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 Memorandum of Understanding between Mid Suffolk and Babergh that provides a route map into and beyond merger was considered by Babergh’s Cabinet this morning, and will shortly come to the Mid Suffolk Cabinet.
3. It remains vital to test public support at this stage (in the ways already underway) as this is the same approach adopted by the other two pairs of districts that are seeking to merge, and who have successfully obtained “minded to” support from the Secretary of State.
4. Similarly it remains vital to produce, and consider the strength of, a Business Case for “merger”.
5. All the current work should therefore continue as planned and advice sought from the DCLG regarding the motion adopted by Babergh.
6. Should MSDC consider it prudent, provisions exist to force such mergers where there are potentially unwilling parties. It is thought that these provisions will expire before they could be implemented in Mid Suffolk and Babergh, and it is proposed that the Chief Executive urgently explores this too with DCLG.
7. Advice from Government regarding a number of matters has indicated that Parliamentary time between April 2018 and April 2019 has been entirely set aside for Brexit matters. As a result, it now appears highly unlikely that a merger could be implemented before May 2020.
8. If ultimately Babergh does feel obliged to hold a Local Poll then Mid Suffolk will need to consider whether to do the same. No decision can be made on this until we have received the outcome of the current engagement activity and a draft Business Case. If the engagement activity clearly re-endorses the outcome of Mid Suffolk’s Local Poll in 2011 then there would appear to be no reason (legally) for Mid Suffolk to repeat the Local Poll. We could of course always choose to do so however, if we believe there is good reason to do so.
9. Given the expectation that a new council could not be created before May 2020 we will of course therefore have our ordinary elections (albeit with a new council size and warding pattern) in May 2019. Both Councils may therefore prefer to seek a mandate through manifestos at that election rather than conducting a Local Poll.
10. Regrettably, it has become clear that the culture and behaviour of some Babergh Councillors is alien to Mid Suffolk. We therefore need to consider if we will be able to work with those Councillors and whether Mid Suffolk should still be pursuing “merger” with Babergh.
11. We should remember of course that a “merger” is actually the creation of a new Council, with candidates having to both be selected and then elected as Councillors. Similarly an election in 2020 would enable a more detailed Boundary Review to be carried out specifically for the new authority. It could therefore make further council size and ward changes.
12. If we are to deliver a “merger”, we need to be able to work with Babergh’s administration in the meantime; and our desire for “merger” is clearly being impacted by their political situation. Whilst I still believe the best option for Mid Suffolk is to “merge” with Babergh, I have asked the Chief Executive to consider and present alternative options for Mid Suffolk.
105.2 The Leader outlined that the replacement paragraph in the announcement provided the position statement from Mid Suffolk District Council following the meeting of Babergh District Council on 19 December 2017and put on record his thanks for Councillor Jennie Jenkins for her support, concluding that Suffolk would be a poorer place without her presence.
105.3 Councillor Andrew Stringer posed a question to the Leader regarding the East Anglian Daily Times Article on 20 December 2017 regarding Mid Suffolk Councillors concerns over a stalemate at Babergh District Council and the consideration of options other than Merger.
105.4 The Leader responded that he had no knowledge of where the information had come from but that it had not been from him.
105.5 Councillor Rachel Eburne questioned the leader regarding the possibility of an election in 2019 and another in 2020, if a merger took place, and whether it would be possible to extend the term of office to only have one election in 2020.
105.6 The Leader responded that if the Council did wish to approach the Secretary of State that this could be a possibility but that the Council needed to wait and see what Babergh’s position was after 4 January 2018 when a new Leader is elected.
105.7 Councillor Penny Otton questioned the Leader regarding Suffolk being a pilot area for business rate retention and what might be the impact of coping with this new regime.
105.8 The Leader responded that the regime would allow extra financial capacity within the authority do deal with growth in the district. He added that although this had just been announced and once officers had worked through the ramifications they would bring a report for Cabinet and Full Council.
105.9 Councillor Stringer questioned the Leader regarding the regeneration of the former Needham Market HQ site and suggested that a better wording than regeneration be considered.
105.10 The Leader responded that he understood the point and noted it.
105.11 Councillor Wendy Marchant questioned the leader regarding compulsory purchase powers being used for the ex-car showroom on the High Street which is currently empty to make best use of that area.
105.12 The Leader responded that he was unsure about the detail but he would look into the matter.
105.13 RESOLVED
That Council Notes the report.
Supporting documents: