Present:-

Councillors Hart (Chairman), Barker, Clatworthy, Croad, Davis, S Hughes, Leadbetter, McInnes and Parsons

[NB: Councillor Leadbetter present up to and including Minute *366]

Members attending in accordance with Standing Orders 8 and 25:-

Councillors Biederman, Brazil, Connett, Diviani, Greenslade, Hannaford, Hill, Hook, Hoskings, Morse, Moulding, Vint and Westlake

Ms Fontana (Primary Parent Governor representative, People s Scrutiny Committee) and Mrs Mayes (Co-opted Member, Standards Committee)

*359 Minutes

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 10 June 2015 be signed as a correct record.

*360 Announcements

The Chairman welcomed Mrs Mayes who was attending the meeting in her capacity as a Co-opted Member of the Council's Standards Committee to observe and monitor compliance with the Council s ethical governance framework.

*361 Petitions

There was no petition received from any member of the Public or the Council.

*362 Questions from Members of the Council

In accordance with the Cabinet Procedure Rules, the relevant Cabinet Member responded to 2 questions from a Member of the Council on Day Care provision at Greenfields (Barnstaple) and progress with the Barnstaple Hospital Junction scheme.

[NB: A copy of the questions and answers are appended to these minutes and are also available on the Council s Website at and any supplementary questions and answers may be observed through the webcast of this meeting see Notes below]

*363 Questions from Members of the Public

The Chairman having exercised his discretion to vary the order of business to enable this item to be considered at this point in the meeting, and in accordance with the Council's Public Participation Rules, he and the relevant Cabinet Members then responded to 5 questions from members of the public on grass cutting and disposal of waste, public transport support budget, provision of superfast broadband and closure of Pinn Lane, Exeter. The Leader and Cabinet Members also responded orally to any supplementary questions arising from the above.

Responses would be sent direct to 2 questions on the Pinn Lane closure and access to Sandy Park from two other members of the public who were not present at the meeting

[NB: A copy of the questions and answers are appended to these minutes and are also available on the Council s Website at and any supplementary questions and answers may be observed through the webcast of this meeting see Notes below]

*364 Matters of Urgency: Broadband Connecting Devon and Somerset

(An item taken under Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972).

(Councillors Biederman, Connett, and Westlake attended in accordance with Standing Order 25(2) and spoke to this item).

(Councillors Barker and McInnes each declared a personal interest in this matter by virtue of being County Council representatives on the Dartmoor National Park Authority and in the case of the former also being a resident within the National Park and Councillor Davis declared a personal interest in this matter by virtue of being a County Council representative on the Exmoor National Park Authority and being a resident within the National Park).

The Chairman had decided that the Cabinet should consider this item, as a matter of urgency, in order that Members may be apprised formally of the circumstances surrounding the decision of the Connecting Devon and Somerset Partnership not to award one of two publicly-funded contracts for the next phase of the planned superfast broadband roll-out in Devon and Somerset to BT and the next steps.

The Cabinet Member for Economy, Growth and Cabinet Liaison for Exeter commented on the procurement process recently undertaken through the Connecting Devon and Somerset Programme to deliver additional superfast connectivity across Devon and Somerset and circulated a detailed briefing note at the meeting (EE/15/4) which would be also circulated to all Members of the Council shortly.

The briefing paper summarised the procurement exercise, which had been properly and fairly conducted. That had culminated in a contract being awarded to Airband (a specialist company based in Worcester with experience of providing high speed wireless broadband in rural areas) to deliver additional superfast services in Exmoor and Dartmoor National Parks whilst the contract to deliver additional superfast connections across the rest of Devon and Somerset had not been awarded as the tender received had not represented value for money. The Connecting Devon and Somerset Partnership had been unable to secure a deal that gave value for money for that contract and it had not therefore been awarded to the sole tenderer, BT. In particular, BT had been unable to commit to the target of 95% superfast broadband coverage by the end of 2017 nor would it give any reassurances that the 95% target could be reached by 2021/22.

The Cabinet Member emphasised that, put simply, BT s best offer had not met the public value for money standards required under s151 of the Local Government Act and the view was therefore taken by all Councils concerned that in light of their fiduciary duty to taxpayers, the offer was too high a risk. He further advised that Devon Members of Parliament had been fully engaged in the process (along with other stakeholders and partners, within the limits of the procurement regulations) as had BDUK which had also provided technical, commercial, financial and state aid advice throughout the process.

The Connecting Devon and Somerset Partnership had nonetheless reiterated its commitment to achieving a better deal and would do all it could to secure that intention in a fresh approach to the market. It would be reissuing the tender for this work as an open procurement exercise, as soon as possible, in the hope of concluding the exercise within six months of getting underway; a number of expressions of interest having already been received in relation thereto. The required funding remained in place to fulfil that new procurement process.

The Cabinet Member emphasised that the Connecting Devon and Somerset Partnership would of course continue to work with BT under its existing contract to deliver phase one of the programme to meet the Government s target of 90% coverage by the end of 2016.

Concern was expressed by Members attending under Standing Order 25 that the position the Connecting Devon and Somerset programme currently found itself in may have been exacerbated by the decision to invite a single tender in the recent procurement exercise and the Leader and Cabinet Member acknowledged the ability of the Place Scrutiny Committee to examine the delivery of this programme and the role of the Connecting Devon and Somerset Partnership therein.

KEY DECISIONS

*365 Exeter: Marsh Barton Railway Station

(Councillors Biederman, Connett, Hannaford and Westlake attended in accordance with Standing Order 25(2) and spoke to this item).

The Cabinet considered the Report of the Head of Planning, Transportation and Environment (PTE/15/34 - text only | pdf | supplementary information PTE/15/34) on the scheme for the Marsh Barton Railway Station together with a revised funding package, including Growth Deal funding, and upon which work was due to commence in the 2015/16 financial year.

