Request reference: EIR 10559

Issue date: 02.06.25

Request received: 

With regards to a purchase of a property in, Chivenor EX31 4BX

1. Are they aware of the potentially contaminative land use identified within the Groundsure report?

2. Are they considering any further action against the study site or any surrounding sites (either informally or formally) under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990?

3. If the Local Authority are considering further action under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, please establish the level of priority assigned to this site (category level and number within category) and likely timescale (i e how many do they investigate per annum)?

If the Local Authority are not considering formal action, would contaminated land need to be considered under planning for any future development of the site?

Response provided:

In accordance with Regulation 3(2), the Council confirmed that it does hold some of information as requested. The Council’s Environmental Protection team provided the following response:

Applicant provided with a map and spreadsheet (QGIS contaminated land report) in relation to the property

The department does not hold any other records regarding potentially contaminated land in this area. It recommended that the applicant also contact the Environment Agency and Devon County Council regarding any information they may hold in relation to the site or the land in the vicinity

North Devon Council has not yet fully inspected its area to identify sites of contaminated land as required by Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. As such, it is not possible to say whether or not this site will be classified under this legislation. At this time, it is considered unlikely that this site would be the subject of inspection under this legislation to the future 

Request reference: FOI 10565

Issue date: 03.06.25

Request received: 

1. The Number of missed bin collections of every category combined in 2024

2. The Number of complaints from missed bin collections of every category in 2024

3. The number of recycling bins in the area as provided by the authority

Response provided:

1. 3,778 in total (Black = 938, Green = 597, Recycling = 2,243)

2. 82 in total (Black = 20, Green = 12, Recycling = 50)

3. 49,606

Request reference: FOI 10566

Issue date: 04.06.25

Request received: 

1. The number of people who presented themselves to the council as homeless as a result of losing their home as a result of mortgage repossession in each of the past three financial years (2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25)

2. The number of those who presented as homeless as a result of losing their home due to mortgage repossession who were subsequently housed in each of the past three financial years (2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25)

Response provided:

1.   2023/24 = Two

      2023/24 = One

      2024/25 – Five

2.  2023/24 = Two

      2023/24 = One

      2024/25 – Five

Request reference: FOI 10570

Issue date: 06.06.25

Request received: 

1. How many complaints related to Japanese Knotweed in domestic gardens did the council receive in the following years; 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021 and 2020

2. Of the above complaints relating to Japanese knotweed in domestic gardens, how many of the following actions were taken in 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021 and 2020

a. Section 80; Abatement Notice under the Environmental Protection 1990 and under which subsection of section 79

b. Community Protection Notice under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

3. Please provide a link or attachment of any policy or procedure related to Japanese knotweed complaints the local authority utilises when handling complaints of the plant in domestic gardens

Response provided:

1.

2020 = One

2021 = One

2022 = Zero

2023 = One

2024 = Zero

2. a) and b)

2020 = Zero

2021 = Zero

2022 = N/A

2023 = Zero

2024 = N/A

3. The Council does not publish specific guidance on its website regarding Japanese Knotweed as the Council would only generally investigate if was causing a threat to another property. Customers can make such requests for investigation by contacting the Environmental Health team. Further guidance can be found on the following government website: knotweed – Search – GOV.UK which customers would be referred to 

Request reference: FOI 10577

Issue date: 09.06.25

Request received: 

1. Are there any current councillors - of any party allegiance - who are in arrears with their council tax payments? 

2. If so, how many councillors are in that position? 

3. Which councillors are in that position? 

4. To which political group or groups do the councillors who are in arrears belong? 

5. How much does each of them owe in unpaid council tax? 

6. What is the total amount owed by councillors in unpaid council tax? 

 

7. Has any of them taken part in a council debate or voted on the setting of council tax while in arrears?

Response provided:

1. Yes

2. One

3 and 4. The Council considers that the identity of this Councillor and the name of the political party they represent are exempt from disclosure in accordance with Section 40(2) of the Act. Section 40(2) provides an absolute exemption against disclosure of information where it relates to third party personal data and disclosure would breach one of the data protection principles set out in the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA)

Such a disclosure of this information would identify a single Councillor. The Council is satisfied that information about any individual's Council tax payments and debts to the Council is the 'personal data' (as defined in the DPA) of that individual. The requested information clearly relates to a living individual who can be identified from that information. The fact that the individual is a Councillor does not change this position

The first data protection principle (fair and lawful processing) is relevant for the purposes of applying the section 40(2) exemption. The first data protection principle states:

1. Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 (of the DPA) is met

Disclosure must therefore be fair, lawful and meet at least one of the relevant Schedule 2 conditions under DPA. In the context of the Act, The Council has considered whether disclosure satisfies one of the specific conditions first, before moving on to the general consideration of fairness and lawfulness

There are six conditions in Schedule 2, but only condition 1 (consent) or condition 6 (legitimate interests) are relevant here. As the individual (Councillor) whose personal data falls within the scope of the request has not consented to the disclosure of their identity, the Council has considered Schedule 2 condition 6

Condition 6 requires that the processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject

As disclosure under the Act is not just to you but also considered to be a disclosure into the public domain, The Council must balance the legitimate public interest in disclosure against the interests of the individual whose data it is. Although this requires consideration of the public interest in disclosure, the test is not the same as the public interest test used for qualified exemptions under the Act and there is no presumption of disclosure. In paragraph 33 (page 8) of this Upper Tribunal judgment, the judge referred to guidance from the Information Commissioner on how to approach the issue of the fairness of disclosing information. The guidance refers to the following relevant consideration:

• The possible consequences of disclosure on the individual

• The reasonable expectations of the individual, taking into account: their expectations both at the time the information was collected and at the time of the request; the nature of the information itself; the circumstances in which the information was obtained; whether the information has been or remains in the public domain; and the FOIA principles of transparency and accountability; and 

• Any legitimate interests in the public having access to the information and the balance between these and the rights and freedoms of the individuals who are the data subjects

The Council has considered the decision of the Upper Tribunal in DH v (1) Information Commissioner (2) Bolton Council UKUT 0139 (AAC) (referred to in this response as ‘the judgement’). On page 11, paragraph 53  (the Judge’s statement) he states: ‘I conclude that it is not reasonable for a councillor to expect not to be identified where he is summoned for non-payment of council tax’

However, paragraph 56 on page 12 also recognises that there may be exceptional cases in which the personal circumstances of a councillor are so compelling that they should be protected from such exposure           

The Councillor in question has been provided with an opportunity to consider and respond with their view on whether they wish to consent to disclosure or if they wish to provide further detail that explains the reason(s) for the arrears and why their identity should remain withheld

In the Councillor’s response they indicated that they consider the circumstances for the arrears to be their personal data and that they do not consent to its disclosure. They explain that they and their spouse are both retired from a profession that paid a very small income and that they did not have a sufficient pension pot to rely upon at the time of their retirement

The Councillor concerned further advised that they have small private pension, they both have their state pensions and the Councillor their NDC councillor allowance. Together, their income is just over the threshold to qualify for Pension Credit or the Winter Fuel Allowance and so they struggle to pay their Council Tax. The Councillor has advised (which is also confirmed by the Council’s Council Tax department) that they currently pay £130 per month to contribute towards the current and arrears of Council Tax owed

It is the Council’s view that it would be unfair to disclose the identity of this Councillor as it would also identify a further individual/third party (their spouse) who would have no reasonable expectation for the Council to make such a disclosure, as it would place personal data about them not already publicly available in the public domain

Whilst it is recognised that in certain circumstances it may be appropriate to disclose the identity of Councillors in arrears and have been summoned for payment, the Council would argue that this Councillor has a payment plan in place to pay back the arrears and has not taken part in any council debate or voted on the setting of council tax during this time. The Council considers that it is important to consider the individual circumstances on a case by case basis in coming to its decision and recognises that in this instance, it would be unfair to the Councillor and their spouse to disclose their identity

The Council acknowledges that the name of the political party is not personal data, together with information provided above and what can be found published on the Council’s website (it publishes various details about all of the elected Councillors representing the authority) it would be very straightforward to indirectly identify the Councillor without specifically naming them

5. £3,206.94 as at 19.05.25

6. £3,206.94 as at 19.05.25

7. No

Request reference: FOI and EIR 10578

Issue date: 12.06.25

Request received: 

Information regarding interactions between Council Employees and representatives of the White Cross wind farm project, including all employees, agents and representatives acting for or on behalf of Flotation Energy and its partners including Tepco and Cobra

1. What is the first date the council became aware of the White Cross project? 

2. What is the first date that anyone associated with the applicant for the White Cross project contacted the council? a)Who was this, and b) what methods did they use for contact? 

3. Who from the council responded? 

4. What was the date of the first in person or virtual meeting between representatives of the White Cross proposal and Council employees? 

5. When was the first interaction between White Cross representatives and Andy Bell of the North Devon Biosphere? 

6. When was the first meeting to discuss 106 payments held? 

7. When was the first meeting to discuss BNG payments held? 

8. When was the first site visit between council employees and White Cross representatives held? 

9. How many in person meetings have there been between Andrew Sierakowski and White Cross representatives? 

10. When was the role for planning officer for this project advertised? a) When was the shortlist of candidates agreed? B) When was the Andrew Sierakowski selected for the role of Planning Officer? 

11. When did Neal Hall leave his post as overseeing the initial stages of the White Cross proposal? 

12. What is the extent of the Water Vole reintroduction programme of North Devon Biosphere? a) When did it start, end, or is it ongoing? b) if it is ongoing what was the last date that works on site were carried out? 

13. What is the number of traps set for American Mink? a) What are the dates over the last 5 years for trapping American Mink activities? b) What is the total number of American Mink trapped and dispatched of in the site of the North Devon Biosphere? c) Who carried out the American Mink trapping on NDB behalf? 

