Parish Council Minutes: January 2024

DRAFT MINUTES

These minutes will be agreed at the Parish Council meeting on February 12^th 2024 and might be subject to slight amendment.

The minutes of a meeting of Oakford Parish Council held in the Committee Room at Oakford Village Hall at 7.30pm on Monday 8^th January 2024.

Present:

Cllr’s G Baylis (Chair), L Gould, J Levick and V Stevens.

In attendance:

District Cllr’s C Adcock, 16 members of the public and the Clerk, Mrs J Larcombe.

137/01/24. To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were accepted from Cllr’s J Cridland, J Mayer and P Potter. Following the meeting apologies were received by email from Cllr Cross. Apologies were received from District Cllr R Gilmour.

138/01/24. Declarations of Interest.

Cllr Stevens declared a pecuniary interest in planning application 23/00931/Full as the applicant.

139/01/24. Public Forum.

Following MDDC’s refusal of the Parish Council’s re-nomination of the Red Lion Hotel as an Asset of Community Value (ACV) a member of the public had researched community ownership of the hotel and prepared a power point presentation to inform the Oakford Parish Council and other interested parties of the potential for Oakford to buy and run the Red Lion Hotel as a social enterprise and community asset. His research was carried out with reference to Gov.uk, Mid Devon District Council, The Plunket Foundation, The Pub is The Hub and

Co-operative UK. Community pubs are owned by members (shareholders). Membership is voluntary, and open to all in a community. A voting share would be about £20 to £50. Members elect a committee or board which will represent the wider membership and determine how the business is managed. It is usually registered/defined as a Social Enterprise and profit is re-invested in the enterprise / community. In most cases a community pub offers additional services to the community (shops, cafés, hub for community and voluntary activity, clubs and societies).

The management committee is responsible for defining a ‘community interest statement’; explaining what the business plans to do; creating a business plan / objectives covering finance, operations, management, marketing etc; establishing an ‘asset lock’- a legal promise stating that the company’s assets will only be used for its social objectives, and setting limits to the money it can pay to shareholders and creating a constitution. Board members have limited liability, but still have fiduciary duties as any other director would. The board should ensure there is adequate succession planning and procedures manual for handovers. Community Shareholders / Members would likely have the right to vote on the membership of the management committee; vote on the aims and objectives of the enterprise as proposed by the management committee; vote on causes to benefit from any excess profits and benefit from any membership customer schemes. Members would likely not have the right to vote on specific operational management decisions, stock and pricing or operational financial decisions etc.

For day-to-day management the committee can choose to either delegate day-to-day management of the business to a team of paid staff including a manager/ landlord and volunteers or sublet to a tenant who will operate the business within a framework set by the community. In both cases the management committee must ensure the management team runs the pub and other activity according to the community interest statement and business plan.Who would need to be on the management committee?

• A Chairperson – someone who can run productive meetings, project-manage
• An effective Vice Chairperson to cover the Chairperson’s absence
• Someone with good financial skills
• At least one good writer with some experience of writing funding proposals
• People who are enthusiastic about the project and who have the time and energy
• People not currently serving on existing community committees but are well respected

The group should be representative of the community in terms of gender, age etc.  Skills and/or experience that can be useful include marketing and communications; business planning and accountancy; funding finance and legal. It should also include someone representing the local council or other key body.A pub manager may offer more control and tailoring to the community’s specific needs/tastes. The managed model (unlike the tenanted model) is usually able to offer tax relief on shares (subject to conditions) - a financial incentive to investors during fundraising. It is perceived to be more difficult to replace (or confront in the

case of problems) a less than successful tenant, as compared to a manager. It is a considerable amount of work to manage a pub business, it requires experience and business knowledge. Experienced publicans often prefer the independence a tenancy offers rather than being on the payroll. So, the community may find the pool of prospective candidates is limited.

Legal entity options are:

• Community Interest Company (CIC) – a form of limited company with articles set up to benefit the community.
• Company limited by Guarantee – another form of limited company widely used for charities, community projects, clubs, societies and other similar bodies. Most guarantee companies are not-for-profit companies, that is, they do not distribute their profits to their members but either retain them within the company or use them for some other purpose.
• Co-operative Society - co-operative societies that serve the interests of members.
• Community Benefit Society - co-operative societies that serve the interests of the community.
• Charitable Incorporated Organisation CIO - community business that is not principally established to generate profits may be able to conduct Primary Purpose Charitable trading through a CIO legal structure
• Company limited by shares – basic limited company.

