Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Davies, P. Leaver, Spear, Turton, Whitehead and Worden.

Councillors Coombs and Patrinos joined the meeting virtually, however they were not able to take part in voting.

(a)  Boxphish Training for Councillors

The Chair reminded Councillors to complete outstanding Boxphish training modules on their iPads as soon as possible.

Please telephone the Corporate and Community Services team to prepare a form for your signature before the meeting. Interests must be re-declared when the item is called. A declaration of interest under the Code of Conduct will be a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, an Other Registrable Interest or a Non-Registrable Interest.  If the item directly relates to your interest you must declare the interest and leave the room for the item, save in the case of Other Registrable Interests or Non-Registrable Interests where you may first speak on the item as a member of the public if provision has been made for the public to speak.  If the matter does not directly relate to your interest but still affects it then you must consider whether you are affected to a greater extent than most people and whether a reasonable person would consider your judgement to be clouded, if you are then you must leave the room for the item (although you may speak as a member of the public if provision has been made for the public to speak) or, if you are not, then you can declare the interest but still take part).

There were no declarations of interest received.

Joint report by Chief Executive and Leader of the Council (attached).

Council considered a joint report by the Chief Executive and Leader of the Council (circulated previously) regarding Local Government Reorgansiation.

Council received a presentation by the Chief Executive regarding Local Government Reorganisation and highlighted the following:

·       Census 2021 population data for each existing District and Unitary Authorities.

·       Map showing the travel to work areas. The boundaries were based on at least 75% of residents living and working within the area.

·       Map showing population density for Devon.

·       Map showing the Index of Multiple Deprivation for NHS Devon Clinical Commissioning Group for 2019.

·       Government’s criteria that had been provided for Local Government Reorganisation.

·       Other guidance that had been provided via webinars and meetings.

·       Guidance on the interim proposals had now changed since the initial letter from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government dated 5 February 2025. Section 2 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 gives the power to the Secretary of State to issue a statutory invitation to local authorities to submit proposals for reorganisation. The letter issued on the 5 February 2025 constitutes a statutory invitation under section 2 and asks for proposals to be submitted by the 28 November 2025. It also asks for interim proposals by the 21 March 2025 but that is not part of the statutory code.  It was asking for draft plans simply to see what the current thinking in an area is.

·       Locally, all of the Devon District Councils, excluding Exeter, have been collaborating on an interim proposal that has been referred to as the “1:4:5” model.  This option includes both Torridge and North Devon Councils within a proposed unitary authority that also comprises Exeter, Mid Devon and East Devon councils.

·       Two workshops had been held with Councillors to discuss potential options.  Whilst no firm conclusions could be formed, Members did express the preference to be grouped with Torridge District Council, as a result of the deep strategic partnerships that exists, and with a significant economic area such as Exeter, to ensure financial sustainability.

·       Local position: Plymouth City Council propose taking 13 parishes from South Hams and extending the city boundary and no detail on the rest of Devon; Exeter City Council propose extending Exeter but had not released a map and no detail on the rest of Devon; Devon County Council proposing 5 options which included the “1:4:5” model; all other District Councils (with the exception of Exeter City Council) had or would shortly be meeting to consider supporting the “1:4:5” model.

·       Map showing the “1:4:5” model.  The population criteria was met in “5”, but not in “1” or “4”.  The population was relatively even.  “4” was a cluster around Plymouth linked by Dartmoor and therefore a stronger local identity. The Council Tax base was more even, however the National Non Domestic Rates and Gross Value Added (GVA) was not. North Devon and Torridge sit together in “5” and therefore the local identity was reflected.  “5” was very linear with little relationship between extremities.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 116.