14. What is Andy Bells role description and who does that role report to? 

15. How many employees does Andy Bell manage? 

16. Is there a HR department for all employees who work under Andy Bell? 

17. When did Andy Bell start his current role at the North Devon Biosphere? 

18. When was this role created and advertised? 

19. When was the North Devon Biosphere selected as becoming the department that would deal with BNG payments? 

20. What are the role descriptions for BNG managers working for the North Devon Biosphere? 

21. When were these roles advertised? 

22. How does North Devon Biosphere decide where BNG payment should go? 

23. What consultancy does North Devon Biosphere use to assess BNG calculations as fact given the process is initiated by planning proposals where by proposers utilise their own ecologists to create BNG calculations? 

24. Do any ecologists who are CIEEM registered work at the North Devon Biosphere? 

25. What training is provided to North Devon Biosphere employees with regards to BNG calculations? 

26. What processes are in place to prevent the possibility of bias, influence, mis-management and bribery within the Planning Department, and North Devon Biosphere's BNG team? a)When were these processes created? 

27. What is Andrew Sierakowski's role description and who does that role report to? 

28. How many in person or virtual meetings has Andy Bell had with White Cross representatives? 

29. Has Andrew Sierakowski worked for North Devon Council previously? 

30. Has Andrew Sierakowski worked with anyone who currently works for or on behalf of Flotation energy previously? a) Is there any conflict of interest between Andrew Sierakowski and Flotation Energy? 

31. Has North Devon Council employed an ecologist(s) to analyse the calculations for BNG units created on behalf of Flotation Energy by BSG?

32. Has anyone at the North Devon Council Planning department read the Neighbourhood Plan for Braunton Parish? 

33. Is North Devon Council aware that in the Neighbourhood Plan for Braunton, BNG payments became applicable to the parish and the site affected by the White Cross proposal in October 2023? 

34. How many meetings, virtual or in person has Andrew Sierakowski had with Chloe Honess of Natural England? 

35. When did Andrew Sierakowski or anyone at the planning department request a Habitat Regulations Assessment be performed with regards to the White Cross Proposal? 

36. On what date and at what time did the ND planning department request Natural England respond to the Habitat Regulations Assessment, published in Marsh 2025?

37. Has anyone employed by North Devon Council given any public speeches, seminars or lectures regarding the White Cross proposal? 

38. Has North Devon council received any funding to discuss publicly the White Cross proposal? 

39. What training is provided to Planning Committee members to ensure they understand the process of BNG payments and 106 payments? a) How does the Planning Department ascertain that councillors understand planning applications? 

40. What scope of interest excludes a councillor from voting as part of the planning committee? 

41. Who at the planning department decides if a councillor is fit and able to vote at a planning committee meeting? a) When is this decided? 

42. Who or what body invigilates the practices of the NDC planning department? a)When was the last oversight given? b) Has any invigilation been given over the entire NDC Planning department during the course of the White Cross application? 

43. Have there been and complaints of misconduct within the planning department related to the White Cross Application? 

44. What is your Whistleblower policy?

Response provided:

1. 26.11.2021
2. 26.11.2021 a) Mark Saunders, Sustainability Officer, Environmental Enhancement b) by an email and submission of a pre-application enquiry
3. Mark Saunders
4. 26.11.2021
5. This information is not held by the Council, applicant directed to Devon County Council
6. There have been no specific meetings held to discuss the Section 106 payments
7. There have been no specific meetings held to discuss BNG payments
8. 23 May 2024
9. Three
10.  This was advertised via Comensura on 18 January 2024.
11. Shortlist was agreed 7 February  2024
12. Appointment was made 28 February 2024
13. Andrew started on 26 March 2024 and Neale’s final day was 27 March 2024

12 - 25. This information is not held by the Council

26. Please refer to the Council’s website, in particular its Constitution, Employee Code of Conduct and Planning Code of Conduct

26.a) The Council confirms that it has always had these in place. The most recent version of the Planning Code of Conduct was updated in July 2024 as indicated within the document itself. And the Employee Code of Conduct is dated October 2020

27. The description provided stated a “Planning Consultant to support with an Onshore connection for a wind farm (Major EIA/Renewable Project), to cover pre-app stage and submission through to decision stage of the formal application, this will be a part time role (Approx. working 24 hours/3 days per week). We are looking for an experienced planner who has previously dealt with EIA/Renewable developments”. The appointed officer reports to Jenni Meakins (Lead Planning Officer) and Tracey Blackmore (Development Manager)

 

28. This information is not held by the Council

29. No

30. No a) No

31. Yes, GE Consulting Services (UK) Ltd have been employed to review the Ecology related submissions submitted by Whitecross

32. Yes

33. This does not fall within the remit of a request for information held or a question which the Council is able to answer from information that it holds

34. This is not recorded, however approximately six

35. The Habitats Regulation Assessment was not requested by the Council. It was submitted with the application by White Cross Offshore Windfarm Ltd, when the application was received on 18 August 2023

36. NDC First wrote to Natural England seeking comments on the Draft HRA Assessment on 15th January 2025 and then formally on 25th April 2025

37. No

38. No

39. The details of training carried out by all Councillors is published on their individual profiles on the Council website: Councillors. From here you can select an individual Councillor and then selection the Training link. You will be able to view the training by clicking the ‘Earlier’ link through the date range and it will display any training undertaken during that period

40 and 41. Please refer to the aforementioned Constitution and Planning Code of Conduct which are both linked within the response to 26 above

42. There is no specific body that invigilates the practices of the Planning department, however any complaints regarding any practices of concern would be dealt with in the first instance through the Council’s internal complaints process at stages 1 and 2. After stage 2, complaints can be referred to the Local Government Ombudsman. As per 1.3 of the Planning Code of Conduct:

Officers who are chartered town planners are subject to the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) Code of Professional Conduct, breaches of which may be subject to disciplinary action by the Institute. The RTPI provides advice for planning professionals on matters of probity aimed at supporting planners in exercising their independent professional judgement, and promoting public confidence in the planning system

42. a) and b) N/A

43. No

44. Applicant provided with a copy of the Council’s Whistle blower policy

Request reference: EIR 10582

Issue date: 06.06.25

Request received: 

Information regarding Irreplaceable Habitat along the White Cross route (Planning Application: 77576:

1. When was the Planning Department made aware, or when did they become aware of Irreplaceable Habitat (Lowland Fens) located on the White Cross Cable route? 

2. When were calculations regarding BNG units on Irreplaceable habitat carried out by the applicant and by the council? 

3. Did the Council discuss altering the route to avoid Irreplaceable Habitat? 

4. Did the Council discuss compensation agreements, in line with DEFRA recommendations, with the developer of White Cross regarding damage to Irreplaceable Habitat on the route? 

5. Does the Council have a compensation agreement with the White Cross developer for the entire route? 

Response provided:

1. Upon submission of the application, 18 August 2023.

2. ES Chapter 16: Onshore Ecology and Ornithology Para 4.31 states that ‘No irreplaceable habitats will be lost as a result of the Onshore Project’. The BNG Metric identifies two areas of Lowland Fens totalling 0.513338467ha and concludes that any impacts are temporary and ‘no effects, assumed re-established within 2yrs’. This is generally in accordance with the Metric guidance which states ‘You do not need to record a habitat as lost when there are temporary impacts to a habitat and the area can be restored to both: baseline habitat type within two years of the initial impact; and baseline condition within two years of the initial impact’

3. Although various route options have been considered throughout the process no specific alternations have been considered on the basis of avoiding temporary impacts on Lowland Fens. Natural England have not raised any specific objections to temporary impacts on Lowland Fens but have formally advised that ‘Natural England welcomes the Applicant undertaking additional groundwater monitoring and their commitment to groundwater monitoring during the construction and post-construction phase. However, we note that the duration of monitoring post-construction is not specified. Natural England advises continuation of monitoring for a minimum of one year post-construction to detect seasonal/operational changes’

4. No specific impacts on Irreplaceable Habitats (Lowland Fens) have been identified by statutory consultees or the Councils Ecological Consultants. Therefore no specific compensation has been considered necessary. However, detailed mitigation for all fauna associated with the Braunton Marshes is set out within the ES and subsequent correspondence, and will also be secured by conditions

5. No. There is however, an identified Biodiversity Net Gain requirement which necessitates the developer achieving 10% BNG across the cable route and substation in accordance with the identified BNG baseline in ES Chapter 16 Appendix 16.A: Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment 

Request reference: EIR 10583

Issue date: 06.06.25

Request received: 

Agreements made between White Cross developers and North Devon Council (NDC)

1. Has NDC been made aware that the cable route can be enlarged at a future date to enable greater capacity to be carried to the substation at Yelland? 

2. Has NDC put a limit on the size of Kv cabling through the ducting, and along the route? 

3. Has NDC put a limit on the number of MW's coming through the cable? 

4. Has NDC any knowledge via email of meetings with the developer that the developer has plans to expand the cable's carrying capacity in the future to accommodate more MW's coming from wind farms located elsewhere? 

5. Has NDC placed conditions on the developer to prevent expansion beyond its current proposal? 

6. Has NDC discussed within the Planning Department the possibility of expansion and the threats of this to the area? 

7. Has NDC carried out an environmental health risk assessment to beach users who lie on the beach for 6 hours above a high voltage cable carrying 132Kvs or energy, or 2 66kvs of energy? 

8. Has NDC carried out a risk assessment to future beach users including children, who dig on the beach on or above the High voltage power cable proposed by White Cross? 

9. Has NDC updated Environmental Health regarding burial depths of the cable, given it emits EMF radiation and depth will affect exposure levels to beach users? 

