Venue: King Edmund Chamber, Endeavour House
Contact: Committee Services
No. | Item |
---|---|
Apologies for absence Minutes: 101.1 An apology for absence was received from Councillors John Levantis, Tim Passmore, John Whitehead, Jane Storey, Gerard Brewster, Esther Jewson, Gary Green and Derek Osborne. |
|
To receive any declarations of pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests by Councillors Minutes: 102.1 Councillor Nick Gowrley declared a non-pecuniary interest as a Member of Stowmarket Town Council.
102.2 Councillor Andrew Stringer declared a non-pecuniary interest as a Woodland Trust Councillor, Tree Champion. |
|
MC/17/26 Confirmation of the minutes of the meeting held on 23 November 2017 PDF 382 KB Minutes: 103.1 The minutes of the meeting on 23 November 2017 were confirmed and signed as a true record subject to the following amendments:
- That it be noted that the minutes of the meeting on 26 October 2017 contained an inaccuracy that the constitution did not allow for Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committees. It is noted that the Constitution does allow for Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committees as listed on page 208 7.7.2 of the Constitution. - That Minute 88 be corrected to read that “Councillor John Field declared a non-pecuniary interest in Paper MC/17/25 as he knew the landowner.” - That minute number 97 be amended to read that Councillor Otton was happy to accept the name of the Ward as Onehouse.
|
|
MC/17/27 Chairman's Announcements PDF 31 KB Minutes: 104.1 The Chairman corrected report MC/17/27 that only he attended the visit to the Sheltered Housing in St Peters Court Claydon and that Vice Chair, Councillor John Levantis, did not.
104.2 The Chairman reported that he and the Vice Chair were well received at the Sheltered Housing who praised Mid Suffolk for their efforts. He added his concern that a number of Sheltered Housing Managers did not want the Chair to visit, and asked that action was taken regarding this.
104.3 It was RESOLVED
That the Chairman’s report be noted with the correction that Vice Chair Councillor John Levantis did not attend the Sheltered Housing visit to St Peters Court, Claydon.
|
|
MC/17/28 Leader's Announcements PDF 107 KB Minutes: 105.1 The Leader advised that his report was on page 13 of the papers and requested that the third paragraph be substituted with the paper that had been circulated to Members’ at the beginning of the meeting as detailed below:
MID SUFFOLK - POSITION STATEMENT
As all Members are aware, an “opposition” motion was lodged at Babergh’s full Council meeting on Monday evening, which sought to “frustrate” activity regarding “merger” and also to remove Councillor Jennie Jenkins as Leader of Babergh District Council.
Having carefully considered her options, Jennie took the honourable decision to resign as Leader of the Council. Jennie did this ahead of any consideration of the motion, and so in line with Babergh’s Constitution, Councillor Jan Osborne (the Deputy Leader) has become acting Leader of the Council, and the Cabinet remains in place. An Extraordinary Babergh Council meeting has been called for Thursday 4th January 2018, in order for the Council to elect its new Leader.
The remaining elements of the opposition motion were passed. These are:
1. No BDC money be allocated in the next budget (2018-2019) and no staff time be used from April 2018 for the purposes of the Proposed Merger without the formal approval of the full Council (“Full Council Approval”); and
2. As a condition precedent to the obtaining of Full Council Approval, the Leader be requested to guarantee that a new local referendum shall be held in which the votes of the electors of BDC are counted separately on the model of the 2011 referendum and only a vote in favour by the electors of BDC shall constitute a mandate from BDC to proceed (respectively “Condition Precedent” and “Referendum Approval”)
This motion has no impact upon the current work in this financial year, with regard to “merger”. As such, the public engagement work will continue, and close on 5th February 2018. Depending on the outcome of this engagement, it remains the intention to then produce a business case for “merger”.
However, the additional aspect of this motion is to prevent work in BDC beyond April 2018 without first obtaining majority support of their Council, and to require a Local Poll to be conducted in Babergh before seeking such support from their Council.