Marsh Barton station was a core element of the Devon Metro rail strategy for Exeter, central to the growth plans for the South West Exeter urban extension, Dawlish, Newton Abbot and Marsh Barton employment area. It would also play a major part in the growth of the rest of the City of Exeter by enabling access to Marsh Barton employment from the growth areas to the east; particularly important given the limited capacity of key junctions such as those at Countess Wear, Exeter and M5 Junction 30.

The Head of Service reported that following further design work and in light of the experiences at Newcourt and Cranbrook stations the scheme was now expected to cost in the region of 7,400,000 for the reasons outlined fully in his Report. The Council s approved budget had only made provision for expenditure of 4,500,000. Notwithstanding the concerns expressed at this increase, the proposed scheme nevertheless remained good value for money in the overall context of the project s objectives as outlined by the Head of Service in his Report.

The Report also enumerated the revised funding package now put forward to support this scheme, based on tenders received and incorporating a quantified risk assessment, which was therefore considered to be a robust figure. The proposed revised funding package would see contributions being made by partners as follows:

Teignbridge District Council	1,300.000
Exeter City Council (subject to formal approval)	1,300,000
Devon County Council (including previous spend)	1,300,000
Growth Deal (LTB/LEP) (subject to formal approval)	3,500,000 (additional 1.5m including 0.65m transferred from Heywood Road and 0.85m of unallocated Growth Deal funds)
Total	7,400,000

The Head of Service s Report also referred to an Impact Assessment for this scheme which had been circulated in advance of the meeting in order that Cabinet might, as part of its determination of the next steps in the process, have full regard to the responsibilities placed upon it to exercise its Public Sector Equality Duty under s149 of the Equality Act 2010, where relevant. That Assessment recognised that the station would strongly support the County Council s commitment to equality, notably by increasing accessibility to jobs and local facilities and particularly for those who did not have regular access to a car or on isolated occasions and promote walking and cycling. It would ultimately reduce the negative impacts of economic growth, minimise traffic growth and associated air quality and noise. The station design was fully compliant with disability regulations and also included disabled car parking spaces and facilities for cyclists.

The matter having been debated and the options and/or alternatives and other relevant factors (e.g. financial, environmental, management, equality and legal considerations and Public Health impact) set out in the Head of Service s Report and/or referred to above having been considered:

It was MOVED by Councillor Leadbetter, SECONDED by Councillor Hart, and

RESOLVED

(a) that the scheme shown on drawing B2300109-MBS-G4/CV.DRG/2052 P02 be approved at an estimated cost of 7,400,000 provided that the contract shall not be awarded formally or any work commence until the revised funding package has been agreed by all partners;

(b) that the Head of Planning, Transportation and Environment be authorised, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Economy, Growth and Cabinet Liaison for Exeter, to make minor amendments to the scheme design.

[NB: The Impact Assessment referred to above may be viewed alongside Minutes of this meeting and may also be available at: http://new.devon.gov.uk/impact/].

*366 Honiton: Turks Head Junction Improvement

The Cabinet considered the Report of the Head of Planning, Transportation and Environment (PTE/15/35 - text only | pdf | supplementary information PTE/15/35) seeking approval to the construction of a mini roundabout and associated pedestrian crossing facilities at Turks Head Corner, Honiton to improve the existing junction.

The proposed improvement would also enable residential development proposed in the emerging East Devon Local Plan (for which planning consent had been obtained) to proceed where a s106 agreement with the developer was already in place which would provide funding towards the improvement scheme. Similarly, additional contributions had been secured previously through s106 agreements with two retail developments currently in situ. Representations had been received from the local county councillors in support of this scheme which had also been welcomed by the Town Council.

The Head of Service s Report also incorporated an Impact Assessment relating to the possible impacts of the proposal, so that in determining the next steps in the process the Cabinet might have full regard to the responsibilities placed upon it to exercise its Public Sector Equality Duty, under s149 of the Equality Act 2010. The assessment recognised the scheme would reduce congestion and improve access across and through the junction for all users and improve safety.

The matter having been debated and the options and/or alternatives and other relevant factors (e.g. financial, environmental, risk management, equality and legal considerations and Public Health impact) set out in the Head of Service s Report and/or referred to above having been considered:

It was MOVED by Councillor Leadbetter, SECONDED by Councillor Hart and

RESOLVED

(a) that approval be given to the scheme shown at Appendix 1 to Report PTE/15/35 - text only | pdf | supplementary information PTE/15/35 (drawing number B2300323/0116) at an estimated cost of 565,000, with 339,786 of the cost being met from the Devon Local Transport Plan and the remainder from external sources;

(b) that the Head of Planning, Transportation and Environment be authorised, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Economy, Growth and Cabinet Liaison for Exeter and the local County Councillor, to make minor amendments to the scheme design;

(c) that approval be also given to the Traffic Regulation Order for the implementation of the zebra crossing shown at Appendix 1 to Report PTE/15/35 - text only | pdf | supplementary information PTE/15/35 being advertised and, if no objections are received, being made and sealed;

[NB: The Impact Assessment referred to above may be viewed alongside Minutes of this meeting and may also be available at: http://new.devon.gov.uk/impact/].

*367 Ivybridge: Replacement Recycling Centre

(Councillors Connett and Westlake attended in accordance with Standing Order 25(2) and spoke to this item).

(Councillor Croad declared a personal interest in this matter by virtue of being a resident of the area and user of the current and proposed centre).

The Cabinet considered the Report of the Head of Highways, Capital Development Waste (HCW/15/42 - text only | pdf | supplementary information HCW/15/42) on the construction of a replacement recycling centre to serve Ivybridge and surrounding areas, including the proposed Sherford development, at an estimated cost of 3,703,000 (incorporating advance drainage works at the Ivybridge Town Football Club) in line with the Council s recycling strategy, as the most effective means of improving the service.

The Head of Service s Report also referred to an Impact Assessment for this scheme which had been circulated previously in order that Cabinet might, as part of its determination of the next steps in the process, have full regard to the responsibilities placed upon it to exercise its Public Sector Equality Duty under s149 of the Equality Act 2010, where relevant. That Assessment recognised that the new centre would provide a more accessible, efficient, easier to use and safer facility which would maximise recycling and that reasonable assistance would be given to all site users.

