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

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Stevens.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Board held on 8 April 2026.

The minutes of the meeting of the Board held on 8 April 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 submitted report on the above.

The Board considered a report and presentation on the Terra Firma project and the future governance and delivery of the English Riviera UNESCO Global Geopark from the Cabinet Member for Tourism, Events & Culture and Corporate Services - Councillor Jackie Thomas and the Chair of the English Riviera Geopark Organisation – Nick Powe.  Key points included:

·                The Terra Firma project was intended to strengthen governance, clarify delivery arrangements and improve long?term sustainability of the Geopark.

·                Proposals included transitioning the English Riviera Geopark Organisation into a Community Interest Company (CIC), with clearer roles, governance and accountability.

·                Geological and cultural heritage were closely linked to tourism and place promotion, and Torbay’s Geopark status remained under?promoted.

·                The Geopark revalidation process was outlined, including submission deadlines, evaluation visits and decision?making timescales.

Members raised the following questions:

·                How frequently would the re?established Geopark Board meet and what themes would it focus on?

·                How was specialist geological expertise being provided in the absence of a dedicated geologist?

·                Would the lack of a geologist impact future UNESCO revalidation?

·                How would the Community Interest Company improve awareness and interpretation of the Geopark for residents and visitors?

·                What future funding streams were anticipated once current grant funding ends?

·                What was the timetable and process for the next UNESCO Geopark revalidation?

·                How would schools and young people be supported to engage with Geopark learning?

·                How will partner organisations’ roles be clarified and strengthened?

The following responses were received:

·                The Geopark CIC Board was expected to meet four times a year, with themed meetings covering tourism, community engagement and education etc.

·                Geological expertise was currently provided through partnership working with academic institutions e.g. Plymouth University, and this has been sufficient to date.

·                It was confirmed that existing expertise and co-ordination arrangements were considered adequate for revalidation purposes.

·                The CIC model was intended to provide clearer governance, improved communication, stronger branding and a more visitor?focused approach.

·                Long?term funding will require a mixed model, including grants, partnerships and alternative funding sources; it was acknowledged that while continuing Council funding was vital, remaining the sole funder was not sustainable.

·                Revalidation documentation must be submitted in January 2027, followed by evaluator visits in mid?2027 and a final UNESCO decision in 2028.

·                Educational engagement will focus on toolkits, digital resources, school partnerships and improved website content.

·                Core partnerships will be refreshed with clearer terms of reference and expectations around delivery and leadership roles.

Resolved (unanimously):

1.       that the Board welcomed the direction of travel for review of the Terra Firma – English Riviera Geopark Review and the proposed creation of Community Interest Company (CIC) and requested that the Board receives an update on the progress of the Review in the Autum; and

2.       that the Cabinet be recommended to review the signs for UNESCO English Riviera Geopark to ensure that they are up to date and fit for purpose and report back to the Board on any progress to implement this.

To consider the submitted report on the annual review of the Place Leadership Boards.

The Board received the annual review of the Torbay Place Leadership Board, the Torquay Place Leadership Board and progress on the emerging Paignton Place Leadership Board as presented by the Deputy Leader of the Council (on behalf of the Leader of the Council) – Councillor Chris Lewis and the Chair of the Torbay and Torquay Place Leadership Boards – Jim Parker.  Key points included:

·                Governance and delivery arrangements have continued to mature and strengthen over the past year.

·                Torbay Place Leadership Board has focused on presenting a clearer regeneration and investment narrative, while Torquay Place Leadership Board has moved into delivery with six local community projects being recently allocated funding.

·                The Paignton Place Leadership Board was in its early stages, with strong community interest following an open recruitment process.

·                The Torbay Story was highlighted as a valuable tool that now needs refreshing to be more people?focused and locally resonant.

·                Opportunities and risks were identified around capacity, assurance workload and managing community expectations over funding.

Members raised the following questions:

·                Will the Paignton Place Leadership Board remain limited to the current two defined areas, or was there scope for this to widen in future?

·                How were the geographic boundaries for the Paignton Board determined, and was there flexibility to amend them?

