To receive apologies for absence, including notifications of any changes to the membership of the Board.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Fellows.  Apologies were also received from the following Cabinet Members: Councillors Jackie Thomas (who was represented by Councillor David Thomas) and Councillor Tranter.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Board held on 14 January 2026.

The minutes of the meeting of the Board held on 14 January 2026 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

a)         To receive declarations of non pecuniary interests in respect of items on this agenda

For reference:  Having declared their non pecuniary interest members may remain in the meeting and speak and, vote on the matter in question.  A completed disclosure of interests form should be returned to the Clerk before the conclusion of the meeting.

b)        To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests in respect of items on this agenda

For reference:  Where a Member has a disclosable pecuniary interest he/she must leave the meeting during consideration of the item.  However, the Member may remain in the meeting to make representations, answer questions or give evidence if the public have a right to do so, but having done so the Member must then immediately leave the meeting, may not vote and must not improperly seek to influence the outcome of the matter.  A completed disclosure of interests form should be returned to the Clerk before the conclusion of the meeting.

(Please Note:  If Members and Officers wish to seek advice on any potential interests they may have, they should contact Governance Support or Legal Services prior to the meeting.)

No declarations of interest were made.

To consider the Budget Monitoring Report for Quarter 3 2025/2026 and make recommendations to the Cabinet.

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Finance, Councillor Tyerman, outlined the submitted Budget Monitoring report for 2025/2026 which set out the quarter 3 position in respect of the Council’s Revenue and Capital Budgets. Cabinet Members and Directors also attended the meeting and responded to questions as well as Councillor Tyerman.

Councillor Bye provided an update since the report had been published and advised that the Children’s Services overspend continued but the wording in the report needed further refining.  This was driven largely by high-cost placements and reliance on unregulated provision.  Some progress had been made reducing unregulated placements, but more work needed to be done.  The Government had agreed to write off 90% of historic Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) overspends, however, future funding arrangements remain uncertain with the Government taking over the funding for SEND from 2028.

Members asked questions in respect of the following:

·                What was the actual cost difference between regulated and unregulated children’s placements, and how do these compare financially and operationally?

·                What would the cost implications be if the Council provided its own placements, including the potential benefits of managing the market more effectively?

·                Why was progress slow in transitioning children out of unregulated provision?  Was this due to delays in obtaining Ofsted registration, availability of appropriate placements, or other barriers?

·                Why were waste disposal costs higher than expected?  Was more residual waste being sent to the Energy-from-Waste (EfW) plant than planned?  What factors were driving this increase?  (A written response would be provided.)

·                Could reassurance be provided that historic debts labelled as old or historic were being reviewed thoroughly, with proper tracking of business rates and council tax recovery processes?

·                Were the current levels of write-offs for Council Tax and Business Rates typical compared to previous years and national benchmarks?

·                What early intervention steps were taken when residents start falling into arrears, and were they consistently being signposted to support such as the community helpline?

·                Why was the Integrated Care Organisation (ICO) not included within the Council’s financial sustainability plan, given it presents a risk area?

·                Why was there such a large overspend in AOTAS (educated other than at school) and school place allocations, despite reduced numbers?  What cost pressures or quality issues are driving this?

·                What solutions exist to resolve issues around Torbay Coast & Countryside Trust (TCCT) parking passes, particularly in relation to fairness and integration with the Council’s parking tariff structure?

·                Why were charges in TCCT car parks different from others, and how could these be rationalised without inappropriate cross-subsidising between car parks?

·                Could alternative permit options or differential pricing be explored to better reflect the different destinations, usage patterns, and operational costs of TCCT car parks?

·                When we refer to collection rates could it include percentages e.g. what does good look like compared to the budget.  (A written response would be provided to this and a note for future reports.)

The following responses were provided:

·                Unregulated placements were not automatically cheaper; cost was dependent on the complexity of need and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

To review the Council’s key performance indicators for Quarter 3 2025/26 and make recommendations to the Cabinet.

This item was deferred due to an error in publishing the full performance information.

To review the annual Business Plan for Torre Abbey together with details of performance against the previous plan and make recommendations to the Cabinet.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor David Thomas presented the submitted report which provided an update of the Torre Abbey Business Plan and responded to questions together with the Head of Culture and Events, Phil Black and Director of Pride in Place, Alan Denby.

Members asked questions in respect of the following:

·                Was the chapel now open, and if not, what remaining work was required and what was the timeline for completion?

·                Why was the café still failing to generate profit, and what structural or operational constraints prevent it from becoming financially viable?

·                How much revenue do events (e.g. the Christmas market/Winterfest) actually generate, and were these events contributing enough to justify continued investment?

·                Were current event spaces being fully utilised, or were there opportunities to expand community events, cultural programmes, or partnerships?

·                Was the Napoleonic history of the Abbey and wider Bay being adequately promoted, and could a stronger heritage narrative attract more visitors and income?

·                Was the Friends of Torre Abbey group now active, and what role will they play in supporting events, heritage activities or volunteer coordination?

·                How was Torre Abbey being marketed as a wedding venue, and was the marketing approach effective in converting enquiries to bookings?

·                Could additional Abbey spaces (e.g. Spanish Barn, undercroft or Palm House) be made more usable year?round, and what investment would be required?

·                What benchmarking data exists to illustrate whether Torre Abbey could ever break even, considering visitor numbers, secondary spend, and event income?

·                What percentage of target visitors was Torre Abbey trying to capture, and how will this be monitored within the 2026–2030 Business Plan?

·                What were the long?term plans to reduce subsidy requirements for Torre Abbey, and what scenarios exist for financial sustainability?

·                How does Torre Abbey integrate with the wider Destination Management Plan, including heritage trails, walking routes (e.g. Monk’s Walk), and connections across the Bay?

The following responses were provided:

·                No, the chapel is not yet open, and more work was required.  The Team was focusing on the New Beginnings project, and progress had been slowed by staff absence on site.  A Funding bid was likely later this summer.

·                The reasons the café was still unprofitable include:

·                public sector employment costs (salaries, pensions, overheads) making it significantly more expensive than privately-run cafés;

·                successful café operations typically rely on couples or small owners who do not draw formal wages; and

·                similar issues were seen with Cockington Court café.

Therefore, the public sector cannot run cafés profitably.

·                Events like Winterfest have been held (two weekends).  They help with footfall but:

·                income data was not detailed in the agenda;

·                several events do not translate into significant revenue (e.g. Bay of Lights raised profile but did not produce income and negatively affected weddings)

·                Event spaces were not being fully utilised.  Members noted opportunities to:

·                attract more community events;

·                increase heritage?themed activities;

·                enhance links to wider Bay heritage stories (Napoleonic);

·                use the Spanish Barn as a year?round venue once heated; and

·                review how Torre Abbey integrates  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.