The matter having been debated and the options and/or alternatives and other relevant factors (e.g. financial, environmental, risk management, equality and legal considerations and Public Health impact) set out in the Head of Service s Report and/or referred to above having been considered:

It was MOVED by Councillor Croad, SECONDED by Councillor Hart, and

RESOLVED

(a) that the important contribution that efficient recycling facilities may make to reducing the costs of the Waste Management Service be noted;

(b) that approval be given to the scheme for a replacement Recycling Centre to serve Ivybridge and the surrounding area as shown in the Appendices to Report HCW/15/42 - text only | pdf | supplementary information HCW/15/42 at an estimated cost of 3,703,000; and

(c) that approval be also given to drainage works at Ivybridge Town Football Club being undertaken and completed in the summer prior to the start of the main contract in order to avoid disruption to the football season.

[NB: The Impact Assessment referred to above may be viewed alongside Minutes of this meeting and may also be available at: http://new.devon.gov.uk/impact/].

*368 Pyworthy CoE Primary School

(Councillors Connett and Hannaford attended in accordance with Standing Order 25(2) and spoke to this item).

The Cabinet considered the Report of the Head of Planning, Transportation and Environment (PTE/15/36 - text only | pdf | supplementary information PTE/15/36) on the outcome of consultations on the proposed closure of Pyworthy CoE School.

Following an adverse Ofsted Report in 2014 and despite additional measures having been put in place, the Governing Body had subsequently decided that in light of continuing low numbers of pupils on roll, the future financial viability of the School and the need to provide continuity and consistency in teaching and learning including a full and balanced curriculum, it should initiate formal consultations on the future of the School. The necessary statutory process for closure had therefore been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Council s Education Infrastructure Plan and the presumption therein against closure unless there were clear educational reasons for so doing.

Statutory consultations had taken place between 5 January and 13 February 2015 including a public consultation meeting held on 14 January which was well attended by parents, staff, residents and community representatives. While, inevitably, concerns and regret were expressed over the possible closure of the School and its effect on the village - in terms of community cohesion and attracting families to the area - no educational justification for the retention of the school was put forward, as had been recognised by the Diocesan Authorities. The Governing Body remained concerned at the impact on teaching and learning with so few pupils in attendance and with none of the objections capable of being classed as materially significant it had therefore agreed to publish a formal notice of closure. Three responses to that Notice (published on 14 May with a closing date of 11 June 2015 had been received again relating to the management of the school and the loss of the local school and impact on the village.

The Head of Service s Report also incorporated an Impact Assessment relating to the possible impacts of the decision required of the Council and insofar as the Cabinet might need to have regard to the exercise of its Public Sector Equality Duty, under s149 of the Equality Act 2010. The Assessment recognised the need for every child to have fair access to schools providing the highest standards of teaching, acknowledged that the process had also conformed with the requirements of the Council s Education Infrastructure Plan and the Department for Education Guidance for Proposers and Decision Makers and that there were sufficient school places in the order to accommodate any displaced pupils. The transport and travel needs of any such pupil would be fully assessed in accordance with the Council s Environmental and School Transport policies.

The matter having been debated and the options and/or alternatives and other relevant factors (e.g. financial, sustainability, carbon impact, risk management, equality and legal considerations and Public Health impact) set out in the Head of Service s Report and/or referred to above having been considered:

It was MOVED by Councillor McInnes, SECONDED by Councillor Hart, and

RESOLVED that approval be given to the closure of Pyworthy Church of England (VC) Primary School following completion of the statutory process with effect from 31 December 2015.

[NB: The Impact Assessment referred to above may be viewed alongside Minutes of this meeting and may also be available at: http://new.devon.gov.uk/impact/].

*369 Public Transport Budget (Minute *352/10 June 2015)

(Councillors Biederman, Brazil, Connett, Greenslade, Hannaford, Hawkins, Hook, Hoskings, Moulding and Westlake attended in accordance with Standing Order 25(2) and spoke to this item).

The Cabinet had previously asked the Place Scrutiny Committee to consider the earlier Report of the Head of Services for Communities (SC/15/9 - text only | pdf | supplementary information SC/15/9) on the outcome of consultations on the review of County Council funded bus services and the proposals therein, together with any further representations received.

The Scrutiny Committee had considered those proposals on 17 June 2015 and its deliberations and comments were set out at Minute 79 of that meeting a copy of which had been circulated to all Members of the Council in advance of this meeting. The Scrutiny Committee had welcomed both the opportunity to comment on the proposals and the undertakings provided by the Cabinet Member and Head of Service at that time, that the suggestions referred to therein and raised by Members at the meeting would be further considered prior to Cabinet coming to any final decisions.

The Cabinet noted that these and any other representations received since the publication of the initial Report in June had subsequently been examined and alongside continuing discussions with operators were now reflected in the revised, updated, Report of the Head of Services for Communities (SC/15/16 - text only | supplementary information SC/15/16) now before the Cabinet.

The Cabinet Member for Highways Management Flood Prevention reported that the proposals as now submitted would honour the Council s commitment not to leave any communities entirely isolated. It was nonetheless a truism that with a budget reduction of this magnitude it would not be possible to meet the level of savings required without some impact and any unforeseen changes in circumstances outside the Council s control might require further examination of the Council s budgets.

Members attending under Standing Order 25 expressed disappointment at the proposals now before the Cabinet which could, in their view, potentially conflict with the Council s strategic objectives in other areas such as employment and economic growth, arguing that the Council could have approached this in a different way and found resources from other sources to offset these proposed reductions.

In responding to a number of specific questions on individual routes, the Head of Service was able to confirm that service 86 would continue, that the frequency of supported bus journeys on services T and 39 would be increased and that discussions were continuing with partners on potential support for service D and with communities over additional community transport schemes referred to in his Report.