Neither Council is legally required to hold a Local Poll, but it does need to be able to demonstrate “broad” Council support to the Secretary of State. Conversations will therefore need to be held with the DCLG as to whether he would accept the submission of a Business Case, without complying with this motion, or whether Babergh will now have to hold a Local Poll if it wishes to push forward with the Business Case.
Implications & Position Statement for Mid Suffolk
1. It appears to be the case that many Babergh Councillors (even some supporting the motion) are in favour of a merger, but politically feel obliged to obtain a democratic mandate from the electorate (reversing their 2011 poll) before proceeding.
2. The first draft of a ... view the full minutes text for item 105. |
|
To receive notification of petitions in accordance with the Council's Procedure Rule In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10, The Chief Executive will report the receipt of any petitions. There can be no debate or comment upon these matters at the Council meeting. Minutes: 106.1 A petition had been received from Redgrave Parish Council stating: objection to SSO486 (in the Joint Local Plan Consultation) shown as a potential housing development as the development would be inappropriate it would cause harm to the village community by loss of its play area, open space, recreation area, sports area, village hall and all its clubs and off-road parking which are in a safe location next to the village centre. It would increase the area occupied by housing in Redgrave by a massive 50% detrimentally changing its character from a historic and scenic village to a suburbia which no facilities, infrastructure, jobs or transport. It is therefore contrary to government planning policy and defies logic.
The petition has been signed by 228 valid signatures and has been passed onto the Planning Policy team as part of the Joint Local Plan consultation. |
|
Questions by the Public The Chairmen of Committees to answer any questions from the public of which notice has been given no later than midday three clear working days before the day of the meeting in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11. Minutes: 107.1 None received. |
|
Questions by Councillors The Chairman of the Council, the Chairman of Committees and Sub-Committees and Portfolio Holders to answer any questions on any matters in relation to which the Council has powers or duties or which affect the District of which due notice has been given in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12. Minutes: 108.1 Councillor John Matthissen to Councillor Horn What alternative arrangements have been made for a control centre in case of an emergency in the district, now we no longer have an HQ building in Needham Market?
Answer In preparation for the move to Endeavour House the entire emergency preparedness plan was reviewed and revised to ensure that in advance of the move, during the move and after the move, the Council was able to meet it’s duties under the civil contingencies act and offer an effective emergency response. As part of this review, new arrangements were set in place to operate the Emergency Control Centre from Endeavour House. On the 17th October (prior to the move) a team of Emergency Control Centre Staff carried out an exercise to establish and operate the new Emergency Control Centre from Endeavour House. This exercise was successful, and the centre worked effectively.
When the two councils were based in Hadleigh and Needham Market respectively each site acted as a back-up site for the other. If for any reason, the Emergency Control Centre could not be established in the lead council location the other HQ site provide an alternative location. The Stowmarket Customer Access Point now forms the back-up site for our Emergency Control Centre if Endeavour House is not viable. Should we face the situation where both Endeavour House and the Stowmarket Customer Access Point are unavailable we are able to utilise West Suffolk House in Bury St Edmunds.
108.2 Councillor John Matthissen to Councillor Gowrley When will an appropriate meeting or briefing be held in our District rather than in Ipswich, as promised by the Council Leader 14/9/17:
“As always intended, some meetings may be held in our District if there is an item of particular community interest. This will be at the discretion of the Chairman of the relevant meeting.”
Answer The principle that was adopted when we moved the office was that meetings will always be booked to happen at Endeavour House (so that we ensure that we have a room) but that the Chairman of each Committee had discretion to take any meeting to a different location (we have a list of venues with appropriate facilities already identified for this purpose). I have asked Democratic Services to pro-actively discuss this with the Committee Chairman in preparation for each meeting.
Supplementary Question Could the list of alternative venues that have been worked up be provided to Members relatively soon.
