(a)

Question to Councillor Worden from Councillor Luggar “It appears North Devon Council has lodged a High Court Claim against the Royal Mail for Value Added Tax. Please could it be explained who authorised the legal action against the Royal Mail and an indication of the costs and risks of taking our case to the High Court? (Page 115, point 44. Council meeting agenda).”  Councillor Worden’s response “The Royal Mail has historically treated certain services as exempt from VAT, where the view is that the correct treatment should have been standard rated VAT.  The argument being that we have been prevented from reclaiming input VAT embedded in these supplies.  The initial value of the claim, subject to verification and updating as the litigation progresses, amounts to £500,000.  As receipt of the claim is uncertain we have not included within the Council’s accounts but have shown as a Contingent Asset highlighting the claim is outstanding.  Our claim was submitted in 2015, approved by the Section 151 officer in consultation with Legal Services and to date the total cost incurred is circa £16,000 including tax advice, legal fees, and after the event insurance which have all been covered from within existing budgetary resources. There are almost 300 participants in the Group Litigation Order, including a great number of other Local Authorities, with Leicester City Council being one of the lead cases.  The Council has also taken out After The Event Insurance that would cover Royal Mail's legal and related costs should they be successful, so that none of the participants would be exposed to these fees, thereby reducing the risk to this Council.”

(b)

Question to Councillor Worden from Councillor Luggar “Has the council reviewed its investment strategy, supply chains and procurement models to give due consideration to climate change impacts as time is of the essence, before an officer for climate change is appointed?”  Councillor Worden’s response “The Council does take into consideration climate change impacts as part of the Environment corporate priority theme.  The forthcoming Service Plans that Heads of Service produce will have the environment theme running through them to ensure that projects and future service delivery has this embedded within.”

(c)

Question to Councillor Worden from Councillor Luggar “Why is the assurance framework (on page 141 of Council meeting agenda) out of date and based on a former constitutional arrangement at North Devon Council?”  Councillor Worden’s response “Thank you Councillor Luggar you are correct.  The diagram at the back of the Annual Governance Statement reflects the old Executive Committee system.  The detail of function within the assurance diagram is correct we just need to amend the Committee names to reflect the new structure which came into force April 2019 and this has now been completed and has been published as a supplementary document as part of your agenda.” 

(d)

Question to Councillor Worden from Councillor Lofthouse ““The leader mentioned in his report that Torridge are debating a motion at their Full Council urging NDDH to remove the restrictions that cause pregnant women to sit alone in hospital rooms with partners locked out of scans and labour. What is the latest situation regarding this?”  Councillor Worden’s response “NDDH has changed its regulations and from Friday 2 October 2020: • One partner or designated individual is able to attend the dating scan (at approx 12 weeks) and the anomaly scan (at 20 weeks), they are not able to stay for any subsequent appointments with a doctor or midwife. • All other scans, such as growth scans, should be attended alone, though exceptions can be made if we anticipate having to break bad news • If a woman is being induced, they can have a partner or designated individual attend with them between the hours of 10am and 6pm. Outside of these hours our staff will continue to contact partners and ask them to attend the unit if, due to pain or distress, support is required. • One partner or designated individual may make an appointment with ward staff to visit Bassett Ward between the hours of 10am and 6pm. As throughout the whole of the COVID-19 pandemic, if a woman is being cared for in labour ward or in theatre, they can have one birth partner with them. This is usually when they are in labour, having a caesarean or in the immediate postnatal period.  The hospital appreciates that these restrictions may still be difficult for mums-to-be and their partners, but they would like to reiterate that if a mum-to-be is being induced and is in pain or distress, they will contact their partner and ask them to attend, regardless of what time of day it is. Torridge District Council discussed the situation on Monday evening and unanimously agreed to write to NDHT thanking them for introducing this and supporting the changes that have been made. I think that it would be a good thing for us to do the same.”

(e)

Question to Councillor Worden from Councillor Derrick Spear “Back in June our CEO, Ken Miles wrote as Chair of a SW Chief Executive Working Group looking at leisure provision and the impact of the Covid-19 crisis to the Minister for Sport, Tourism and Heritage and Minister for Local Government.  Did we ever receive a response to this letter?”  Councillor Worden’s response “A number of letters have now been written to central government on the subject of support for the leisure industry.  Two letters have been written in conjunction with the South West CEX Group.  A final letter has been written just recently setting out the current position of this authority.  Copies of examples of the letters are tabled and attached to this reply.    The first letter was written fairly early in the crisis to highlight some general concerns.  The second letter added more detail to these concerns.  Since those two letters were written, leisure centres were allowed to re-open but it is important that central government realise that this is not the complete answer.  Most leisure centres and providers are experiencing an approximate 3040% drop in subscription levels and the additional costs of operating with social distancing requirements in place mean that they are no longer profitable.  Virtually every leisure provider is now having to be supported financially by their partner councils and where that support can not be provided, leisure centres have not reopened.  In many councils, that support runs to figures in excess of £1,000,000.  Some councils have also been asked to effectively underwrite all extra costs incurred by the leisure provider.   