Similarly, the Cabinet noted - in response to concerns over the impact of possible reductions of services in the Bigbury (Car Service F7/F17) - that the adoption of the proposals now before the Cabinet would not preclude the development of further community transport operations in those areas or where bus service support might be curtailed; the Place Scrutiny Committee having also been assured that the Council's total transport spend was being examined to ensure it was being used to the best effect and acknowledging the role of community transport in the development of a more integrated approach.

It was further suggested that Government should be reminded of the importance of public transport in rural areas like Devon and be urged to provide additional funding and review the efficacy and funding of the current concessionary bus fare scheme.

The Head of Service also undertook to circulate a briefing to Members of the Council on the Devon Wheels to Work scheme designed to help young people with transport costs during their first month of employment which recognised the difficulties of transport for young people especially in rural areas.

The Head of Service s Report also referred to an Impact Assessment which had previously been taken into account by Cabinet in determining the way forward and subsequently refreshed. It had recognised that while the proposals could have a negative impact on a number of persons or users there were equally positive impacts in relation to health and wellbeing. There could similarly be negative environmental impacts from the reduction of bus services as was recognised in the Head of Service s Report but these would only be capable of being identified on a case by case basis.

The matter having been debated and the options and/or alternatives and other relevant factors (e.g. financial, environmental, equality, risk management and legal considerations and Public Health impact) set out in the Head of Service s Report and/or referred to above having been considered:

It was MOVED by Councillor Hughes, SECONDED by Councillor Hart, and

RESOLVED

(a) that the revised proposals set out in Report SC/15/16 - text only | supplementary information SC/15/16, amended where feasible in response to the comments of the Place Scrutiny Committee and individual Members together with further amendments made possible in final negotiations with bus companies, be endorsed and implemented in the week beginning Sunday 20 September 2015;

(b) the representations be made to Government over the efficacy and funding of the Concessionary Bus Fare scheme seeking, in particular, authority for Councils to charge for issuing Bus Permits in the same way as charges were levied for Railcards, with any such income being ring-fenced for public transport support.

[NB: The Impact Assessment referred to above may be viewed alongside Minutes of this meeting and may also be available at: http://new.devon.gov.uk/impact/].

*370 Care Act 2014 - Fair and Affordable Care Policy

(Councillors Connett, Hannaford and Westlake attended in accordance with Standing Order 25(2) and spoke to this item).

The Cabinet considered the Report of the Head of Social Care Commissioning (SCC/15/37 - text only | pdf SCC/15/37) on proposed variations to the current policy reflecting the provisions of the Care Act 2014.

The County Council had a responsibility to use its resources in a way that was fair for all of the people in Devon who might require adult social care and achieve best value for the Council. The Council s current policy known as the Upper Cost Parameters Policy ensured that money allocated to meet individuals assessed need was reasonable and the care received was personalised, safe and fair; equivalent to the maximum amount of money the Council would ordinarily pay for an individual to have their eligible care and support needs met. This policy had been formulated previously in consultation with key partners, users and carers.

The Cabinet also noted that the proposed Fair and Affordable Care Policy (so named to better reflect the outcome it sought to achieve) varied from the current policy inasmuch as:

the existing exception 1 (limiting the costs of care workers for community based care) had been removed on the grounds of fairness and in order to truly reflect the actual costs of the care that a person would require when the policy was applied and allow the County Council to achieve best value when funding or meeting eligible care needs; and

the existing exception 2 (separation of services provided for carers) had to be removed as it was no longer relevant; legislation introduced in April 2015 meaning that the cost of replacement care had to be included within the costs of the support plan of the person receiving the care rather than the carers.

These proposed revisions had been the subject of wide consultation undertaken in conjunction with Healthwatch which had revealed a broad consensus with the approach now proposed, as evidenced in the Head of Service s Report.

The Head of Service s Report also incorporated an Impact Assessment relating to the possible impacts of the proposal, so that in determining the next steps in the process the Cabinet might have full regard to the responsibilities placed upon it to exercise its Public Sector Equality Duty, under s149 of the Equality Act 2010. The assessment recognised the aims of the policy to ensure fairness for all while providing discretion in exceptional cases to mitigate any potential adverse consequences.

The matter having been debated and the options and/or alternatives and other relevant factors (e.g. financial, sustainability, carbon impact, risk management, equality and legal considerations and Public Health impact) set out in the Head of Service s Report and/or referred to above having been considered:

It was MOVED by Councillor Barker, SECONDED by Councillor Hart, and

RESOLVED that approval be given to the Fair and Affordable Care Policy noting the removal of two exceptions contained within the existing Upper cost parameters policy summarised above and detailed more fully in paragraph 3.1 of Report SSC/15/37.

[NB: The Impact Assessment referred to above may be viewed alongside Minutes of this meeting and may also be available at: http://new.devon.gov.uk/impact/].

*371 Review of Parking Dispensation Scheme and Countywide Traffic Regulation Order (Minute *330/8 April 2015)

(Councillors Brazil, Greenslade, Hannaford and Westlake attended in accordance with Standing Order 25(2) and spoke to this item).

The Cabinet considered the Report of the Head of Highways, Capital Development Waste (HCW/15/43 - text only | pdf | supplementary information HCW/15/43) on the outcome of statutory consultations on changes to the Dispensation Scheme and Traffic Regulation Order previously endorsed by the Cabinet.

The Cabinet was reminded that it had previously considered and endorsed changes to the County Council s Parking Dispensation Scheme (HCW/15/28 - text only | pdf | supplementary information HCW/15/28) - with the previously expressed support of the Place Scrutiny Committee - to provide greater flexibility for contractors and others needing to park close to sites in areas with existing parking restrictions, particularly in residents parking zones, through the introduction of an additional annual permit and pre-paid permits applicable across the Council s area, complementing the existing dispensation options of a day permit and a scratch card. Members noted, at that time, that it would be necessary to advertise a new Traffic Regulation Order to give effect to those changes which, if subsequently approved, would allow for the new scheme to be operational by September 2015. The Head of Service acknowledged that the application and enforcement of the revised scheme would need to be carefully monitored to prevent any abuse.