Answer To be provided outside of the meeting.
108.3 Councillor Sarah Mansel to Councillor Horn As we seem to be no further forward following the discussion at the last Council meeting, when are Members to be equipped with Skype for Business Telephony, and given a briefing about the new ICT capabilities following the move to Endeavour House?
Answer (given by Councillor Morley, Lead Member for Customer Service) Skype functionality will be rolled out to all Councillors by the end of January 2018. The functionality will enable Video and Audio capability, so ... view the full minutes text for item 108. |
|
Motions on Notice |
|
Councillor Penny Otton has given notice of her intention to move the under-mentioned Motion at the meeting:- Councillor Penny Otton has given notice of her intention to move the under-mentioned Motion at the meeting:-
Suffolk has the ambition to be "the Greenest county", I congratulate the Minister for the Environment, Michael Gove, on his initiative to look at introducing a plastic bottle return scheme. It is a well established fact that plastic is one of the worst pollutants of the environment.
A recent report (available from link below) to the Government by Eunomia showed that a deposit return scheme would lead to savings of between £62,000 and £495,000 for any local authority that introduces it, by reducing the authority's waste handling costs. It would also send a strong message that plastics are not for single use and would significantly cut the amount of plastic ending up in the marine environment, endangering our sea life.
The Council also notes that recycling rates for plastic bottles in Britain stands at 57% - in comparison to over 90% in countries that have a Deposit Return Scheme (e.g. Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark)
Suffolk is ranked as the second-best performer out of 32 Waste Disposal Authorities in two tier areas for the recycling of dry-recyclables so we will always welcome any proposals brought forward to further improve our performance.
Therefore we ask the chief executive to write to the minister informing him that this council supports the proposed scheme and that Mid Suffolk council will look favourably upon any pilot proposals and will seek to participate where we believe the pilot would help to improve environmental outcomes and reduce costs in Suffolk.
Proposed by Penny Otton Seconded by Wendy Marchant
Minutes: 110.1 Councillor Penny Otton Proposed the following motion to Council:
110.2 Suffolk has the ambition to be "the Greenest county", I congratulate the Minister for the Environment, Michael Gove, on his initiative to look at introducing a plastic bottle return scheme. It is a well established fact that plastic is one of the worst pollutants of the environment.
A recent report (available from link below) to the Government by Eunomia showed that a deposit return scheme would lead to savings of between £62,000 and £495,000 for any local authority that introduces it, by reducing the authority's waste handling costs. It would also send a strong message that plastics are not for single use and would significantly cut the amount of plastic ending up in the marine environment, endangering our sea life.
The Council also notes that recycling rates for plastic bottles in Britain stands at 57% - in comparison to over 90% in countries that have a Deposit Return Scheme (e.g. Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark)
Suffolk is ranked as the second-best performer out of 32 Waste Disposal Authorities in two tier areas for the recycling of dry-recyclables so we will always welcome any proposals brought forward to further improve our performance.
Therefore we ask the Chief Executive to write to the minister informing him that this council supports the proposed scheme and that Mid Suffolk council will look favourably upon any pilot proposals and will seek to participate where we believe the pilot would help to improve environmental outcomes and reduce costs in Suffolk.
110.3 Councillor Otton concluded by congratulating Iceland and the CO-OP who were prepared to support the premise, and proposed the motion to the Council.
110.4 Councillor Wendy Marchant seconded the motion commenting on the impacts of plastics which had been illustrated in David Attenborough’s recent television programmes.
110.5 Members outlined their support for the motion tackling the problem of plastic littering, the influence of the Suffolk Waste Partnership, that Mid Suffolk were the first district in the county to put forward the proposal, the impact of the charge of plastic carrier bags, the possibility of a Deposit Return Scheme, that the motion would need to complement the current kerbside collections, the impact on the environment, and that further concepts could be implemented from other nations.