10. What discussion between the applicant and the planning department has there been regarding EMF? 

Response provided:

1. No. It would not be possible to enlarge the cable route without the submission of a further planning application

2. No

3. No

4. No

5. Yes. The draft conditions limit the development to defined limits of deviation based upon the design parameter set out in the submitted Environmental Statement Chapter 5: Project Description and Outline Cable Landfall Plan. The draft conditions are set in the report to the Council’s Planning Committee of 7th May 2025, which is publicly available on the North Devon Council website

6. No

7. No. The health risks associated with Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) have been assessed by the applicant in the submitted Environmental Statement Chapter 22: Human Health

8. No.  The health risks associated with Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) have been assessed by the applicant in the submitted Environmental Statement Chapter 22: Human Health

As set out in ES Chapter 22 the National Institute for Health Protection’s (NIHP) Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards (CRCE) provides advice on standards of protection for exposure to non-ionizing radiation, including the ELF EMFs arising from the transmission and use of electricity. In March 2004, the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) (now part of NIHP CRCE), published advice on limiting public exposure to electromagnetic fields. The advice recommended the adoption in the UK of the EMF exposure guidelines published by ICNIRP in 1998. These guidelines also form the basis of the Control of Electromagnetic Fields at Work Regulations 2016. Resulting from these recommendations, Government policy is that exposure of the public should comply with the ICNIRP (1998) guidelines. The electricity industry has agreed to follow this policy

9. NDC sought the advice from its Environmental Health consultant throughout the application process and prior to determination of the planning application. Their comments are published via the Planning Tracker for the application (under the Document tab under consultation responses – Env Health 12 October 2023

10. None, as the health risks associated with Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) have been assessed by the applicant in the submitted Environmental Statement Chapter 22: Human Health, and no additional concerns were raised by consultees that necessitated discussion with the applicant

Request reference: EIR 10588

Issue date: 10.06.25

Request received: 

a) The addresses of all listed buildings in your area that have been altered or demolished without authorised consent between January 2015 into the present day

b) Whether it was alteration or demolition that took place in each case 

c) The year in which each offence occurred

d) Whether enforcement action was taken in each case

Response provided:

Applicant provided with the requested information (where held) in Excel format, which is available upon request 

Request reference: FOI 10590

Issue date: 10.06.25

Request received: 

1. Refuge/safe accommodation services:

Information about all of the refuge and/or safe accommodation services for survivors of domestic abuse that your local authority funds in your area in 2025/26, including any refuge/safe accommodation services that are delivered in-house

2. Non-refuge/community-based services:
3. Which organisation/s do you currently fund to deliver non-refuge/community-based services for survivors of domestic abuse and/or perpetrator work in your area?
4. Which types of services do you fund this organisation to deliver?

Response provided:

1. None

2. a)   Jointly fund a Domestic Abuse Triage Officer that is community based with North Devon Against Domestic Abuse

2. b) Immediate contact with survivor to advise of all options ie Occupation order/Staying Put/Sanctuary scheme/refuge out of area and referrals/temporary accommodation if safe/Dash assessments/approach another local authority plus anything else that can be considered on a case by case basis

Request reference: FOI 10591

Issue date: 06.06.25

Request received: 

1. The number of reports of dog fouling received by North Devon Council per year for the past five years (2020–2024)

2. The number of Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) issued for dog fouling per year for the past five years

3. The total value of fines issued from dog fouling penalties in each of these years

4. The number of enforcement officers responsible for monitoring and addressing dog fouling within North Devon Council's area

Response provided:

The Council confirmed that it does hold this information, however some of it is already publicly available via the Council's website. In discharge of its obligation under section 1(1)(b) the Council provided the following response:

1. 2020 = 70

    2021 = 96

    2022 = 71

    2023 = 62

    2024 = 78

2 and 3. Applicant referred to the Council's Environmental Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) datasets. These are published annually and will include information where a FPN relating to dog fouling have been issued: covering the requested years and provide various information for each FPN issued including details regarding the penalties and fines in terms what was paid/recovered etc

4. Three

Request reference: FOI 10593

Issue date: 09.06.25

Request received: 

1. How many investigations into illegal dog breeding has your council been involved in during the financial year 1st April 2024 to 31st March 2025?

2. How many prosecutions related to illegal dog breeding were carried out by your council in the same period?

3. If available, please also provide the same figures for each individual financial year from 2018–19 to 2023–24

If possible, please provide this information in an Excel spreadsheet

Response provided:

1. 2018/19 = 10

    2019/20 = Four

    2020/21 = 10

    2021/22 = Nine

    2022/23 = Four

    2023/24 = Five

    2024/25 = Four

 

2. 2018/19 = One

    2019/20 = Zero

    2020/21 = Zero

    2021/22 = One

    2022/23 = Zero

    2023/24 = One

    2024/25 = Zero 

Request reference: FOI 10594

Issue date: 09.06.25

Request received: 

The following information for the period January 2022 to the most recent available month in 2025 by month if possible:

1. The number of fines or penalties issued related to the use of BBQs, including:

- BBQs in prohibited public spaces (e g parks)

- Environmental or safety violations connected to BBQ usage

Please specify the types of offences (e g breach of park by-laws, fire bans, littering) and, if possible, include the location (e g park or postcode area)

Response provided:

The Council's Environmental Protection team confirmed that that if the Council had issued any Fixed Penalty Notices for BBQ related offences then the details would be published within its Environmental Fixed Penalty Datasets which are published annually and cover the requested period up to 31.12.2024

For the period 01.01.25 to date, it’s confirmed that there have been no FPN's issued relevant to the request

Request reference: FOI 10595

Issue date: 10.06.25

Request received: 

Please provide the total for 2022/23; 2023/24 and 2024/25 for all questions

1. The total number of residential planning appeals submitted per year

2. The number of appeals:

a) Allowed

b) Dismissed

c) Withdrawn

3. The average and median time (in calendar days) from submission of the appeal to final decision

4. The total number of residential units approved via appeal each year

5. The total number of residential units refused (i e appeals dismissed) via appeal each year

6. The total cost to the council of external services used for managing and responding to residential planning appeals per year (e g legal costs and external consultants where applicable)

7. The total amount in costs awarded against the council by the Planning Inspectorate for residential planning appeals

Response provided:

	2022/23	2023/24	2024/25
1.Total number of residential appeals submitted	33	16	14
2. The number of appeals:
Allowed	7	2	2
Dismissed	23	11	5
Withdrawn	3	2	1
3. The average and median time (in calendar days) from submission of appeal to final decision	203 days	171 days	206 days

In response to 4, 5,6 and 7, Unfortunately the system used by the Planning department does not have a function that can easily provide the information requested under questions 4 -7. The only way in which this could be provided would require a manual search of each of the 119 appeals to identify, locate, retrieve and collate the data

It is estimated that a minimum of 10 minutes per appeal file would be required, however they also advise that for larger/complex appeals (where they have more than 50 documents to review) processing could take anywhere between 15 to 30 minutes. Based on the searches they have carried out so far and assuming that only 20% of the 119 appeal matters contain over 50 documents, then reviewing these matters may require approximately 11.5 hours at 30 minutes per appeal matter. The remaining 96 appeal matters would require an additional 16 hours at 10 minutes per appeal matter, plus the two hours the Planning department has already spent responding as above, they calculate that to fully respond to the request would take approximately 29 hours

Section 12 of the Act makes provision for public authorities to refuse requests for information where the cost of dealing with them would exceed the appropriate limit, which for Local Authorities is set at £450 by the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 18 hours at £25 per hour in determining whether the Council holds the information, locating, retrieving and collating the information

The task of manually providing the information under 4-7 as explained above would far exceed the 18 hour cost limit as explained above would cause a diversion of the officer resource away from other matters and cause serious disruption to the day to day working of the Planning department; therefore the Council is unable to process this part of the request any further in accordance with Section 12 of the Act 

Request reference: FOI 10596

Issue date: 16.06.25

Request received: 

1. What is the population of the area for which the Council is are responsible?

2. How many enforcement officers does the authority have who are responsible for enforcing regulations and compliance related to dogs?

3. In the calendar year 2024, how many enforcement notices, e g fixed penalty notices, did officers issue regarding dogs?

4. How many of these were in relation to antisocial behaviour (e g noise, excessive barking)?

5. How many of these were in relation to someone failing to clean up their dog's mess (i e dog fouling)?

6. How many of these were in relation to dogs being out in a public place whilst not wearing a tag with the legally-required information on (i e owner's name and address)?

Response provided:

1. The Council does not hold specific population data; however a search of the Office of National statistics website provides this

2. Four

3,4, 5 and 6. Applicant referred to the Council 2024 Environmental Fixed Penalty Notice dataset as published on the Council website

Regarding other Notices, the Environmental Protection team issued the following in 2024:

14 February 2024 - Community Protection Notice - Ongoing issues within the community surrounding the control of (dog) when out in public

9 April 2024 - Community Protection Notice - Failed to comply with a written warning which requested you to ensure when the dogs are in a public place, it must be on lead, wear a collar that states the name and address of the owner or this information must be on a collar tag

8 October 2024 - Abatement Notice - Noise from dogs barking

5 December 2024 - Community Protection Notice - failed to comply with a written warning requesting with immediate effect, ensure that, for any dog for which responsible, permanently or in a temporary manner - the dog is housed securely, contained and prevented from escape, or restricted in its movements to within the curtilage of said property - when the dog is in a public place, it must wear a collar that states the name and contact telephone number of the current ‘keeper’

16 December 2024 - Abatement Notice - Noise from dogs barking 

Request reference: FOI 10598

Issue date: 19.06.25

Request received: 

Please provide all of the data for two (2) time periods: end of March 2025; and end of March 2024

1a. Number of households with children aged under 5 in temporary accommodation

1b. Number of households with children (under 5) in temporary accommodation for more than 6 weeks

1c. Number of households with children (under 5) in temporary accommodation for more than 6 months

1d. Total number of children aged under 5 in temporary accommodation (not number of households)

2a. Number of households with children aged under 5 in bed and breakfast temporary accommodation

2b. Number of households with children (under 5) in bed and breakfast temporary accommodation for more than 6 weeks

2c. Number of households with children (under 5) in bed and breakfast temporary accommodation for more than 6 months

2d. Total number of children aged under 5 in bed and breakfast temporary accommodation (not number of households)

Response provided:

The Council provides the following response as at 31.03.24 and 31.03.25:

1. a) 2024 = 17  2025 = 9

    b) 2024 = 15  2025 = 7

    c) 2024 = 9    2025 = 2

    d) 2024 = 20  2025 = 10

2. a, b, c and d) 2024 = 0   2025 = 0 

Request reference: FOI 10599

Issue date: 04.06.25

Request received: 

Information regarding the council’s approach to fire door inspections across its estate and housing portfolio;

1. Does the council currently have a formal contract in place for fire door inspections across:

 a) its housing stock (including general needs and supported housing); and

 b) its corporate estate (e.g. offices, schools, libraries, leisure centres)?