The Head of Service s Report described the consultations referred to above, undertaken during June 2015, and the responses received thereto. Advertisements had been placed in 8 local newspapers; 28 submissions had subsequently been received which were summarised at Appendix II with a commentary thereon A number of other submissions had been received outside the statutory process which were available at the meeting.

The Head of Service now recommended that, having had regard to the responses submitted, the proposed Traffic Regulation Order could be further modified to enable letting agents to apply for dispensation permits because they often provided a fully managed service on behalf of (eligible) landlords (which it was felt would not constitute a substantial change to the proposed Order) but that the remaining proposals be implemented as advertised.

The Head of Service s Report also referred to an Impact Assessment for this scheme based on that previously taken into account by Cabinet in determining the way forward, updated as necessary, in order that Cabinet might, as part of its determination of the next steps in the process, have full regard to the responsibilities placed upon it to exercise its Public Sector Equality Duty under s149 of the Equality Act 2010, where relevant, which acknowledged the changes referred to above and recognised the positive impact of the Strategy; no unmanageable impacts having been identified.

The matter having been debated and the options and/or alternatives and other relevant factors (e.g. financial, risk management, equality and legal considerations and Public Health impact) set out in the Head of Service s Report and/or referred to above having been considered:

It was MOVED by Councillor Hughes, SECONDED by Councillor Hart, and

RESOLVED

(b) that approval be given to the Parking Dispensation Scheme as set out in more detail in Report HCW/15/43 - text only | pdf | supplementary information HCW/15/43 incorporating the variations set out at paragraph 4 thereof as summarised above; and

(c) that, having also given due consideration under Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to the specific factors set out at paragraph 7 of Report HCW/15/43 - text only | pdf | supplementary information HCW/15/43, approval be also given to the making of the Countywide Traffic Regulation Order, as referred to therein and summarised above.

[NB: The Impact Assessment referred to above may be viewed alongside Minutes of this meeting and may also be available at: http://new.devon.gov.uk/impact/].

OTHER MATTERS

*372 Annual Public Health Report 2014/15

(Councillors Biederman, Brazil, Connett and Westlake attended in accordance with Standing Order 25(2) and spoke to this item).

The Cabinet received and welcomed the eighth Annual Public Health Report prepared and published by the Director of Public Health on inequalities in public health.

The Report reviewed the position in Devon, reflecting upon the relatively new arrangements for public health introduced under the Health Social Care Act 2012 and the enhanced role of local authorities in respect of that statutory function. It also explored the actions needed to maintain the improvement in health since 2008 and to continue to reduce health inequality across Devon, with and between different socio-economic groups, as encapsulated in the priorities and recommendations set out in the Report s Executive Summary which complemented the County Council s strategic objectives.

Members noted that the Annual Report also recorded achievements against recommendations contained in the previous year s report, a significant proportion of which had already been fully achieved.

It was MOVED by Councillor Davis SECONDED by Councillor Hart, and

RESOLVED that the Report be welcomed and published.

[NB: The Annual Public Health Report may be viewed at: www.devonhealthandwellbeing.org.uk/aphr ]

*373 Treasury Management Stewardship Annual Report 2014/15

(Councillor Connett attended in accordance with Standing Order 25(2) and spoke to this item).

The Cabinet considered the Report of the County Treasurer (CT/15/50 - text only | pdf CT/15/50) outlining the Treasury Management action taken during the last financial year (in line with the CIPFA Code of Practice previously adopted by the Council) which had also been considered and endorsed by the Corporate Services Scrutiny Committee on 29 June 2015.

The Annual Report reviewed performance over the 2014/15 financial year with a view to identifying any issues arising from the Council's Treasury and Debt Management during that period and to provide assurance that agreed policy had been implemented.

The Report revealed that:

no long term or short term borrowing had been undertaken during 2014/15;

while investment income targets had fallen slightly short, interest income had been higher than anticipated and prudent management of the Council s short term cash reserves had also delivered a small surplus

all lending had been carried out in accordance with the Council s Treasury Management Strategy.

The matter having been debated and the options and/or alternatives and other relevant factors set out in the County Treasurer's Report and/or referred to above having been considered:

It was MOVED by Councillor Clatworthy, SECONDED by Councillor Hart, and

RESOLVED that the Annual Treasury Management Stewardship Report be noted and welcomed.

STANDING ITEMS

374 Notices of Motion: Planning Definition of Traffic Conditions (Minute *313/11 March 2015)

(Councillor Greenslade attended in accordance with Standing Order 8 and Councillors Biederman, Brazil, Hannaford and Moulding in accordance with Standing Order 25(2) and spoke to this item).

The Cabinet had previously asked the Place Scrutiny Committee to consider the Report of the Head of Planning, Transportation Environment (PTE/15/18 - text only | pdf PTE/15/18) relating to the suggestion contained within a Notice of Motion previously submitted to the County Council by Councillor Greenslade (which had been put to the Council in light of the inherent restrictions imposed on planning authorities by the National Planning Framework and Guidance and Planning Inspectorate Judgements), prior to any recommendation being made to the County Council, viz:

that County Councillors develop a local Devon planning definition of the meaning of severe traffic conditions to assist Development Control Officers in making highways recommendations to local planning authorities and when planning applications are considered by the Development Management Committee all consultation responses received by the local planning authority to date be reported to Members of the Development Management Committee;

It be noted that these proposed changes are designed to make planning recommendations by the County Council more sensitive to the communities of the County .

The Cabinet noted that the Scrutiny Committee had considered this matter at its meeting on 17 June (Minute *81 refers) but had, in essence, endorsed the course of action set out in Report PTE/15/18 - text only | pdf PTE/15/18 having recommended (a) that the County Council be advised to take no further action on the notice of motion in respect of the definition of severe impact ; and (b) that the Development Management Committee be made aware of representations made directly to the County Council, when considering their response to local planning authority consultations .