The most likely entity is co-operative. Additional services and benefits that could be offered by running the pub through the community need to be identified (important for funding) and could be:

• A venue for community group meetings
• A venue for local business/hobby groups/sports
• Social support venue for village / parish residents
• Educational support
• Healthcare support
• Local employment – up-skilling
• Coffee shop / shop

Funding and fundraising Initial research into possible sources of funding suggests that:

a) There are multiple organisations offering advisory support, foremost the Plunkett Foundation and The Pub is the Hub.

b) There are probably sufficient sources of funding in combination with loans and community fund-raising efforts to reach a notional £400,000 acquisition costs.

c) Critical to this will be the membership share offer which requires further detailed research and advice.

Sources of funding are :

• Community share/membership offering – detailed guidance needed. Set target, establish a minimum cost and seek bigger donors (mechanism depends on incorporation model)

• The Community Ownership Fund - will provide up to 50% of total capital costs, matching other funds and resources raised by the applicant. In most cases, the maximum grant will be £250,000 although larger grants (up to £2m) will be  available in exceptional circumstances

• Bank loan from specialist e.g. the Charity Bank (use to secure COF above)
• More than a Pub fund – Plunkett Foundation scheme up to £100,000 mix of loan and grant – max grant £50,000

• The Architectural Heritage Fund - grants awarded through the Historic Assets into Community Ownership programme in England, supported by Historic England and the Pilgrim Trust (Red Lion is Grade II listed)
• Co-operatives UK Booster Fund – funds community share offers – grants and fund matching • The National Lottery Community Fund – typical grants for individual community pubs c.£10,000
• Pub is the Hub – fund for services diversification within community pubs
• Fund search – e.g. MyCommunityFund – wider search for community project funding

What would need to be done to proceed:

1. Assess current ACV status / appeal / owner’s plans to sell and willingness to co-operate
2. Further discussion around the feasibility and desirability of community ownership
3. Establish a management committee steering group (at least three people) to project manage the acquisition process and develop the business plan and incorporation model. Members likely to become company directors

4. Feasibility study and community consultation
5. Management model and business plan
6. Funding applications
7. Community fundraising and or membership offer
8. Incorporation
9. Acquisition

 Initial conclusions:

1. Time will need to be set aside by the Parish Council for further discussion and wider involvement of interested parties in that discussion. This is worthwhile whether the pub is re-listed now or later.

2. If a six-month window to organise a bid can be secured (should the pub be re-listed), his view is a community bid will be doable, but only if a sufficient number of people with relevant skills are prepared to get involved on the steering group and then the management committee.
3. The bid will require a lot of work but further involvement from the management committee should taper (depends on model we choose).

4. Community fund-raising will be vital, but this will be focused on a share issue and the most attractive model for this is likely to be in the form of a co-operative, specifically a Community Benefit Society.
5. Careful thought will be required as to whether a tenancy or employee manager model is best.

The Red Lion Hotel would need to work in tandem with the Village Hall and not in opposition

The presentation will be added to the parish website.

It was agreed to bring the following item forward on the agenda.

140/01/24. Update on new nomination of The Red Lion Hotel as an Asset of Community Value for a further 5 year period.

The Red Lion was nominated as an ACV before the current owners bought it. That ACV ran out in October 2023 and an application to re-nominate it was turned down by MDDC. The owners objected to the application.

The Red Lion is no longer on the market but the purpose of having it listed as an ACV is that if it came on the market the community would have 6 weeks to decide whether to put in a bid and the rest of the 6 months to raise funds to put in a bid. Even if it is listed as an ACV the owner doesn’t have to sell to a community group.Before the first nomination was submitted the owner wanted to convert the hotel into flats. Even if it is nominated the owner can submit a planning application to change its use.

 An ACV doesn’t give as much protection as first thought and unless there is a substantial change to the information in a new nomination application it is unlikely  to be successful.

 The Parish Council would put forward the proposal but would not lead on it.

 Councillors might be involved in the group leading on it.

 Looking at where to go from here Cllr Baylis questioned whether there was any  point in the Parish Council nominating the Red Lion as an ACV. A parishioner is laying down the groundwork for a bid should it come up for sale and some lenders might not give funding if it doesn’t have an ACV. It was suggested that a working group be formed to look at the viability of it.

 Cllr Levick said it would be down to the owner of the pub to decide to whether to accept the offer. If it comes onto the market there is nothing to stop a community group submitting an application to nominate the Red Lion as an ACV. The member of the public said if it was sold and a future owner applied for a change of use an ACV would be useful.

 Cllr Levick noted the clause in an ACV that if the owner feels they are financially out of pocket by a 6 months delay they can apply to MDDC for damages. This  could be the reason they are trying to cut back on approving nominations.

 It was agreed that Cllr Cridland, Cllr Gould, Cllr Potter, Cllr Levick and the member of the public would be on the working party and report back to the next meeting. This will be an item on the agenda for the next meeting.

 The member of the public was thanked for the research he had carried out.

141/01/24. To agree the minutes of the meeting held on 11^th December 2023 as an accurate record of the meeting.

