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

It was reported that, in accordance with the wishes of the Conservative Group, the membership of the Board had been amended to include Councillor Barbara Lewis in place of Councillor Hutchings for this meeting.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Board held on 12 March 2025.

The minutes of the meeting of the Board held on 12 March 2025 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To consider any other items that the Chairman decides are urgent.

The Board considered the item in Minute 62, and not included on the agenda, the Chairman being of the opinion that it was urgent by reason of special circumstances i.e. the matter having arisen since the agenda was prepared and it was unreasonable to delay a decision until the next meeting.

The Board had before it details of a call-in by five Members of the Council of the Cabinet’s decision regarding Brokenbury Solar Farm.  The Call-in Seconder, Councillor Cowell (on behalf of the Call-in Promoter, who was Chairing the meeting) explained the reasons for the call-in as set out in the submitted call-in notice.  Councillor Cowell advised the Board that he was concerned that the Cabinet did not have the full business case for the original option for the Council to develop the solar farm itself together with detailed risk analysis and mitigations which could have been put in place to reduce any risks, when it took the decision and wanted to know more about why the Council should not develop the solar farm itself.  It was acknowledged that a summary of the business case and risks together with further information on the option to lease the land to South West Water was circulated in an Exempt paper prior to the meeting.  Reference was made to a previous meeting which proposed a report being presented to the Cabinet at a future time for the potential use of up to 10% of the surplus generated from Brokenbury solar farm, being made available for community use in the Churston with Galmpton Ward similar to that proposed for the Nightingale solar farm and it was felt that this would be lost under the Cabinet’s current decision (Note: the meeting referred to was Cabinet 19 May 2020).

The Cabinet Member for Place Development and Economic Growth, Councillor Chris Lewis responded to the reasons for the call-in and confirmed that the decision of the Cabinet had been taken following professional advice from the Lead Officer and Section 151 Officer that the financial benefits of the original delivery model, (approved by Council on 18 July 2024), had reduced due to increased costs and higher interest rates for borrowing.  The risks associated with any loss of service, repairs or damage to the solar farm which the Council would be liable for would have to be considered which would further reduce net financial benefits over the 25 year period.  The Council does not have sufficient resources to deliver this scheme in-house alongside numerous other key projects such as Union Square and the Pavilion.  South West Water had experience of delivering solar farms and had a separate Team that dealt with this.  Councillor Chris Lewis highlighted the key financial information and risks as set out in the Exempt paper circulated prior to the meeting.  It was noted that at the time of the original decision the option to lease the land to South West Water was not available.

The Section 151 Officer, Malcolm Coe, provided an update on the increased borrowing costs involved if the Council developed the solar farm itself and advised that this borrowing would not be a priority for him as Section 151 when considered alongside borrowing required for regeneration and housing.  Mr Coe also detailed that, although the in-house delivery model could potentially generate greater financial  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

To consider the review of play parks including a condition survey and the outcome of engagement with young people and make recommendations to the Cabinet.

The Cabinet Member for Pride in Place, Transport and Parking, Councillor Billings and the Managing Director of SWISCo, Matt Reeks provided an overview of the submitted report on the initial stages of the development of a Play Improvement Strategy for Torbay.

The Board asked questions in relation to the following:

·                     why not all 74 play parks were shown on the maps and what the names of the 74 play parks were;

·                     what benchmarking had been done with other local authorities e.g. Cheshire West and Chester (see https://www.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/your-council/policies-and-performance/council-plans-policies-and-strategies/play-strategy);

·                     the rationale for the clusters and if they would change or could be broken down further; the rationale for including St Marychurch in Torquay Central and how this would skew the deprivation weighting for Ellacombe and Tormohun;

·                     why was 2019 Multiple Deprivation statistics used and not 2024/2025;

·                     why was the play area at Torre Marine showing as private play area, had this not been transferred to the Council;

·                     what input had been provided by Public Health, the Youth Service and young people (e.g. as part of the UNICEF Child Friendly work the Council had spoken to over 2,000 children and their number one priority was feeling safe and secure, they talked about their parks and how they saw their interactions with older and younger children);

·                     what options were being considered for more natural play spaces;

·                     what was being done to learn from insurance claims and understand the reasons and what could be done to reduce the number of insurance claims being made in respect of our play parks and spaces;

·                     what was covered by play value;

·                     the priority order showed 12 play parks in Barton and Watcombe with one in Queen Elizabeth Drive further down the list, would all 12 play parks be delivered or would there be flexibility in the order;

·                     there was a lot of new housing being developed what was being done to consider appropriate play facilities;

·                     how would community partnerships be engaged in the process;

·                     who else was proposed to be engaged in the process;

·                     would the proposals include equipment, lining on green spaces to encourage sports, work to make paths safe and accessible etc.;

·                     could the Council influence the types of equipment for new play areas;

·                     where equipment had been taken away could the areas be reused; and

·                     what consideration was given when play equipment needed to be removed due to safety to alternative funding proposals.

The Cabinet Member for Pride in Place, Transport and Parking, Councillor Billings and the Managing Director of SWISCo, Matt Reeks provided the following responses:

·                     The paper outlined the start of the process which would lead to a long development of a wider strategic Play Improvement Strategy.  This would be used to lever in funding from other sources as well as investing £500,000 allocated as part of the budget process.  There was very limited budget available for the maintenance and investment in play parks and it was important that it was spent in the most effective way taking into account  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

To consider the submitted Housing Policies and make recommendations to the Cabinet.

The Cabinet Member for Housing and Finance, Councillor Tyerman outlined the submitted report which set out a number of Housing Policies which had been rewritten following the transfer of the Council’s Housing stock from TorVista Homes Ltd to the Council as well as a new Right to Buy Policy which did not apply under the previous arrangements and responded to questions together with the Managing Director, Liam Montgomery and Housing Manager, Anita Merritt.

Members asked questions in relation to what happened to tenants who caused damage to properties or were poor neighbours; what was the role of Councillors in supporting people with complaints and what impact could they have; why does it say the person responsible for monitoring complaints was the Director of Regeneration; where did we get the definition of ‘vulnerable tenants’ from, the person may not be at risk of being harmed but may have mental health illness; how did the Council prioritise dealing with problems with damp and mould; had we had any applications for Right to Buy and was it likely that this would increase; and the Rent Arrears and Debt Recovery Policy mentions a sympathetic approach, what does this look like.

In response to around tenants, Members were informed that there were several steps and triggers to support a tenant with issues relating to behaviour or rent arrears.  The main priority was to work with the tenant to support them and ensure that they can sustain their home but not have a negative impact on their neighbours.  A sympathetic approach was taken where tenants were in arrears with their rent, one to one conversations were held and payment plans agreed, where appropriate.  The final stage would be to go through the court to gain possession of the property which may result in the tenant becoming homeless and being referred to the Homelessness Team for support.  It was highlighted that the Housing Team works with new tenants at the start of their tenancy to understand any health or social issues they have and to support them to complete the forms to access any eligible benefits and signpost them to external help and support e.g. Step Change.  The definition of vulnerable tenant had been developed with other sector professionals and the Council’s Partnership and Inclusion Manager.

The Board noted that there had not been any applications for Right to Buy partly due to the small number of properties owned by the Council, currently around 30, expecting to rise to less than 200 over the next few years, and partly due to the reduced discount, market value less £30,000.  It was not expected for the Council to have many applications for Right to Buy.

In response to questions around complaints, Members were advised that the Complaints Policy (Housing) was for tenants or members of the public to use to complain about issues relating to the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the Council, its own staff or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.