2. If a contract is in place:

a) What is the name of the supplier or suppliers appointed to deliver fire door inspections?

b) What is the scope of the contract? (e g number of properties, estimated number of doors, property types covered)

c) What is the contract duration, including start and end dates and any extension options?

d) What is the pricing structure including the current rate per door inspection?

 e) Was this contract awarded via a framework or dynamic purchasing system? If so, which one?

3. If no contract is in place, are there any plans to tender for a formal fire door inspection contract within the next 12 months?

Response provided:

1. As follows:

a) No in relation to the Council's residential properties used for Temporary Accommodation. The Council no longer holds a social housing/council owned housing stock; this was transferred to North Devon Homes Ltd as of 21.02.2000

Supported living/housing falls under the remit of Devon County Council covering the North Devon area       

b) No in relation to the Council's offices and leisure facilities

Schools and libraries within North Devon fall under the remit of Devon County Council. Applicant advised to direct these parts of their request to: accesstoinformation-mailbox@devon.gov.uk

The Council's leisure facilities (further details of these are available via the Council's website: Leisure Centres) are managed by Parkwood Leisure and as such are responsible for such inspections 

2. N/A

3. No 

Request reference: EIR 10600

Issue date: 12.06.25

Request received: 

In accordance with the principles established by FOIA 2000 please now supply to me all documents originally created after 31/12/21 within the possession or power of North Devon Council, relating to land within the maximum width cable corridor [60m] and/or to my property [address in Braunton] including but not limited to monitoring data, Hydrogeological assessments, consultation responses, notes internal to NDC Planning and reporting and/or considering or discussing any of:-

 I] ground water monitoring

Ii] ground water monitoring data

Iii] ground management

Iv] soil instability

V] drainage or dewatering

Vi] risks to my property and/or private water supply including contamination

Vii] management of risks to my property

Viii] management of potential environmental permit breaches

ix] monitoring and/or management of project timescale overruns

To include, but not limited to all of

I] correspondence between NDC and parties acting on behalf of NDC

Ii] correspondence between NDC and/or parties acting on behalf of NDC and relevant parties external to NDC

Iii] notes of meetings, memoranda, correspondence, of, or between, parties internal to NDC including persons or entities acting on their behalf

Relevant parties within any of i] ii] and iii] above include:

Iv] employees of North Devon District Council

V] employees of Tokyo Electric Power Co and/or its subsidiaries

Vi] employees of any of Whitecross Offshore Windfarm Ltd, Cobra Grupo and/or connected companies

Vii] companies or entities for which Lord Nichol Stephen is or was a connected person

Viii] persons or entities acting on behalf of any relevant parties within iv to vii above

Response provided:

In accordance with Regulation 3(2) of the EIR, the Council’s Planning department confirms that there may be information held that falls within the remit of the request that is already published via the planning tracker for application 77576, however, as this already in the public domain then the Council is not obliged to manually go through this in order to respond to the request as the applicant will be able to review the published information them self and determine whether any of it falls within the remit of their request. All of the published information can be found on the documents tab via the link above and it is all labelled and dated for ease of reference

A search of the unpublished information held for application 77576 has been carried out by Planning and they confirm that they have been unable to identify any applicable information that falls within the remit of the request

Request reference: FOI 10601

Issue date: 12.06.25

Request received: 

1. Organisational Profile (Contextual Data)

a. Does the authority contract out services for the collection of waste and recycling?

b. Which political party currently holds overall control of the authority? 

c. What is the current total number of employees in the organisation?

d. What is the approximate size of the population served by the authority?

2. Policy and Governance

a. Does the authority have a formal carbon reduction plan or strategy?

b. In what year was this strategy adopted?

c. What is the authority’s declared net zero target date?

3. Technical and Infrastructure 

a. What percentage of the fleet were EV or hybrid vehicles in each financial year from 2019/20 to 2024/25?

b. What was the total number of fleet vehicles (diesel, petrol, hybrid, and electric) in each financial year from 2019/20 to 2024/25?

c. Has the authority implemented the use of low carbon fuels (e g HVO)? If so, what year did this begin?

d. What percentage of the fleet used low carbon fuels in each financial year from 2019/20 to 2024/25 since implementation, if applicable?

4. Financial and Economic Implications

a. What was the total capital expenditure on low/zero-emission (EV/hybrid) fleet vehicles in each financial year from 2019/20 to 2024/25?

b. What was the level of financial reserves (in £) held by the authority in each financial year from 2019/20 to 2024/25?

c. Has external or grant funding been used to purchase low carbon or zero carbon vehicles, or implement EV charging infrastructure?

Response provided:

1. a) No

    b) Liberal Democrats   

    c) 459 as at 27.05.25

    d) This is not held by the Council, please refer to the Office of National Statistics

2. a) Yes

    b) 2022

    c) The council has made a commitment to be carbon neutral as an organisation by 2030 and as a district by 2051

3. a) 

2019/20           0 vehicles

2020/21           1 vehicles

2021/22           2 vehicles

2022/23           3 vehicles

2023/24           4 vehicles

2024/25           2 vehicles

3. b) 

2019/20           91

2020/21           91

2021/22           99

2022/23           99

2023/24           99

2024/25           101

3. c) No

3. d)

2019/20           N/A

2020/21           N/A

2021/22           N/A

2022/23           N/A

2023/24           N/A

2024/25           N/A

4. a) £19,589 (2 leased EVs acquired in 2024/25)

4. b) The Council assumes that you mean total earmarked reserve the Council holds which is provided as follows:

2019/20           £5,395,568

2020/21           £16,350,152

2021/22           £14,521,660

2022/23           £11,133,683

2023/24           £10,559,746

2024/25           £8,180,197

4. c) No in relation to vehicles. With regards to EV charging infrastructure, the first three EV Chargers were a collaboration agreement and match funding that Devon County Council took the lead on. The supplier is Scottish Power with installation and maintenance is their responsibility. The land is leased to Scottish Power for the duration of the agreement. There is a landlord Profit Share for the Osprey chargers, this was procured via Open Tender. Further information regarding EV charging points in some of the Council's car parks can be found on its website: Electric Vehicle Charging

Request reference: EIR 10603

Issue date: 18.06.25

Request received: 

Regarding application 77576, it was explained by Andrew Sierakowski during the planning committee meeting on 7/5/2025 that a previous Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG)) payment was to be made under s.106 agreements to North Devon Biosphere to cover issues regarding disturbance of over wintering birds in the Taw Estuary, neighbouring dunes, and marshes due to the drilling during the White Cross Project

1) Please can it be revealed how, when and by whom that this topic was discussed; please share emails and documents related to over wintering bird disturbance, and how it was decided that funds for North Devon Biosphere would be a sufficient mitigation measure for damage caused

2) Please include any and all communication between White Cross and NDC and Natural England and GE Ecology, including any minutes from meetings where it was explained that operations would no longer take place in winter and that any payment to North Devon Biosphere for this part of the route would no longer be needed to offset any damage caused

3) Please share any communications had between North Devon Council and GE Ecology regarding BNG offsetting with regards application 77576

Response provided:

In the Council’s response it was explained to the applicant that Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) does not cover disturbance to protected species and is only relevant where there is an identified impact on habitats. The BNG legislation sets out what constitutes an impact on habitats in relation to direct losses. Therefore in light of this, the Council’s response was as follows:

1. There are no BNG funds secured for overwintering birds that will be paid to North Devon Biosphere or any other organisation, therefore the Council confirms that it does not hold any associated emails or information regarding this

2. The applicant was provided with copies of two emails (with some personal data redacted under Regulation 13), one from Flotation Energy to Natural England dated 24th March 2025 confirming that works would no longer take place during overwintering bird season, and the reply from Natural England to Flotation Energy confirming their agreement to this proposal. There is no explicit reference in these emails, and as set out above there are no (other emails) referring, to payment to the North Devon Biosphere in relation to this matter, although this would have been implicit insofar as there would have been no resulting need for them to be involved in relation to a matter than was no longer proposed 

3. GE Ecology did not have any input on BNG discussions at any point in the process. GE Ecology were specifically commissioned to address issues associated with protected species and HRA. GE final comments on BNG state in their submission dated 17/03/2025 state that ‘We are fully aware that the application was made pre-mandatory BNG, however evidence of no net loss is required in accordance with the NPPF. It is assumed that the applicant means that impacts around Saunton golf course (e g HDD compounds outside the SSSI/SAC) will be temporary and will not be compensated for. Hedgerow loss however is likely to be permanent and it is understood that joint bays and link boxes will be permanently located along the cable route, therefore a plan showing post-development habitat creation/ enhancements would be beneficial to assess whether the proposal will result in ‘no net loss’’. Therefore the Council confirms that it does not hold any associated emails or information regarding this

Request reference: FOI 10604

Issue date: 18.06.25

Request received: 

The applicant requested to know how much has the council spent on contingency accommodation for asylum seekers, those granted asylum, and those in the country illegally in each year since 2020 to date

Response provided:

The Council’s Housing team confirmed that it has not spent any monies on contingency accommodation for asylum seekers, those granted asylum and those in the country illegally in each year since 2020 to date. Housing advise that this falls under the responsibility of Central Government