The minutes were agreed as an accurate record of the meeting and were duly signed by the Chair.

142/01/24. Matters arising from the minutes, not covered elsewhere on the agenda.

No matters arising.

143/01/24. Planning

a) To comment on any planning applications received before the meeting.

 23/01791/Full Erection of roof to provide covered yard. Location: Land and Buildings at NGR 289768 123288 (East Tapps Bungalow), Oakford.

Comment: Oakford Parish Council support this application.

24/00018/Full Erection of agricultural building. Location: Land and Buildings at NGR 285855 122360 Swineham Farm, Oakford. Site Vicinity Grid Ref: 285829/122409.

Comment: Oakford Parish Council support this application.

b) Update on information requested for 23/00864/Full Change of use and conversion of building to holiday let.

Land and Buildings at NGR 290678 121480 (The Coach House), Oakford.

The correct planning notice is now  posted. Prior to Christmas the decision date was extended to allow more information to be provided. This has not been provided yet.

c) To note that appeal has been lodged against the decision by MDDC for the refusal of 23/00633/Full Removal of condition (e) of planning permission

 80/01078/FULL relating to an agricultural tie. Location: Exeridge Farm Bampton Tiverton. Appeal Ref No. Y1138/W/23/3325463. Councillors noted  Exeridge Farm has not been farmed for years and agreed to support the appeal.

d) To note any planning decisions made by MDDC.

 23/00931/Full Siting of a log cabin for holiday let following demolition of existing  hut and formation of new vehicular access. Location: Land at NGR 289019   123795 Westlake Farm, Oakford. Decision: conditional approval granted.

  Cllr Stevens declared a pecuniary interest.

e) Update on alleged planning breaches.

No update. It is not known whether the  MDDC Enforcement Officer has visited the woodland.

f) Any other planning matters.

No other planning matters.

144/01/24. Highways:

Any matters to note or report. One half full grit box has been reported by Cllr Gould. The road from the junction to the Police House is still wet and is now icy due to the colder weather.  The run-off from the rain is wearing away the edge of the tarmac.

Update on flooding issues/blocked drains. Water is lying on the road between Windwhistle Cottage and Pinkworthy Cross by the field gate of Parsons Farm. The blocked drain causing the flooding on Rookery Hill has been cleared.

145/01/24. Reports:

a) County Cllr Report.

No report.

b) District Cllr Report.

A written report was circulated prior to the meeting.

Cllr’s Adcock and Gilmour noted concerns regarding plans for a holiday let at Oakford and the situation regarding enforcement at Spurway Mill.They have called in to Committee major application 23/01870/MOUT to allow development of a rural holiday park with 10 (potentially rising to 25) ‘safari tents’ and cabins and onsite facilities at Loyton Lodge, Morebath.They have urged DCC Councillor Richard Chesterton to reassure them that neighbours’ concerns about the change of use of a field near Bolham School from  ‘Private Garden’ to ‘Educational Use’ will be considered carefully in DCC’s  assessment of Planning Application DCC/4371/2023. Change of use would allow potential permitted development that could have a significant impact on neighbours’ enjoyment of their homes and gardens.

Planning Enforcement is not working well in MDDC. This important function has been referred to the Scrutiny Committee: as an emergency measure the review has been brought forward to the January meeting (from March).

Alleged planning breaches in woodland is an ongoing concern in Oakford, Stoodleigh and Washfield parishes as woodland is being cleared, built on and in some case used for uses beyond that needed for forestry management, including accommodation. This is a risk to biodiversity in all the woodlands in Clare and ShutternWard. They are chasing for the MDDC Enforcement officer Matthew Barks to visit the woods and to report back.

Highlights from Full Council Meeting of 20th December: Poverty Premium: Those less able to pay too often pay the highest price for goods and services. Motion 600 brought by Cllr James Buczkowski was passed to acknowledge this fact and commit MDDC to call on the Government to take action and to take steps itself to tackle the Poverty Premium. Israel/Gaza conflict: Motion 601 called by Cllr Gill Westcott was passed to call for a ceasefire and community safety for religious and ethnic minorities in Mid Devon. The published Motion was amended to remove a resolution to fly the UN Flag at Phoenix House.

Councillors’ Allowances: Council voted to freeze allowances and not to increase them by 6.44% in line with the findings of the Independent Remuneration Panel at this time of financial stress. However, the need to maintain the value of the allowance was acknowledged – particularly to make the Councillor role accessible to those who would need to give up paid working time for Council duties. It was decided that the allowances would be reviewed next year with a plan to agree rates for a 4-year period to last until after the next elections.