·                What skills, experience and representation were being sought for membership of the Paignton Place Leadership Board?

·                How will the Independent Chair of the Paignton Place Leadership Board be appointed, and what criteria will be used?

·                How will the Board manage community expectations given the scale of funding and the wide range of potential community needs?

·                Given early challenges experienced by the Torquay Place Leadership Board, what lessons have been learned and applied to new Paignton Boards?

·                How visible and well?understood was the Torbay Place Leadership Board and the “Torbay Story” across Torbay?

·                How will the next phase of the Torbay Story better reflect people, communities and lived experience rather than solely investment messaging?

·                What steps were being taken to improve digital and social media presence for the Place Leadership Boards?

·                How will communities be engaged meaningfully, particularly those that feel disconnected from decision?making processes?

·                What is the relationship between the Place Leadership Boards, Government funding conditions and political representation?

·                How will longer?term, systemic issues be balanced against community pressure to address short?term practical concerns?

·                How frequently was membership of the Torbay Place Leadership Board refreshed, and how was transparency maintained?

The following responses were received:

·                The areas covered by the Paignton Place Leadership Board have been defined by Government based on deprivation data.  While there was limited flexibility, boundaries covered for the funding can be reviewed where there is a demonstrable community benefit, subject to Government agreement.

·                The boundaries were based on a national statistical formula and include parts of neighbouring areas where deprivation indicators apply.  The Board will have scope to consider how it presents and describes the area as part of its work.

·                Membership was intended to include a broad range of skills  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

To consider the submitted report in respect of Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).

The Board considered an update on Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) improvement activity following inspection and ongoing partnership work as presented by the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services – Councillor Bye, Director of Children’s Services – Nancy Meehan, Assistant Director for Women, Children and Young People, Integrated Care Board (ICB) - Sadie Hall and Independent Chair of the SEND Local Area Improvement Partnership Board (SLAIP) – Alison Hurley.  Key discussion points included:

·                Significant structural, governance and service improvements have been made since the inspection.

·                Progress has been achieved in local provision, workforce capacity, quality assurance and partnership working.

·                Timeliness of Education, Health and Care Plans, health waiting times and parental confidence remain ongoing challenges.

·                SEND Reform and wider system changes present both pressure and opportunity.

Members asked the following questions:

·                What progress has been made since the most recent SEND inspection, and what were the key areas of improvement?

·                What were the biggest challenges currently facing the SEND partnership?

·                How was the partnership preparing for future monitoring activity and inspection, and what were the expected timescales?

·                How will impact be evidenced, particularly where improvements may not yet be felt by families?

·                What pressures were arising from the SEND Reform Plan, and how was the partnership managing these alongside existing improvement activity?

·                How were delays in Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) being addressed, and what improvements were being made to quality and timeliness?

·                What progress has been made in reducing health waiting times, particularly for autism and ADHD assessments?

·                What support was available for children and families while they are waiting for assessment or diagnosis?

·                How were parental confidence and trust being rebuilt following historic issues within the system?

·                What was being done to reduce reliance on tribunals and resolve disagreements earlier?

·                How are the voices of children, young people and families being incorporated into governance and decision?making?

·                What mental health and wellbeing support is available for parents and carers of children with SEND?

·                How are schools being supported to improve inclusion, particularly in mainstream settings?

·                How was transition from Children’s Services to Adult Services being managed and improved?

·                What was the potential impact of wider system changes, including workforce challenges and structural reforms, on SEND improvement activity?

The following responses were received:

·                Since the inspection, there has been significant progress in governance, leadership and service delivery.  SEND services have been restructured, provision has been expanded locally, quality assurance has improved and partnership working has strengthened across education and health.

·                Key challenges include the pace of change, high demand for EHCPs, workforce pressures (particularly in health services), parental confidence, and the need to evidence impact consistently across the system.

·                The partnership is subject to regular monitoring activity, including deep dives and stocktakes.  Further monitoring is expected imminently, with a full visit scheduled for January 2027.  Written feedback from the most recent activity was still awaited.

·                While activity levels were high, demonstrating impact, particularly lived experience for families, was more complex and would take time.  The focus is now  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.