Request reference: EIR 10608

Issue date: 16.06.25

Request received: 

Planning Application 58603:

With regards to the above, provision of all details/documents/correspondence of the scheme for the disposal of foul drainage which was approved by the Local Planning Authority (NDDC) in relation to Foul Drainage -Section 13

Also, the provision of all details/documents/correspondence of how the scheme was to be managed and maintained which was approved by the Local Planning Authority (NDDC) in relation to Foul Drainage -Section 13

Response provided:

The applicant was advised that following a review of the the entire application file by the Planning department, they confirmed that all of the information that is held on the matter is already published via the planning tracker for the application 58603 and does not hold any further unpublished correspondence or documents other than what is already publicly available via the link provided

Request reference: FOI 10612

Issue date: 24.06.25

Request received: 

A list of all commercial properties owned by the council currently vacant in the council region along with the empty rates charges

Response provided:

The Council purchased a property at 37-38 High Street (Ground Floor and Basement) (former Royal Mail building), Ilfracombe EX34 9DB on 28 March 2025 which is at the time of the response vacant

Request reference: FOI 10613

Issue date: 04.06.25

Request received: 

The following information was requested regarding Tors Road, Lynmouth, EX35 6ET

1. How many properties are: 

    a) listed for Business Rates

    b) listed for Council Tax

2. How many properties listed for Council Tax are:

1. listed for the 2nd home premium
2. listed for the empty homes premium

Response provided:

1. a) 10 

    b) 21

2. a) Nine 

    b) Zero

Request reference: FOI 10615

Issue date: 03.06.25

Request received: 

1. The number of cremations processed annually from 2015-24

2. The number of cremators in the crematorium from 2015-24

3. The total annual energy costs for the crematorium from 2015-24

4. The total annual staff costs for the crematorium from 2015-24

5. The total annual maintenance costs for the crematorium from 2015-24

6. Any recent capital investments, e g expansion of a new cremator, and the corresponding total costs here

7. The average price for a direct cremation charged to 3rd party funeral directors and also to larger corporations by the crematorium

8. A list of 3rd party funeral directors and direct cremation specialists who use your crematorium

Response provided:

The applicant was provided with the requested information in Excel format, which is available upon request 

Request reference: FOI 10616

Issue date: 12.06.25

Request received: 

Information in relation to the Council’s administration of the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) over the past five financial years (2020/21 to 2024/25 inclusive)

Response provided:

Applicant provided with the Council’s response within a Word document which is available upon request  

Request reference: FOI 10617

Issue date: 20.06.25

Request received: 

Information regarding the compliance rates of new residential developments in the Barnstaple area with SuDS requirements. Specifically, I am interested in data on:

1. The proportion of planning applications for new builds in Jurassic clay areas that have included approved SuDS designs

2. Any available statistics on compliance with SuDS standards for these developments over the past five years

3. Challenges or trends you have observed in achieving SuDS compliance in areas with impermeable clay soils

Response provided:

The Council advised the applicant that it understands there are ‘Jurassic clay deposits’ generally further east, starting in East Devon and extending into Dorset.  If there are ‘Jurassic clay deposits’ within the North Devon, Barnstaple area, no data or reports have been located on this 

Request reference: FOI 10618

Issue date: 13.06.25

Request received: 

1. Within your council, please provide the documented tree-planting strategy for the whole of 2024?

2. Within your council, how many trees did the council have the goal of planting for the whole of 2024?

3. Within your council, what was the tree-planting budget for the whole of 2024?

4. How many trees were planted by the council or contractors of the council in the whole of 2024?

5. Within your authority area, what was the volume of land allocated for planting in 2024?

6. Within your authority area, from the beginning of 2023 to the end of 2024, how many planted trees have failed/died?

Response provided:

1. The Council does not hold a tree planting strategy

2. 5,500

3. £7,500 2024/25 budget

4. 5,500

5. 15.7ha 2023/24

6. This is not recorded, therefore it is not held

Request reference: EIR 10620

Issue date: 23.06.25

Request received:

The number, locations and dates of leaks over the past 5 years, within the Instow Parish area

Response provided:

Complaints recorded for the period 1 April 2020-31 March 2025, coded as ‘Private Sewer Defect’, ‘Public Sewer Defect’ and ‘Drainage Complaint’, have been searched.  No cases are recorded against Instow addresses identified

Request reference: FOI 10621

Issue date: 23.06.25

Contracts for Firewall, Anti-virus, Microsoft Enterprise Agreement, and Power BI

Response provided:

1. Standard Firewall (Network)

1. Cloud Business as published on the Council’s Contract Register
2. As 1 above
3. As 1 above
4. LAN2LAN (now Codestone)
5. As 1 above
6. As 1 above
7. As 1 above
8. As 1 above
9. N/A

2. Anti-Virus Software Application

1. Phoenix Software Ltd as published on the Council’s Contract Register
2. £90k for 5 years
3. As 1 above
4. Sophos
5. As 1 above
6. As 1 above
7. As 1 above
8. As 1 above
9. 740
10. Claranet Ltd as published on the Council’s Contract Register
11. As 1 above
12. As 1 above
13. Sophos
14. As 1 above
15. As 1 above
16. As 1 above
17. As 1 above
18. 740

3. Microsoft Enterprise Agreement

1. Phoenix Software Ltd as published on the Council’s Contract Register
2. As 1 above
3. As 1 above
4. Microsoft
5. As 1 above
6. As 1 above
7. As 1 above
8. As 1 above
9. 440

4. Microsoft Power BI

1. Phoenix/Microsoft
2. Part of the Microsoft licensing agreement, £1K approximately.
3. Licences from Microsoft which allow users to create, share, and collaborate on data visualizations and reports within the Power BI service.
4. Microsoft
5. As 1 above
6. As 1 above
7. As 1 above
8. As 1 above
9. Four

4b. Zoom (Dashboards)

1.   Zoom Video Communications, Inc as published on the Council’s Contract Register

2.   As 1 above. Included within the telephony contract, impossible to split out how much this element is. 

3.   Zoom Contact Center wallboard provides a fully customizable version of the real-time analytics dashboard. 

4.   Zoom

5.   As 1 above

6.   As 1 above

7.   As 1 above

8.   As 1 above

9.  Three licences for Zoom dashboards

      4c Crystal Report

      1. Phoenix

      2. £2,266

      3. SAP Crystal reports help analyse data

      4. SAP

      5. December 2022

      6. December 2025

      7. Three years

      8.  Arron Yates, ICT Technical Analyst

      9. Eight

      4d Business Objects

      1. Civica UK Ltd as published on the Council’s Contract Register

      2. As 1 above

      3. As 1 above. Helping analyse data and helping inform business decisions.

      4. SAP

      5. As 1 above

      6. As 1 above

      7. As 1 above

      8. As 1 above

      9. Part of Civica contract

Request received: 

Request reference: FOI 10622

Issue date: 13.06.25

Request received: 

1) Are you charging community infrastructure levy (CIL)? If yes, how much were the agreed/ secured CIL and mayoral CIL developer contributions (in £) for 2018-19, 2023-24 and 2024-25?

2) What was the nominal value (in £) of agreed/secured developer contributions in 2018-19, 2023-24 and 2024-25 made in regard to section 106 planning obligations?

3) What were the values (in £) for those developer contributions in each planning obligation category in 2018-19, 2023-24 and 2024-25? Please provide a breakdown (in £) for each category identified by the LGA – i e Affordable housing, Bonds, Community facilities, Digital infrastructure, Education, Flood and water management, Green infrastructure, Health, Highways, Land, Open space and leisure, Section 106 monitoring charges, Transport and travel, or Other - or a similar categorization method that you use

4) What were the non-monetary contributions secured through S106 agreements during 2018-19, 2023-24 and 2024-25, in terms of total number of affordable housing units and number of school places that will be provided?

5) How many affordable homes were delivered in 2018-19, 2023-24 and 2024-25, and how many of those were categorised as social rent, affordable rent, intermediate rent, shared ownership, affordable home ownership, and other? How many in each category were delivered through S106 agreements?

Response provided:

1, 2 and 3. The applicant was provided with a spreadsheet in response, which is available upon request

4. 2018 - 2019 - Total number of affordable housing units secured through S106 = 135

    2023 - 2024 - Total number of affordable housing units secured through S106 = 30

    2024 - 2025 - Total number of affordable housing units secured through S106 = 67

With regard to school places, the Council does not hold this information; applicant advised to contact Devon County Council for this information

5. Applicant was provided with a spreadsheet in response, which is available upon request

Request reference: EIR 10623

Issue date: 19.06.25

Request received: 

Information regarding the relationship between the success of White Cross Offshore wind farm development and future leasing rounds of the Crown Estate

During the committee meeting on the 7th May it was stated that White Cross windfarm would support job creation; 

"300 jobs would be created in the construction industry in the South West and 900 more jobs nationwide. 5,300 new jobs would be created in the Crown Estate." (taken from the minutes of the meeting)

1) As this was submitted as evidence and is in the official minutes, please can you provide the evidence that the White Cross windfarm is intrinsically related to the the rest of the Celtic Array, in that the Crown Estate envisions all the work related to future leasing rounds is dependent on the success of White Cross coming into existence. If this is the case please share any and all emails between the NDC and the Crown Estate where this fact can be proven or disproven

2) Please provide any communications between NDC and White cross representatives where jobs claims are supported by any information other than statements given by employees and representatives from White Cross Offshore wind farm project. If no other evidence was supplied please supply the emails where NDC took White cross's statements as fact

3) Please provide any and all evidence related to the claims of 300 construction jobs, and explain how these estimates were accepted as fact

4) Please provide evidence where jobs for local people were discussed from the moment the project was proposed to the current period, including moving estimates where the real full time jobs on shore were given to NDC, and all communications where this differed from what was originally 4 jobs to now be 900 jobs nationwide

5) A figure of 152 million pounds was given during the meeting of a "Cash injection" to the local economy. Please provide evidence NDC has that supports this claim made by White Cross as part of their material evidence to be considered in support of the planning submission

6) What due diligence did the planning department undertake to prove or disprove this figure was a real figure? How did they analyse and verify the validity of supporting evidence to support this claim of 152 million pounds? 