3Rivers Developments Ltd. The Lessons Learnt Report was produced by 4 Councillors (2 Lib Dem, 1 Green, 1 Conservative) and one Council Officer for the Scrutiny Committee held on 18th December. It makes 10 key recommendations to be considered should the Council consider setting up a SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) in the future. The report can be seen in the full meeting agenda for 18th December 2023.

They noted the continuing issues with the sewerage treatment plant at Oakford where residents have reported 13 visits from South West Water (SWW) since October. They still await engagement with SWW regarding that and other issues in mid-Devon.

Courtesy and respect in politics: they noted the BBC interview with Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, on 1st January where he urged politicians not to treat their opponents as enemies but fellow human beings. As candidates and councillors for this Ward, they have always been committed to treating everyone with courtesy and respect whether we agree with them or not and will continue to do so.

146/01/24. Update on issues about the sewerage treatment works raised at the previous  meetings.

Cllr Baylis noted the email he had circulated to councillors and the clerk following a phone call from Luke Jones, Area Manager for SWW, on 15^th December. Mr Jones had been out to the site that morning to take a look at the damage to the grass verge and he met a resident, who lives next to the car park, to hear about the ongoing issues. He was aware of the two complaint calls which Cllr Baylis had recently registered and was making a site visit before calling him.He had taken more pictures of the verge and will get onto their contractors to come out and reinstate the damaged grass. Cllr Baylis has asked that they contact him when they consider it done so that he can go over and check to see that it is to his satisfaction.

There are a number of points to note about the Treatment Works. It doesn’t use a ‘reed bed’ at all, though it is of a similar filtration method. The tall ‘reeds’ that have been seen previously are just the result of the grassed area being significantly overgrown!

There is a 4 stage process to the treatment:

1. the sewerage initially goes into a septic tank
2. it then gets pumped into a ‘Miranda tank’ (which is the large tank that can be seen at ground level next to the Longmead properties) which is a filtration and processing system. Miranda is the name of the company who make water treatment systems.
3. it then flows down into the settlement tank at the lower level.
4. the water flows out of the settlement tank through the grass beds and then eventually on into the stream.

The recent smells and great amount of pumping out was due to the pump at the septic tank being broken – that has now been fixed and pumping out will continue on a once per week basis until the Miranda tank is replaced in the next few months with a newer, more efficient, tank and system, after which the tankers should only be visiting once per month.

They have scheduled maintenance that will check the system, including the quality of the water leaving the works.

Cllr Baylis made him aware of the issues with the perimeter fence and he will get his contractor to also look into fixing that as well.

Cllr Baylis now has Mr Jones contact details, so if there are any further issues (or lack of evidence of his contractors) he can be contacted directly.

Cllr Adcock joined the meeting at this point.

147/01/24. Community Area:

a) Any points to note from inspections of community area. Cllr Levick’s inspection reports for 16^th November 2023 – 6^th January 2024 were given to the Clerk. The play area has been strimmed. The grass still needs removing from the bridge. There is evidence of moles.

b) Update on inviting contractors to quote for the grass cutting for 2024. Cllr Levick will send out specifications to contractors this week.

Action: Cllr Levick to send out specifications this week. He will also give the Clerk  a copy of the specification.

c) Update on plans for a working party and other works. This will be arranged for the spring.

d) Update on replacement of gate at the top of the play area. Cllr Stevens will replace the gate as soon as he is able to.

Action: Cllr Stevens to replace the gate as soon as he is able to.

e) Any matters to note. No matters to note.

148/01/24. Finance

a) To approve any invoices or expense claims presented for payment. It was resolved to make the following payments:

Cllr J Mayer - £96.32 Christmas lights and clips (Payment ref: 2324/24)

Mrs J Larcombe - £150.45 Clerk’s salary for December (Payment ref: 2324/25)

Since the last meeting the bank has made a charge of £17.80.

b) To note any receipts since the last meeting and the bank balances

Since the last meeting bank interest of £44.30 has been received.

c) Bank reconciliation 31.12.23.

Carried forward.

d) To confirm the closure of the NatWest account.

A letter has been received from NatWest confirming the closure of the account.

e) To agree the budget for 2024-25.

The draft budget prepared by the working party before the last meeting was circulated to all councillors to give them opportunity to comment or ask questions even if they couldn’t attend this meeting. No questions or comments had been received. The draft budget was agreed.

f) To agree the precept for 2024-25.

A precept of £6,600.00 was agreed. This is a 7% increase from 2023-24. The Band D rate will increase from £34.05 to £36.59.

149/01/24. Correspondence.

The following correspondence was noted:

  DALC Newsletters

  MDDC – letter from Andrew Jarrett, Deputy Chief Executive (S151)

  MDDC press releases

  MDDC – survey about current services and facilities within villages

  Devon Communities Resilience Forum

150/01/24. To confirm the date of the next meeting.

Monday 12^th February 2024.

The meeting closed at 8.43pm.