110.6 By a Unanimous Vote
110.7 RESOLVED
It was Resolved That Mid Suffolk District Council adopt the motion:
- Suffolk is Ranked as the second-best performer out of 32 Waste Disposal Authorities in two tier areas for the recycling of dry-recyclables so we will always welcome any proposals brought forward to further improve our performance
- Therefore we ask the Chief Executive to write to the minister informing him that this Council supports the proposed scheme and that Mid Suffolk Council will look favourably upon any pilot proposals and will seek to participate where we believe the pilot would help improve environmental outcomes and reduce costs in Suffolk.
|
|
Councillor David Burn has given notice of his intention to move the under-mentioned Motion at the meeting:- As Cabinet Member for Environment I should like to propose the following motion at Mid Suffolk District Council’s meeting on 21 December 2017:
That this Council signs the Woodland Trust’s Charter for Trees, Woods and People in support of the ten principles that the Charter promotes as a basis for harmony and mutual benefit between trees and people
Minutes: 111.1 Councillor David Burn Proposed the following Motion to Council:
111.2 As Cabinet Member for Environment I should like to propose the following motion at Mid Suffolk District Council’s meeting on 21 December 2017:
That this Council signs the Woodland Trust’ Charter for Trees, Woods and People in support of the ten principles that the Charter promotes as a basis for harmony and mutual benefit between trees and people.
111.3 Councillor Burn informed the Council of the history of the Charter for Trees dating back to Henry III Charter of 1217 of the Forrest and Woodland to the founding of the Woodland Trust in 1972. Councillor Burn outlined the achievements of the Woodland Trust and the challenges that they were facing, due to increased urbanisation and changing lifestyles.
111.4 Councillor Burn concluded by saying that Suffolk County Council had voted to sign the Charter and asked for a seconder for the Proposal.
111.5 Councillor Andrew Stringer seconded the Motion and declared a non-pecuniary interest as a Woodland Trust Tree Champion. Councillor Stringer outlined his support for the application commenting on his previous advocacy for the planting of trees, the statistics of Suffolk’s population with access to woodlands, and the benefits of trees not just to the community but to the environment.
111.6 Members outlined their support for the Motion outlining the monitoring and improvement of tree cover being included in the Joint Local Plan, the importance of Planning Policy and the positive contributions that can be made to the landscape.
111.7 Councillor David Whybrow added that he would report back to the Planning Department ensuring that the Charter be embraced and that it be fully implemented.
111.8 Members continued to discuss the motion on the role of Tree Preservation Orders and the benefits that Trees could bring to the local environment.
111.9 By a Unanimous Vote
111.10 RESOLVED
It was resolved that the Council approve and adopt the motion as follows:
That this Council signs the Woodland Trust’ Charter for Trees, Woods and People in support of the ten principles that the Charter promotes as a basis for harmony and mutual benefit between trees and people.
|
|
To receive reports from Cabinet Members PDF 13 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: 112.1 CMU3 – Assets and Investments
112.2 The Leader presented report CMU3 to Council as the Cabinet Member for Assets and investment.
112.3 Councillor Wendy Marchant posed a question to the Leader regarding the possible development on the Needham Market HQ site for NHS Child immunisation, Suffolk and Norfolk Police training dog unit or Film Suffolk. She added that it would help the local economy as businesses were already losing trade and whether these options would be considered.
112.4 The Leader responded to the question that everything was going to be considered in the proposal.
112.5 Councillor Wendy Marchant posed a question regarding the possibility of reducing rental income and security costs if commercial activity was sought and why did these options not go to the All Together group in October.
112.6 The Leader responded that he had raised it with Officers and will be considered in the future.
112.7 CMU4 - Communities
112.8 Councillor Julie Flatman presented report CMU4 as the Cabinet Member for Communities.
112.9 Councillor Penny Otton posed a question regarding the Regal Cinema in Stowmarket and the Councils proposals.
112.10 The Leader declared a non-pecuniary interest as a Member of Stowmarket Town Council and responded that a Cabinet report would be coming forward shortly to outline Mid Suffolk District Councils view.