Response provided:

1. The Planning department confirmed that it does not hold any information on this matter and there are no background emails between the authority and the Crown States related to this matter. Background information is made publicly available in the planning application documentation submitted to the Council which can be viewed via the planning tracker for application 77576. The Environmental Statement Chapters 1-3 set out the background to the project

2. There are no emails or other communications between the Council and Whitecross related to claims about the number of jobs to be created. The Council has relied on the details of the socio-economic impacts of the project set out in the Environmental Statement Chapter 21 submitted with the planning application. This is publicly available and can be viewed online via the link as provided above. The Council consulted with its Economic Regeneration Officer in relation to socio-economic impacts of the project including the information set out in the Environmental Statement Chapter 21. They did not comment on the application and there no relevant emails relating to this matter

3. As set out above, the Council has relied on the details of the socio-economic impacts of the project set out in the Environmental Statement Chapter 21 submitted with the planning application. This is publicly available and can be viewed online via the link as provided above. The Council consulted with its Economic Regeneration Officer in relation to socio-economic impacts of the project including the information set out in the Environmental Statement Chapter 21. They did not comment on the application

4. There were no explicit discussions with the applicant on this matter. As set out above the Council has relied on the details of the socio-economic impacts of the project set out in the Environmental Statement Chapter 21 submitted with the planning application which can be viewed online via the link provided above

There are no communications between the Council and Applicant or any other parties relating to any changes in the assessment of the number and type of jobs created by the project

5. The information presented by officers at the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 7th May 2025, was taken from information submitted with the planning application, and specifically the information set out in the Environmental Statement Chapter 21 submitted with the planning application. The Council does not hold any other relevant information related to any statements made by the Applicant at the Committee in relation to the value of the project to the local economy. The recommendation to the Committee was based on the submitted information

6. The Council accepts all information submitted with any planning application as being accurate in terms of the assessment of the impacts, including the impacts on the local economy, unless advised by technical consultees that there may be reasons to consider that the assessment is incorrect, incomplete, or that further information is required to confirm the conclusions of the assessment. It does not undertake explicit due diligence in relation to specific claims that may be made, but relies on the advice from a number of technical consultees, which in this case included the Council’s Economic Regeneration Officer. In this case they did not comment on the submitted information 

Request reference: FOI 10625

Issue date: 25.06.25

Request received: 

For each of the last five financial years (2020/21, 2021/22, 2022/23, 2023/24, 2024/25), how much money was spent by the local authority on external consultants, broken down into a total amount and separated by year

Response provided:

The Council confirms that it does hold some of this information. In discharge of its obligation under section 1(1)(b) the Council Finance team explained that the Council does not have a specific cost code to which it records consultancy spend against, therefore the totals provided within the provided spreadsheet (which is available upon request) fall under the wider remit of the Council’s External Professional Services budget.  The only way in which the Council would be able to provide a more accurate response to identify just the external consultant spend would require the Finance team to manually go through approximately 2,700 applicable invoices for the requested years and also make further enquiries with officers where any queries might arise. Finance confirms that they would need to spend anywhere between 3 and 5 minutes checking each applicable invoice, considering whether it falls within the remit of the request alone. It is not possible to be able to determine how long they would then require in following up any queries resulting from going through those invoices

Section 12 of the Act makes provision for public authorities to refuse requests for information where the cost of dealing with them would exceed the appropriate limit, which for Local Authorities is set at £450 by the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 18 hours at £25 per hour in determining whether the Council holds the information, locating, retrieving and collating the information.  It has been estimated that it would take anywhere between 50 and 83.3 hours. The procedure would cause serious disruption to the day to day working of the Council’s Finance team and therefore we are unable to process this part of the request any further. As set out in the previous paragraph, the Council has the right to refuse to provide the information in accordance with Section 12 of the Act 

Request reference: EIR 10627

Issue date: 18.06.25

Request received: 

CON29 information relating to a property at EX31 1HR

Response provided:

Applicant provided with the information, where held and also directed to the Council’s website for some of the information

Request reference: FOI 10628

Issue date: 06.06.25

Request received: 

With regards to Business Rates the applicant requested the assessment below

• the date(s) of any empty periods 

• the period(s) of any exemptions

From 30 May 2025 for Hutchinson 3G Uk Mast at Coney Avenue, Barnstaple, Devon, EX32 8QZ

Response provided:

The Council confirmed that the assessment has been empty since the 30.05.2023

An empty property exemption was awarded for the period 30.05.2023 – 29.08.2023 inclusive 

From the 30.08.2023 Empty property rates have been due. However, the Council is unable to collect rates on communication stations that have not been commissioned, and therefore the amount due from the 30.08.2023 onwards has been written off (and will be, until the site is commissioned) 

Request reference: FOI 10629

Issue date: 06.06.25

Request received: 

The applicant requested data relating to the fire safety compliance of residential properties under the authority’s supervision, particularly in relation to fire doors. Specifically, information on compliance with regulations and guidance introduced following the Grenfell Tower fire and subsequent government reviews

1. As of the date of this request, how many individual residential units (flats, maisonettes, etc.) are owned or managed by the council? Of these, how many are located in buildings over 11 metres in height (or 5 plus storeys)?

2. How many flat entrance doors are currently installed across your housing stock? How many of these are currently certified to at least FD30 standard (30 minutes fire resistance)?

3. How many communal fire doors (e g in corridors, stairwells, lobbies) exist across your housing properties? How many of these are currently certified to at least FD30 standard (30 minutes fire resistance)?

4. Since the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 came into force on 23 January 2023, how many:

a. Flat entrance doors have been inspected?

b. Communal fire doors have been inspected?

c. How many doors were found to be non-compliant (e g missing self-closers, damage, inadequate certification)?

d. Of those non-compliant doors, how many have since been replaced or repaired? Identified as still needing replacement to meet current standards?

5. Do you have a forward programme or procurement plan for fire door replacements in the next 1 to 3 years? If so:

a. How many doors are scheduled for replacement?

b. What is the estimated timeline or completion target?

Response provided:

The Council confirmed to the applicant that it no longer holds its own social housing stock; this was transferred to North Devon Homes Ltd, 21 February 2000

The following response is provided in relation to the Council’s housing stock used for Temporary Accommodation:

1. 42, none over 11m

2. 15, 15

3. Zero, N/A

4. a) All

   b) N/A

   c) None

   d) N/A

 5. No 

     a) N/A

     b) N/A

Request reference: FOI 10630

Issue date: 06.06.25

Request received: 

1. Whether your organisation has one or more specific teams, departments, or named individuals responsible for receiving formal legal correspondence from third parties

2. The relevant postal address(es), email address(es), and telephone number(s) that such correspondence should be directed to. If responsibility differs by type of issue (e g contractual, procurement-related, legal) or by region, please provide the details for each as applicable

3. If this information is already published, please confirm where it can be found

Response provided:

1. No, North Devon Council has just one Legal Services team

2 and 3. The email address, postal address for correspondence/service and main telephone number for the Legal Services are published on the Council’s website: North Devon Legal Services

 

Request reference: FOI 10631

Issue date: 13.06.25

Request received: 

1. How many people are currently on the waiting list for housing for Devon Homes in the Chulmleigh area?

2. How many people are on the waiting list for affordable housing in the Chulmleigh area?

Response provided:

1. Devon Home Choice (DHC) shows there are 23 households living in the Chulmleigh parish (breakdown below) for affordable housing for rent as of 09.06.25

Please note not all households tend to register themselves on the housing register as they don’t think that they will have the opportunity to be housed so this figure is often significantly higher

It should be noted that although DHC data identifies the number of households living within the parish in housing need, it does not always provide sufficient information to firmly establish how long households have been resident in the parish or if they wish to remain in the parish; it is a snap shot in time and people’s circumstances can change extremely quickly. In addition, some households may seek affordable home ownership options (Shared Ownership/Discounted Market Sale)

2. The Council does not hold data on numbers of households requiring some form of affordable housing for sale 

Request reference: EIR 10632

Issue date: 18.06.25

Request received: 

CON29 information relating to a property at EX31 3FP

Response provided:

Applicant provided with the information, where held and also directed to the Council’s website for some of the information

Request reference: FOI 10633 

Issue date: 09.06.25

Request received: 

1. Did the council commission external consultants/advisers to work on and/or produce your local government reorganisation or joint council submission to the MHCLG for 21st March 2025?

2. If so, who were the consultants/advisors, and how much did it cost up to and including 21st March 2025?

3. Has the council allocated or estimated future expenditure to pay external consultants/advisers to work on your/joint council reorganisation proposals? If so, how much and over what timeframe?

4. What is your projected expenditure to reorganise into a new local authority based on your submission or joint council submission to MHCLG?

Response provided:

1. Yes

2. Pixel Financial (shared cost with all other Devon authorities) – cost £1,000 each

Pixel Financial (additional work for North Devon Council for two additional models) – cost £2,000

3. All Devon authorities have been asked to contribute £12,160 into a central Devon budget to cover the anticipated cost of pulling the Devon proposal(s) together for the November 2025 submission

4. Not known yet, will come out as part of the above business case being prepared for November 2025

Request reference: FOI 10634

Issue date: 09.06.25

Request received: 

How much did your organisation receive in Prevent Strategy programme funding in each of the following financial years: 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25? 