It was MOVED by Councillor Clatworthy, SECONDED by Councillor Hart, and

RESOLVED

(a) that the Place Scrutiny Committee s advice be accepted and the County Council be advised to take no further action on the Notice of Motion in respect of the definition of severe impact on the grounds that, while the factors determining the scale of impact can be set out, a prescriptive quantification of severity of impact would be difficult to defend at any appeal, and no basis for such a definition is included within the National Planning Policy Framework; but

(b) that the Head of Planning, Transportation and Environment be asked to ensure that, when the Development Management Committee was considering responses to consultations from local planning authorities on the transportation aspects of planning applications, Members be made aware of representations made directly to the County Council; and

(c) that representations be made to Government on the need for a definition of or greater clarity around the meaning of severe within Section 4, para 32 of the National Planning Framework.

*375 References from Committees

(a) Place Scrutiny Committee: Young People and Employment Task Group Final Report

(Councillors Biederman, Hannaford, Moulding and Westlake attended in accordance with Standing Order 25(2) and spoke to this item).

The Cabinet noted that, at its meeting on 17 June 2015 (Minute *77), the Place Scrutiny Committee had considered the Report of the Task Group undertaken jointly with People s Scrutiny Committee looking at how young people may be supported to access education, training and/or employment and had commended the Report (and the recommendations therein) to Cabinet.

It was MOVED by Councillor McInnes, SECONDED by Councillor Hart, and

RESOLVED that the Task Group s suggestions be endorsed and the Heads of Education Learning and Services for Communities take appropriate action and the Report be also distributed to all relevant agencies and schools, both direct and through the Devon Education Forum, to facilitate its wider distribution within the education community, with the request that they also take the actions identified appropriate to their service area.

(b) Health Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee: Integration Spotlight Review

(Councillor Westlake attended in accordance with Standing Order 25(2) and spoke to this item).

The Cabinet noted that, at its meeting on 18 June 2015 (Minute *95), the Health Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee had considered the Report of its Spotlight Review (CS/15/12 - text only | pdf CS/15/12) on the role of scrutiny, generally, in relation to integration of local health and social care services undertaken in conjunction with CfPS, the LGA and the People s Scrutiny Committee and resolved that the recommendations be endorsed and the Cabinet and Clinical Commissioning Groups be requested to implement them as appropriate

It was MOVED by Councillor Barker, SECONDED by Councillor Hart, and

RESOLVED that the Task Group s proposals be noted and implemented as appropriate and the Report be also distributed to all relevant Agencies and Clinical Commissioning Groups with the request that they similarly take appropriate action within their area of activity.

(c) Corporate Services Scrutiny Committee: Community Resilience Task Group

(Councillors Biederman, Brazil and Hannaford attended in accordance with Standing Order 25(2) and spoke to this item).

The Cabinet noted that, at its meeting on 29 June 2015, the Corporate Services Scrutiny Committee had considered the Report of its Task Group (CS/15/13 - supplementary information CS/15/13) (Minute 66) exploring the support the Council and others could give to create independent, strong and resilient communities and had endorsed and commended the recommendations therein to the Cabinet and to relevant partner agencies for action and implementation, recognising also the need to give greater emphasis to the benefits of joint working and sharing of experience with and between Parish Councils.

It was MOVED by Councillor Hart, SECONDED by Councillor Clatworthy, and

RESOLVED that the Task Group s recommendations be noted and endorsed and implemented as appropriate, and the Report be also distributed to all relevant partner agencies and that they be similarly encouraged to take appropriate action as outlined above within their area of activity.

*376 Minutes

It was MOVED by Councillor Hart, SECONDED by Councillor Clatworthy, and

RESOLVED

(a) that formal approval be given to the carry forwards identified in the Dedicated Schools Grant Outturn for 2014/15 as set out at Devon Education Forum Minute 747(a) in accordance with The Schools and Early Years Finance Regulations and the Schools Forum Operational Good Practice Guides;

(b) that, subject to the foregoing, the Minutes of the following any other recommendations to Cabinet therein be approved:

Devon Education Forum, 24 June 2015;

Devon Audit Partnership, 24 June 2015.

[NB: Minutes of County Council Committees are published on the Council s Website at: http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/your_council/decision_making/cma/index_exc.htm .

Minutes of the Devon Education (Schools) Forum are published at: http://www.devon.gov.uk/schoolsforum.htm ]

*377 Delegated Action/Urgent Matters

(a) Register of Decisions

The Register of Decisions taken by Members under the urgency provisions or delegated powers were available for inspection at the meeting in line with the Council s Constitution and Regulation 13 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012; a summary of decisions taken since the last meeting had been published with the Agenda for this meeting.

(b) Call-in of Cabinet Members Decision: Highways, Planning, Design and Public Community Transport Fees and Charges

(Councillor Moulding attended in accordance with Standing Order 25(2) and spoke to this item).

The Cabinet noted, that in accordance with the Cabinet Procedure Rules/Scheme of Delegation, Councillors Connett, Dewhirst, Greenslade, Hook, Way, Wragg and Younger-Ross had invoked the call-in procedure in relation to the decision of the Cabinet Member for Highways Management Flood Prevention approving various fees and charges.

That call-in had asked the Place Scrutiny Committee to assess the business case for specific charges for disabled parking spaces, access protection markings, residential and charity parking permits and Doctors spaces on the grounds that the supporting documentation was silent on the methodology used to arrive at the new charges and what preliminary consultation, if any, was undertaken, nor does it indicate how much the council expects to generate from the new charges, and if there are any circumstances when proposed charges may be waived due to local or individual circumstances .

The Cabinet further noted that, having considered the call-in at its meeting on 17 June 2015 (Minute *78), the Place Scrutiny Committee was satisfied with the Cabinet Member s decision and no reconsideration of or amendment to the decision having been sought formally, it had then been implemented with immediate effect.

[NB: A copy of the Cabinet Member s decision form and schedule of charges (CS/15/17 - supplementary information CS/15/17) is available at: CS/15/17 - supplementary information CS/15/17.CMRrn=15/WD184dg=Public">http://www.devon.gov.uk/loadtrimdocument?url=filename=CS/15/17 - supplementary information CS/15/17.CMRrn=15/WD184dg=Public ]

(c) Reference back of Cabinet Members: Disposal of former social care properties: Wardhayes, Okehampton; Daw Vale, Dawlish; Tracey Vale, Bovey Tracey; Oakwell, Barnstaple; and Ropewalk, Kingsbridge

(Councillor Brazil attended in accordance with Standing Order 25(2) and spoke to this item).

