement to provide some certainty into the medium term. However, it was anticipated that this announcement would be a one year funding settlement.

8 Page 266 Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources CommitteeAppendix - 2 November C 2020

 The Council had already started to look at other opportunities for generating income such as Plot 1B at Seven Brethren, where the Council took back the long term lease and site was now leased to the Police.  A high-level refresh of the above forecast budget position in light of the current pressures being experienced had increased the predicted budget gaps further as detailed in paragraph 4.5 of the report.  However, one certainty we can be assured of is that we will still have a significant funding gap for future years to bridge and we need to ensure that we have clear parameters and strong governance in place within the financial context we are operating to look at exploring opportunities and business cases when they arise.  A Commercial Strategy sets these parameters, which we have clearly proposed as set out in Appendix A of this report.  It was important that clear outcomes were set when devising any strategy and these had been defined in paragraph 4.10 of the report.  Aspirational targets had been set as detailed in paragraph 5.1 of the report.  Commercial Decision making should focus on four main drivers as detailed in Appendix A, page 126.

In response to questions, the Head of Resources advised the following:

 The Council had visited Cheltenham Borough Council to discuss types of commercial opportunities that they had been involved in as they had embedded similar principles and provided more “business like” services.  He was unaware of the Preston model. The commercial strategy was not just about bridging the financial gap. It would also achieve economic benefits for both the community and the Council.  The Commercialisation Strategy had been discussed at a recent Managers Forum. Managers were invited to consider ideas with their teams that could be considered and feedback.  There would be opportunities for Members to discuss the refreshed Medium Term Financial Strategy.  There would be opportunities for both Members and Officers to feed in ideas into the commercial strategy.

209. LYNTON AGENCY PERFORMANCE REVIEW

The Committee considered a report by the Head of Resources (circulated previously) regarding the Lynton Agency Performance Review.

9 Page 267 Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources CommitteeAppendix - 2 November C 2020

The Head of Resources highlighted the following:

 In February 2015 North Devon Council approved the service improvement framework to objectively review services to improve the customer experience and/or value for money. A review of the Lynton and Lynmouth agency agreement was added to the review programme.  Following a successful agency arrangement being in place for the above 3- year period, a further report to the meeting of Strategy and Resources on 4 November 2019 it was approved that the agency agreement with Lynton and Lynmouth Town Council with effective 1 April 2020 be continued for a period of 3 years with a formal review on that date. It had been agreed that an annual report be presented to the Committee.  The report updated members on progress against the 14 review recommendations put forward by the review team and to receive the financial outturn for the agency for the 2019/20.  The summary annual report on the 2019/20 agency performance and financial outturn from Lynton and Lynmouth Town Clerk was detailed in Appendix A  The only remaining review recommendation to be completed was in relation to exploring a joint way forwards to reducing public convenience costs and this action was reliant on North Devon Council carrying out a wider review of all public conveniences across the District.  Following the agency review, the revised forecast figures presented by Lynton and Lynmouth Town Council were projecting a net budget surplus (excluding parking fines) of £48,912; which was in line with the in-house North Devon Council costing put forward as part of the review process. The actual financial performance for 2019/20 year had resulted in a net surplus of £65,843 (2018/19 was £60,177) which would be returned to North Devon Council.

Councillor Patrinos declared a personal interest as a Member of Lynton and Lynmouth Town Council.

RESOLVED:

(a) that the annual report and that the actions being taken to ensure that performance against the 14 review recommendations was at the desired level be noted;

(b) that this be the final report presented to the Committee and it only be brought to the Committee by exception in the future.

210. NORTH DEVON DESTINATION MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION

The Committee considered a report by the Chief Executive (circulated previously) regarding a proposal to form a dedicated Destination Management Organisation (DMO) for Northern Devon.

10 Page 268 Agenda Item 20e Strategy and Resources CommitteeAppendix - 2 November C 2020

The Chief Executive highlighted the following:

 The paper attached to the report had been produced by North Devon+ and gave a background of the role of a DMO and the potential advantages that it might bring to the northern Devon area.  There had been a major impact on tourism in northern Devon as a result of the Covid 19 impact with Ilfracombe and Combe Martin being the worst affected wards in Devon and this had been prior to the second national lockdown.  A DMO would be solely linked to northern Devon rather than relying on other organisations.  The proposal had been discussed with the North Devon Marketing Bureau who were supportive and see their organisation working in a complimentary way with any new DMO.  It was estimated that the cost of taking this proposal forward may be in the region of £80,000. Efforts would be made to secure external funding and explores ways of undertaking work internally.  He suggested that recommendation 2.2 be amended to include “or other resource” after the word “funding”.

RESOLVED:

(a) That note the content of this report be noted and approve in principle to exploring the proposal further, including consultation with businesses and stakeholders;

(b) That officers be supported in efforts to identify external funding or other resource to move forward with (a) above. 211. JOINT LOCAL PLAN WORKING GROUP - APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS

RESOLVED that in pursuance to minute 7 of the meeting of the Committee on 3 June 2019, that Councillors Prowse, D. Spear and Yabsley appointments to the Joint Local Plan Working Group be confirmed and that Councillor Knight be appointed to replace Councillor Leaver on the Group for the life of the Council.

Chair The meeting ended at 11.33 am

NOTE: These minutes will be confirmed as a correct record at the next meeting of the Committee.

11 Page 269 Agenda Item 20e Appendix C

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 270