112.11 Councillor Keith Welham posed a question regarding the promotion of cycling and cycle routes and if there was a possibility of having a cycling programme.
112.12 Councillor Julie Flatman responded that she would report this back to the Communities team and that they were doing everything they could to promote cycling and that there were further details to come forward.
112.13 CMU5 – Environment
112.14 Councillor David Burn presented report CMU5 as the Cabinet Member for Environment.
112.15 Councillor Anne Killet posed a question regarding the loss of staff and performance in the Licensing team, Building Control team, Planning Enforcement Team, and Heritage Team and of the 83 members of staff that have left this year how many exit interviews were conducted.
112.16 The Chief Executive responded that it was standard practice to offer exit interviews but that it was up to the employee as to whether they took up the offer. The Chief Executive added that he did not have the information with him but that it would be distributed to all Members after the meeting.
112.17 Councillor John Field posed a question regarding the Warm Homes Fund and whether the scheme was open to all including owner occupiers, tenants in rented properties, and the Council.
112.18 Councillor David Burn responded that he did not have the information with him but would investigate.
112.19 CMU6 – Organisational Delivery
112.20 Councillor Glen Horn presented report CMU6 as the Cabinet Member for Organisational Delivery.
112.21 Councillor Rachel Eburne posed a question regarding the End of Year report as to whether it would include successes and also points to learn from.
112.22 Councillor Glen Horn responded that he hoped it would and that it would be ... view the full minutes text for item 112. |
|
MC/17/29 Overview and Scrutiny Committee Report PDF 122 KB Minutes: 113.1 Councillor Rachel Eburne presented the Overview and Scrutiny Committee report to the Council noting that a Joint Overview and Scrutiny meeting had been held on Monday 18December looking at the Community Infrastructure Levy and urged all Members to attend the briefings. Councillor Eburne added that the Committee had also reviewed the Shared Legal Service with the decision of an improvement required and report this back to the Committee and that for any future partnerships a business case is put forward before any partnership commences.
113.2 Councillor Eburne responded to Members questions regarding the one off pay roll costs and the lack of recommendations associated with the item and that a large amount of the budget had been spent on interims and consultants.
113.3 Katherine Steel, Assistant Director – Corporate Resources, responded that she would report to Council the figures on the interims, consultants and how many previous vacancies had been filled.
113.4 The Leader responded to a question from Councillor Otton regarding the continued use of interims to which the Leader responded that wherever possible the Council will employ staff directly but that, at times, there was a need for external staff for exceptional circumstances.
|
|
Minutes: 114.1 The leader Introduced report MC/17/30 outlining that the report had previously been before Members and had now been returned to Council after a period consultation. The Leader explained that there was an error in paragraph 8.1 to which Members had been notified in advance of the meeting. The Leader outlined that it should read “confusion is currently caused by Babergh District Council having a maximum reduction of 91.5% whilst Mid Suffolk have a Maximum of 95%.” The Leader outlined the options in the report, the responses from the consultation, and proposed the report for approval.
114.2 Councillor Julie Flatman seconded the proposal.
114.3 Councillor Anne Killet posed a question regarding the information on page 39 section 6.5 referring to Appendix C on how many respondents there were to the consultation.
114.4 The Leader responded that there were 12 responses to the consultation.
114.5 Councillor John Field outlined the current arrangements and compared them to those proposed and that the report had been overcomplicated and asked that in future and that a better effort be made in future.
114.6 By a Unanimous vote
114.7 RESOLVED
That Mid Suffolk District Council adopt the Council Tax Reduction (Working Age) Local Scheme (Revised) from 1 April 2018, as set out in Appendix A of the report.
|
|
Appointments Minutes: 115.1 No Appointments were made. |