The Cabinet noted that, in accordance with the Cabinet Procedure Rules/Scheme of Delegation, Councillors Brazil and Connett had asked that the decision of the Cabinet Members for Adult Social Care Health Services and for Resources Asset Management relating to the disposal of the above properties be referred back to the Cabinet for reconsideration, being of general application across the county, to enable consideration of more time being given to community interest groups to see if they may have an alternative use for buildings and to allow greater publicity to potential reuse; acknowledging that while decisions around future service provision may have been known for some time the decision to declare these buildings surplus to requirements was not widely known.

A copy of the Cabinet Member decision form and accompanying documentation had been circulated previously for the convenience of Members.

The Cabinet Members for Adult Social Care Health Services and Resources Asset Management outlined the reasoning behind their decision and also responded in more detail to the issues raised in support of the reference back and on the process of declaring property surplus to requirements and listing as an asset of community value , against the background of the many expressions of interest received in relation to Day Care and Residential Homes. Under the Localism Act and at any time, an asset could be considered for listing whether or not it had been formally declared surplus to the Council s requirements and where any land or property so listed was declared surplus to requirements there would automatically be a moratorium in the process allowing any group to have 6 weeks to express an interest and 6 months within which to obtain funding. The Council had established its own community interest process to evaluating bids which would, inter alia, consider disposal at a discounted value.

It was MOVED by Councillor Clatworthy, SECONDED by Councillor Hart, and

RESOLVED that, being satisfied with the explanation and justification summarised above, the Cabinet Member s decision be affirmed.

*378 Forward Plan

In accordance with the Council s Constitution, the Cabinet reviewed the Forward Plan and determined those items of business to be defined as key and framework decisions and included in the Plan from the date of this meeting onwards reflecting the requirements of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 (at https://new.devon.gov.uk/democracy/how-the-council-works/forward-plan/)

*DENOTES DELEGATED MATTER WITH POWER TO ACT

The meeting started at 10.30am and finished at 1.40pm.

NOTES: 1. Minutes should be read in association with any Reports or documents referred to therein, for a complete record. 2. Notice of the decisions taken by the Cabinet will be sent by email to all Members of the Council within 2 working days of their being made and will, in the case of key decisions, come into force 5 working days after that date unless 'called-in' or referred back in line with the provisions of the Council's Constitution. 3.The Minutes of the Cabinet are published on the County Council s website at 4. A recording of the webcast of this meeting will also available to view for up to six months from the date of the meeting, at http://www.devoncc.public-i.tv/core/portal/home

APPENDIX

QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL

Wednesday, 8 July 2015/Minute *362

1. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR GREENSLADE

Re: Day Centre Provision

Can the Cabinet Member update me on the position of the various Day Centres provision at Greenfields, Derby Rd, Barnstaple?

REPLY BY COUNCILLOR BARKER

The situation has not changed since my last report. Until issues around the relocation of staff moving from the central office building are resolved it is not possible to say which site will be used for a new Devon hub. Meanwhile all day services are continuing and where people choose to spend their personal budget on attending a day care centre they are being assisted to do so at centres of their choice which includes the one mentioned in the question. As in my answer at a previous meeting when the situation changes, and the location of staff accommodation is known, the local members will be among the first to be updated.

2. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR GREENSLADE

Re: Barnstaple Hospital Junction

The Cabinet Member previously advised me that planned roundabout at the Barnstaple Hospital junction would be completed by January 2016. Can he confirm that this is still the expected date for completion?

REPLY BY COUNCILLOR LEADBETTER

North Devon Council has not yet issued any planning permissions for the sites which will fully fund this scheme and none of the houses in the five planning applications in the area will be built by January 2016. Those dwellings are the catalyst for the roundabout scheme.

One of the schemes is also providing the land required to build the roundabout, so until this land is secured the Council cannot schedule the construction of the roundabout. That can only happen once the development proceeds.

In addition, the County Council will also need sufficient funding secured through signed s106 agreements towards the roundabout before it can borrow the capital to forward fund the scheme. New tender processes also mean now that the lead in time for awarding the tender to a contractor will increase by a few weeks and BT have also stated that they require 7 months notification to arrange to move equipment under the existing junction.

All this means that the roundabout will, unfortunately, not be built by January 2016. I realise this may be disappointing but that date was always subject to securing the land and money. Four our part the project is ready to be started up again as soon as the land and money is secured but, as I have indicated, the timescale is wholly dependent on the development timetable which, currently, is unknown.

QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

Wednesday, 8 July 2015/Minute *363

1. QUESTION FROM MR W AUSTIN

Re: Grass cutting and disposal of waste

Barnstaple resembles a jungle as a result of DCC cuts. Barnstaple Town Council can clear up the mess but needs your help. Will Cabinet ensure that any DCC funding for maintenance in Barnstaple is passed to the Town Council and reinstate the local arrangement allowing free disposal of green waste?

REPLY BY COUNCILLOR CROAD

The County Council has had to make some tough choices in agreeing its revenue budgets for the current year. It consulted on grass cutting, where the service has been reduced to the minimum safe level and in accordance with the approved policy the Council now only carries out visibility cutting.

The Council s Officers have tried to work with local communities to deliver the grass cutting programme as efficiently as possible and have enabled self-help schemes so that communities can carry out further grass cutting work if they wish. The schemes require community groups to consult with the local Neighbourhood Highway Officer when planning self-help work. This will allow the highway service to give advice on how to deal with grass cutting waste based on the most cost effective solution, which avoids taking highway grass waste to recycling centres where it costs to the County Council to process it, hence the charge that is levied for dealing with such non-household waste.