Even with that support, facilities have had to be scaled back and redundancies have been made.  Within our own leisure centres, 14 staff have unfortunately been made redundant and this is replicated across the country.  The third letter seeks to reflect the position locally to central government and a further letter will shortly be written on behalf of the South West CEX Group as well.  Council provided leisure facilities are vital to communities and are also vital to the recovery process.  It is well known now that underlying health is a crucial factor in recovery from the virus and so facilities such as ours are needed to assist with the government’s targets to reduce obesity and increase health.  The second letter sets out what impacts council provided facilities have on various hard to reach groups, groups which generally have been the hardest hit by the virus.  Whilst no direct reply has been provided to any of the letters, we are aware of discussions that are now taking place between DCMS, MHCLG, national bodies such as Sport England and the Treasury.  Councils are still hopeful that funding will be provided to support this sector and we are working with those national bodies to help in any way that we can.  As a council we will also continue to lobby and will continue to take an active role in the SW response.”  In response to a supplementary question, Councillor Worden confirmed that he would keep Members informed of the Government’s position for funding of the leisure industry.

(f)

Question to Councillor Worden from Councillor Yabsley “Would the Leader update Members on the EA’s progress with their work on Barnstaple Flood Resilience Scheme’s”.  Councillor Worden’s response ““I should perhaps start with explaining that flooding in urban areas can be from a number of causes.  NDC has been working with the Environment Agency on a plan to address river flooding in Barnstaple. This is the flooding that results from the rivers overflowing their banks due to rainfall over an extended period and an extended area. For a tidal area such as in Barnstaple this can be made significantly worse if the high rainfall coincides with high and spring tide events.  This is different from the urban flooding that was experienced in August and subsequently which was due to a lack of drainage in the urban area. The lack of drainage can be because there is too little capacity or what capacity there is, is reduced by blockages/damage.  High intensity rainfall as we had in August can cause flooding when the town’s sewage system and draining canals do not have the necessary capacity to drain away the amounts of rain that are falling. Water may even enter the sewage system in one place and then get deposited somewhere else in the town on the streets. With regard to river flooding in Barnstaple the EA is not able to fully fund flood schemes, therefore, the plan is to gain a pot of partnership funding from the various developments in Barnstaple;  of the total of £7.44m, local partnership funding of £1.53m will be required. The local funding will have to be secured through S106 agreements associated with planning permissions. These figures were initial estimates but do give an indication of the proportion of extra funding required.  The general plan is to allow new development in the flood risk area, but deal with residual flood risks in a different way to other recent developments. For example, Anchorwood raised the whole area of residential units and car parking and provided a safe access and egress route.  The impact on third parties is being offset by upgrading the rest of the flood cell around Severn Brethren.  This cannot be achieved in the other areas of Barnstaple, hence why a different method is needed.  To make development acceptable in term of the flood risks, the development sites in the River Yeo area still need to raise finished floor levels to a safe height, and the developments need to deal with safe access and egress by having the residential buildings connected, if technically possible, to the area of the new defences or high ground, to form a safe route.  A number of work stages must now be gone through, including:

1.    Production of a Strategic Outline Case, approximately 2023-2024 2.    Production of Outline Business Case approximately 2024-25

3.    Full Business Case in 2025 with a start on physical construction in 2025, two years after we start. 

Devon County Council have been looking at the surface water flood risks in Barnstaple, and potential solutions - they appear to be requesting funding to tackle surface water issues on similar timeframes to that for the EA/NDC scheme, to the tune of £935,000 total estimated cost, with £625,000 coming from the EA and £310,000 further required.   This could easily be designed to work with the funding the EA have already been identified and as the EA have a good working relationship with DCC they are confident the two initiatives can be married up.  There was the possibility some months ago, as part of the Covid19 response, that the flood works might be fully funded, however, this was not achieved, though the EA and NDC continue to seek additional funding to help fully secure the project finances as opportunities arise.  In summary, our proposed scheme with the EA will not help prevent the flooding Barnstaple had in August and since then, that was due to surface water flooding (DCC remit), however, both EA and DCC aim to seek if possible improvements to the surface water system as part of the EA river flood works.”