A breakdown of where this money was spent by your organisation in each of the following financial years: 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25

Which council department is responsible for administering Prevent Strategy spending (please list all applicable)

By ‘where this money was spent’ please provide the organisation names that you gave money to, how much each received and what reasons/projects they were given it for

Response provided:

The Council confirmed that Devon is not a Prevent priority area, therefore North Devon Council does not receive any Prevent Strategy funding and has not received any in each of the requested years 

Request reference: FOI 10635

Issue date: 18.06.25

Request received: 

1. Governance and Responsibility

a) Do you have a dedicated person or team responsible for solar energy investment and/or sustainability energy initiatives within your organisation?

b) If so, please provide their role/title (personal names are not required).

2. Current Solar Deployment

a) How many solar panel installations (PV systems) do you currently operate across your estate?

b) What is the total installed capacity of these systems (in kWp)?

c) What proportion of your organisation’s energy usage is currently provided by solar generation?

3. Investment and Strategy

a) Does your organisation have a documented investment strategy for expanding the use of solar panels or increasing on-site renewable energy generation?

b)  If so, please provide a copy of or link to the relevant strategy or plan (or summarise key points if not published)

4. Solar and Net Zero Commitments

a) Does solar energy form part of your organisation’s Net Zero/Carbon Reduction Strategy?

b) If yes, how is progress against this strategy communicated to the public (e g via website, reports, dashboards, etc)?

5. Future Plans

a) Are there any planned solar panel projects or expansions within the next 3 years? If yes, please provide high-level details (e.g. number of sites, scale of deployment, approximate timescales).

b) Have you conducted any feasibility studies on increasing solar capacity in the past 3 years? If so, can these be shared?

6. Procurement and Partnerships

a) Does your organisation currently use any third-party companies or frameworks to deliver solar energy solutions or manage installations? If yes, which ones?

b) Are there any upcoming procurement exercises planned relating to solar energy or wider renewable energy solutions?

7. Battery Storage

a) Do you currently use battery storage alongside your solar panels?

b) Are there plans to invest in battery storage in future?

8. Funding

Has your organisation accessed or applied for any external funding to support solar energy projects (e g SALIX, Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme, LEP funding)?

9. Barriers

What are the main barriers your organisation faces to further adoption of solar energy (e.g. funding, planning restrictions, roof suitability, internal resource)?

Response provided:

1. a) No b) N/A

2. a) Ilfracombe Swimming Pool has solar panels (this leisure facility is operated by Parkwood Leisure for the Authority) and six of the Council's Temporary Accommodation properties have solar panels

b) Ilfracombe Pool = 51.7 kWp

Temporary Accommodation (residential) properties = 14.5 kWp

c) Less than 1%

3. a) No  b) N/A

4. a) Yes, b) Council website, reports, Environmental Enhancement Bulletin

5. Yes. Number of sites three. Scale of deployment to be determined. Approximate timescale for two sites is 25/26, other to be determined. No, the Council has not conducted any feasibility studies on increasing solar capacity in the past three years

6. a) No b) A tender specification is currently being prepared for solar pv at the North Devon Crematorium, Barnstaple and will be going out for tender in the near future with the intention that solar panels will be installed in November 2025

7. a) No b) This is to be determined and is currently being explored as part of the intended Crematorium works later this year

8. No

9. Grid constraints, funding, internal resources 

Request reference: FOI 10636

Issue date: 16.06.25

Request received: 

The applicant requested the provision of the historic rateable value information for residential properties in the village of Molland, North Devon

Response provided:

The Council’s Revenues team confirmed that they do not hold this information anymore. However, they are aware that South West Water still uses the old Rateable Values (unless on a meter) but they may still hold the old values

Request reference: FOI 10637

Issue date: 10.06.25

Request received: 

1. What contract or arrangements does the Authority have in place to procure temporary/agency staff? 

2. For temporary/agency staff do you use a specific procurement Framework? 

3. For temporary/agency staff do you have any off-framework spend?

4. What contract or arrangements does the Authority have in place to procure permanent staff via commercial agencies? 

5. For permanent staff do you use a specific procurement Framework?

6. For permanent staff do you have any off-framework spend?

Response provided:

1. Contract for Managed Serviced for Temporary Agency Resources
2. Details of the Framework are published on the Contract Register as linked above
3. Yes, this is published within a dataset which is updated annually: Council spend on agency staffing 2011/12 – 2024/25.
4. N/A. The Council does not use any agency to recruit permanent staff; this is done in-house by the Council’s Human Resources team
5. N/A
6. N/A 

Request reference: FOI 10638

Issue date: 10.06.25

Request received: 

1. The number of households on the local authority's housing waiting list as of May 2025

2. The number of households on the local authority's housing waiting list as of May 2024

Please note that I have asked for households on the waiting list. If your response is the number of people, then please specify

Response provided:

Applicant advised that the Council does not hold the data for the requested periods and it does not have the ability to provide retrospective statistics for the specific months and years as per the request and so this information is not held. Instead, it was confirmed that Devon Home Choice publishes statistics on their website: Useful Information | Devon home choice 

From this page the applicant was referred to the Quarterly Monitoring Reports as linked for April 2025 (covering 01.04.24 – 31.03.25) and April 2024 (covering 01.04.24 – 31.03.25).

On page 1 of each report within Table 1 provides the data broken down by local authority and the numbers of households in housing need (on the waiting list) for North Devon broken down by Band as at 01.04.24 and 01.04.25. The applicant was informed they will need to add these together to obtain the total for each year

In accordance with Section 21(1) of the Act, the Council is not obliged to provide information that is already in the public domain. However, it does have a duty under Section 16(1) to provide all applicants advice and assistance in order to assist with locating the information, which the Council has done so in providing the links to the relevant published data, where held to the applicant

Request reference: FOI 10639

Issue date: 10.06.25

Request received: 

1. The amount of money you believe construction contractor ISG owed your North Devon District Council when it went into administration in September 2024
2. What the impact has been. Ie, have you had to make staff redundant because of it, have projects been delayed, etc?

Response provided:

1. £0/Zero

2. N/A  

Request reference: EIR 10641

Issue date: 24.06.25

Request received: 

CON29 information relating to a property at EX31 2PP

Response provided:

Applicant provided with the information, where held and also directed to the Council’s website for some of the information

Request reference: FOI 10642

Issue date: 12.06.25

Request received: 

Biodiversity Net Gain benchmarking study

Ecology Capacity and Expertise

1. Would you like to receive the analyses of this nationwide benchmarking survey? If so, please tell us the email address of the person we should send the outputs to

2. How many in-house ecologists does your LPA have, in total (please state in number of Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs))?

3. How many in-house ecologists does your LPA have, in roles working on assessing planning applications (please state in number of FTEs)?

4. How many of your in-house ecologists have at least two years’ professional experience working as an ecologist?

5. Do you get ecological support from external advisors? If so, how many days’/ hours’ support did you obtain in financial year 2024/25, and how much did this cost the LPA?

6. Planning application fees increased significantly on 1 April 2025. How much of this additional funding do you plan to spend on improving your capacity to process BNG (e g on ecologists, other staff, software, other)

Pre-application advice

7. Do you offer Biodiversity Pre-Application advice as a paid-for service?

Validation

8. Has your LPA introduced local validation requirements for BNG submissions, in addition to the national validation requirements? (Yes/No) If yes, please briefly outline these or provide a link to the relevant documentation.

9. Do you require that all planning applications subject to mandatory BNG include a Biodiversity Metric in its original Excel format (not another format such as pdf)?

10. Do you ensure that the Biodiversity Metric is a statutory version? If so, how?

11. Do you ensure that the Biodiversity Metric has not been tampered with, for example by changing the Excel formulae? If so, how?

12. Do you ensure that the Biodiversity Metric contains information about the baseline habitats and that this information does not contain any errors (such as incomplete rows or Excel formulae violations)? If so, how?

13. Do you ensure that the area covered by the baseline information in the Biodiversity Metric matches the area within the red line boundary? If so, how?

14. If an application claims the de minimis exemption from BNG, do you check whether the exemption applies before validating the application? If so, how?

15. If an application claims the self-build / custom-build exemption from BNG, do you check whether the exemption applies before validating the application? If so, how?

16. Since 1 January 2025, how many retrospective applications have you received, that if they had not been retrospective would have been subject to mandatory BNG?

Determination/assessment

17. Prior to determining an application, do you check whether the biodiversity data and information submitted as part of the application create any concerns, for example risks to valuable habitats and/or unrealistic proposals? If so, how?

18. Prior to determining an application, do you make an assessment as to whether any on-site habitats are likely to be defined as significant (and therefore need to be secured)? If so, how?

19. Prior to determining an application, do you make an assessment as to whether any legal instruments are likely to be required to secure habitats, such as planning conditions or Section 106 Agreements? If so, how?

20. Prior to determining an application, do you seek information from the applicant as to how they plan to discharge the BNG condition? (e g through what combination of on-site BNG, off-site BNG, and statutory credits)

1. Where the applicant is likely to have a shortfall of on-site BNG, do you proactively inform them of options for sourcing off-site Biodiversity Units? If so, how?

2. Where the applicant is likely to have an on-site shortfall of less than 0.25 Biodiversity Units, do you proactively inform them that they are permitted to proceed straight to the use of statutory credits? If so, how?

Condition discharge

21. Prior to discharging the Biodiversity Gain deemed condition, do you check whether the condition discharge application includes a Biodiversity Metric in its original Excel format (not another format such as pdf)? If so, how?

22. Do you ensure that the Biodiversity Metric is a statutory version? If so, how?

23. Do you ensure that the Biodiversity Metric has not been tampered with, for example by changing the Excel formulae? If so, how?

24. Do you ensure that the Biodiversity Metric follows all of the BNG requirements for discharge, including that it contains no errors whatsoever unless the applicant has purchased statutory credits? If so, how?

25. If the applicant has purchased statutory credits as part of their approach to discharging the condition:

1. Do you ensure that the applicant had the LPA’s permission, where necessary, to use statutory credits? If so, how?

2. Do you require proof of purchase of the statutory credits?

3. Do you ensure that the applicant has purchased the correct numbers and types of statutory credits? If so, how?

Monitoring

26. What legal approach do you use to collect BNG monitoring fees from applicants (Section 106, Unilateral Undertaking, other please explain)?