The Council has a wide range of delivery models in place for grass cutting, with District Town and Parish Councils cutting in some areas. In these cases, they receive the funding that the County Council has available for the service and add on extra cutting where it is a local priority. Officers will be happy to work with Barnstaple Town Council on this basis and will, in the meantime, happily advise them on the most cost effective solutions for grass waste in the current year through discussions with the local neighbourhood highway team.

2. QUESTION FROM MS D MOORE

Re: Public Transport Budget

The proposed cuts to the public transport budget will have a significant detrimental impact on the bus network and related services. Please can you explain what steps the Council has taken to secure funding from other bodies for public transport services as an alternative to making cuts to the budget?

REPLY BY COUNCILLOR HUGHES

This issue may well of course have been touched on in the debate on this matter earlier in the meeting but if not I would like to make it clear that the Council has worked hard to secure funding for Public Transport. This includes Section 106 grants, funding through the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF), from partners (e.g. Exeter University, neighbouring Counties, local councils, etc.) and, as already highlighted, maximising the use of the devolved Bus Services Operator Grant (BSOG). The Council works closely - through its Transport Coordination Service- with a number of other bodies, including Schools Colleges, Exeter University, Job Centre Plus and the Health sector to look for ways to integrate transport across the County and has recently been successful with pilot funding from the Department for Transport to explore Total Transport options across the County.

3. QUESTION FROM MR C WILLIAMS

Re: Access to Sandy Park, Exeter

Do you think it is fair to consult and even consider the changes to improve access to Sandy Park, thereby reducing journey distances, greenhouse gases for 2 business when the County Council have just reduced the access to the Gipsy Hill Hotel by half and in doing so, have increased the journey times and greenhouse emissions, when there was no consultation in respect of the Pinn Lane closure, even though on the two previous occasion the County tried to close the road there was a consultation which resulted in the county s failure to keep Pinn Lane closed.

REPLY BY COUNCILLOR LEADBETTER

The proposed Sandy Park junction improvements are required to facilitate development on the remaining triangle of development land at Newcourt between the A379, the motorway and the railway at Newcourt. The upgrade to an all movements junction is needed to minimise the traffic impacts of approximately 400 dwellings and 8 hectares of employment land on Old Rydon Lane and Clyst Road. On this basis, it is reasonable for the County Council to be developing these proposals and for the scheme to be consulted upon.

4. QUESTION FROM MS CARLETON

Re: Closure of Pinn Lane, Exeter

Will the members please consider investigating the circumstances and reports that led to the traffic order to close Pinn Lane. I will be more than happy to shed light into what I consider to be the flaws, unfairness and unsupportive of local residents.

REPLY BY COUNCILLOR LEADBETTER

The Traffic Regulation Order referred to has been the subject of recent court proceedings. On 10^th June 2015, the High Court dismissed the claims against the County Council in its entirety, and the matter is now closed. The adequacy of the County Council s procedures has therefore been subject to a high level of scrutiny and been found to be satisfactory. On the basis of this court decision, the County Council has enacted its rights to complete the prohibition works to Pinn Lane in accordance with the Tithebarn Link Road contract.

5. QUESTION FROM MR G LONG

Re: Superfast Broadband

The June 30 DCC/CDS press releases claims that the total Phase 2 contract value on June 26, 2015 was 35M. The BDUK Phase 2 allocation of January 2014, shown on the BDUK website, was 22.75M which would make 45.5M, when fully matched. Please provide details of all the various sources of funding (organisations and amounts) that make up the 35M quoted in the press releases and, since this is 10M short of what is possible, also detail (including amounts) which organisations/authorities agreed "in principle" to provide match funding but then failed to follow through on that commitment.

REPLY BY COUNCILLOR LEADBETTER

The funding package for the Phase 2 contract is made up as follows: the larger Phase 2 contract is made up of over 15m from local authority and LEP and nearly 20m matched from BDUK; The National Parks contract is made up of over 2m from BDUK and nearly 3m matched from public sector partners, the LEP and Airband; The Programme also set aside a contingency of 2m made up from BDUK and Devon and Somerset County Councils. The remainder is the expected private sector contribution. The partnership also continues to seek additional investment from other external funding opportunities.

6. QUESTION FROM MR R CASHMORE

Re: Superfast Broadband

Following a recent meeting with concerned West Country MPs, the Right Honourable Minister Ed Vaizey confirmed he intends for DCMS to appoint a new project manager to oversee the future work of CDS (now the only area yet to sign a Phase II contract). This embarrassing move confirms that that the current members of the CDS Executive Board (including both Chairmen Flaherty Norrey together with Cllrs. Hall Leadbetter) have failed to deliver. Please provide details of the remedial steps the council now intends to take in order to put together a new robust and transparent CDS board, staffed with competent members capable of regaining the confidence of both the rural ratepayers and the telecom industry.

REPLY BY COUNCILLOR LEADBETTER

Neither the Minister nor his officials have expressed such a view to CDS. In fact we understand from BDUK officials that the Minister has in mind an additional staff resource to provide BDUK with extra support, which we would welcome. There is no plan to alter the membership of the CDS Board or programme team outside of extending membership from funding partners contributing to the National Parks contract who are not already part of the CDS Board.

7. QUESTION FROM MRS S SALTER (Chairman, Pinhoe Community Association)

Re: Closure of Pinn Lane, Exeter

Why did Devon County Council not consider it appropriate to consult with
the Pinhoe Community Association who represent the Pinhoe and Monkerton
community, in regards the traffic order to close Pinn Lane particularly when
two previous attempts had failed ?

REPLY BY COUNCILLOR LEADBETTER

The adequacy of consultation on the proposals for Pinn Lane have been subject to two separate court proceedings involving Exeter City Council in respect of its planning decision on the Tithebarn Link Road and the County Council in respect of the Traffic Regulation Order. In both cases, the High Court dismissed the claims and the cases are now closed. In addition, the proposals were subject to consultation through the Local Plan process, which included events held in Pinhoe. Unlike the previous attempts to close Pinn Lane, the current proposals have been developed within the context of the Monkerton and Hill Barton development and enables Pinhoe traffic onward travel to the south via the new Tithebarn Link Road and Cumberland Way.