27. Do you collect BNG monitoring fees in a single lump sum, or spread out over the 30 years? If spread out, on what schedule?

Enforcement

28. How do you inform applicants that planning permission is subject to the Biodiversity Gain deemed condition? e g is this listed as part of the main set of conditions, noted in a separate informative, or notified in some other way (please specify)?

29. Do you ensure that development does not commence without discharging the Biodiversity Gain deemed condition? If so, how?

30. Have any developments in your area, where permission was subject to the Biodiversity Gain deemed condition, commenced without discharging the condition? If so, please state how many and identify them e g by planning reference number

Biodiversity Duty Reporting

31. Has a specific officer or role been designated as responsible for preparing and delivering your LPA’s Biodiversity Duty report, due in Q1 2026? (Yes/No) If yes, please state the job title responsible

32. Does your LPA currently have software or specific digital tools in place to support the data collection and reporting requirements for the Biodiversity Duty? (Yes/No/Exploring Options). If yes, please provide the name of the tool(s)

Response provided:

The Council’s response was provided in Excel format, which is available upon request  

Request reference: FOI 10643

Issue date: 11.06.25

Request received: 

Information regarding use of and provision for the DASH checklist, aka Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Honour Based Violence 

1. Is the DASH RIC used by your organisation as part of services (e.g. domestic abuse provision, victim support)? 

2. Is the use of DASH RIC a standard provision or a requirement in contracts with third-party providers of relevant services (e g domestic abuse services, sheltered housing)?

3. If the DASH checklist is used by your organisation, which organisation or organisations provide the training that includes DASH training? (e g Domestic Abuse Matters training)

4. What is the cost to your organisation of such training? Please break this down by financial year over the last five years, as well as by organisation (if more than one organisation provides the relevant training 

Response provided:

The Council confirmed that it does hold some of this information. In discharge of its obligation under section 1(1)(b) the Council’s Housing team provides the following response

The Council’s housing officers would not complete a DASH but its Domestic Abuse Triage officer would, therefore the response is as follows:

1) Yes, completed by Domestic Abuse Triage Officer

2) Yes, required by local Domestic Abuse support teams

3) North Devon Against Domestic Abuse

4) £0 cost to North Devon Council

Request reference: EIR 10645

Issue date: 24.06.25

Request received: 

CON29 information relating to a property at EX31 2JU

Response provided:

Applicant provided with the information, where held and also directed to the Council’s website for some of the information

Request reference: EIR 10646

Issue date: 24.06.25

Request received: 

CON29 information relating to a property at EX37 9RX

Response provided:

Applicant provided with the information, where held and also directed to the Council’s website for some of the information

Request reference: FOI 10651

Issue date: 16.06.25

Request received: 

The applicant requested in CSV or Excel, a list of all your public waste bins, including the following information for each bin:

Latitude and longitude (or other geolocation coordinates)

Bin type (e g general waste, recycling, dog waste, etc)

If available, the installation date and servicing frequency

If this has already been published, the applicant requested the necessary link 

Response provided:

The Council confirmed that it does hold some of this information. In discharge of its obligation under section 1(1)(b) the Council provided the following response:

Applicant provided with an Excel spreadsheet that provided a list of all bins within the Council's remit (both dog and litter bins), its schedule for emptying, and the locations using eastings and northings

The applicant was also provided with a link to the Council’s mapping facility on the Council website: https://northdevon.cloud.cadcorp.com/webmap/en-gb/PublicMap/Webmap#/ where the locations can be viewed via a map

The Council’s Waste and Recycling team confirm that they do not keep specific records of the installation dates of the bins, nor do they maintenance specific records regarding damaged bins

The Council's Customer Service Centre which deals with front line enquires (including reports of overflowing bins) confirmed that they also do not record reports of damaged bins. Any such reports will generally be identified by the crew responsible for emptying the bins and then replaced as and when required

Request reference: FOI 10652

Issue date: 16.06.25

Request received: 

The applicant requested the following regarding the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) 

1. Does the Council exercise discretion if genuine homeowners developing their own homes for personal use (such as extensions, annex, self-build) have unintentionally submitted a form late (e g an exemption form or commencement notice), does the Council not charge the full levy?

2. If so, please provide:

• Any internal policy, guidance, or precedent the council refers to in such cases

• Only if possible and easy to ascertain: the number of instances over the past five years where the council has waived or reduced the CIL charge due to late form submission in these cases

Response provided:

The Council’s Planning department confirms North Devon Council is not a CIL charging authority, therefore it is not hold information that would enable it to provide a response to the above questions 

Request reference: EIR 10654

Issue date: 26.06.25

Request received: 

Applicant is undertaking a Hydrogeological Risk Assessment for a proposed development at the above site, centred on National Grid Reference 256800, 134960 and requested the details any private water supplies within a 2km radius of the site

Response provided:

Applicant provided with the requested information, where held, which is available upon request

Request reference: FOI 10655

Issue date: 24.06.25

Request received: 

The below information for the financial year 1st April 2024 - 31st March 2025 OR the most recently completed financial year for which data is available

We are requesting data on the following: 

1. The number of rental properties you maintain

2. Number and nature of complaints you get from tenant(s)

A breakdown of these formal tenant complaints by the primary subject category (e g repairs, anti-social behaviour, staff conduct, communication, estate management, rent/charges, etc), including the number of complaints received per category. Please use your organisation's standard categorisation. Please indicate if the complaint was for a private residential property, council home, or private sector lease

1. Time taken to resolve these tenant(s) complaints

The average time taken (please specify if in working days or calendar days) to reach a formal resolution or closure for all tenant complaints that were closed/resolved during the specified financial year.

2. Cost to resolve the tenant(s) complaints 

The total identifiable costs associated with [e g external mediation services used for tenant disputes, or specific repair categories that frequently lead to complaints] for complaints resolved in the specified financial year

Response provided:

The Council confirm that its housing stock was transferred to North Devon Homes in February 2000.  The Council does not have ‘tenants’ within its temporary accommodation properties, it has occupiers under licence 

Request reference: FOI 10657

Issue date: 19.06.25

Request received: 

1. What software do you currently use for:

    a) Revenues and Benefits solution

    b) Document management solution

    c) Social Housing Management solution (if applicable)

2. When do the contracts for 1a, 1b and 1c expire?

3. Please confirm the annual costs for 1a, 1b and 1c. Or, provide the direct link to your website entry where the annual expenditure for the software providers listed in questions 1 is published

4. The name, job title and contact information for the person responsible for overseeing the software solutions identified in question 1

Response provided:

1. a) Civica OPEN Revenues 

    b) Civic D360 

    c) N/A

2.1a and b) 30.09.2034

   1c) N/A

3.1a) £144,478

   1b) £25,263

    1c) N/A 

4. Julie Dark, Revenues and Benefits Manager 

Request reference: FOI 10658

Issue date: 19.06.25

Request received: 

A list of all commercial properties (for both Limited and Sole Traders) within the council area with the following information:

1) VOA Reference Number

2) VOA Property Description

3) Business Name/occupier Details

4) 2017 Rateable Value

5) Occupation Date

6) Full Address and Postcode

7) Details of any Reliefs that each property is receiving

8) Relief Amount

9) Date Relief Applied

Response provided:

The Council’s Revenues team confirmed that most of the information is published on the Council’s website within its NDR datasets that are updated on a quarterly basis, in accordance with Sections 16 and 21 of the Act, this information is publicly available

They explained that the data extracted for the datasets does not contain the 2017 rateable value (the datasets published refer to the 2023 Rating List entries), the relief amount and the date the relief was applied (points 4,8 and 9). Therefore, in order to provide the information for the 2017 rateable value would require a Revenues officer to run additional reports for the RV data and then manually look up the date the relief was applied to any relevant accounts. The details would then need to be manually added to the published spreadsheet and would mean over 6,300 accounts for the RV to be added and over 4,000 accounts with relief

Section 12 of the Act makes provision for public authorities to refuse requests for information where the cost of dealing with them would exceed the appropriate limit, which for Local Authorities is set at £450 by the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 18 hours at £25 per hour in determining whether the Council holds the information, locating, retrieving and collating the information

The Revenues team confirms that there would be no other way in which to respond to the request and that do so would far exceed the 18 hour cost limit as explained above. The procedure would cause serious disruption to the day to day working of the Revenues team therefore we are unable to process this part of the request any further. As set out in the previous paragraph, the Council has the right to refuse to provide the information in accordance with Section 12 of the Act 

Request reference: EIR 10662

Issue date: 30.06.25

Request received: 

CON29 information relating to a property at EX31 1NY

Response provided:

Applicant provided with the information, where held and also directed to the Council’s website for some of the information

Request reference: FOI 10671

Issue date: 27.07.25

Request received: 

The applicant requested the following information regarding buildings within the local authority area:

1. The total number of buildings that currently have Aluminium Composite Material (ACM) cladding - the same type that significantly contributed to the Grenfell Tower fire

2. of these:

1. How many are residential (e g flats or houses)?

2. How many exceed 18 metres in height?

3. How many have had funding approved for remediation?

4. How many have begun or completed remediation (please specify stages)

3. If possible, please provide anonymised data or a list of affected buildings, categorised by building type and ownership (e g council-owned, housing association, private leasehold)

Response provided:

1. Two

2. 

How many are residential (e g flats or houses)? 0

How many exceed 18 metres in height? 0

How many have had funding approved for remediation? Not applicable

How many have begun or completed remediation (please specify stages) Not applicable

3. Commercial, council owned

The above response is for Council owned properties only

Information is not held on properties district wide.  Building Control are not aware of ACM cladded buildings in North Devon, however Building Control do not oversee all building works and it is possible for there to be buildings with ACM that have been overseen by Private Building Control bodies