6 QUESTIONS BY THE PUBLIC IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULES PDF 7 KB
The Chairs of Committees to answer any questions by 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 No. 12.
Minutes:
6.1 The Deputy Monitoring Officer had received two questions from Mr Regester.
6.2 Mr Regester was not present at the meeting and the questions had been tabled.
6.3 The Deputy Monitoring Officer had referred one question forwarded by Mr Regester to Councillor Ward, as he was the Portfolio Holder at the time the report was taken to Cabinet.
6.4 Question 1 to Councillor Ward from Mr Register on behalf of Belle Vue Rescue, Restore and Revive Steering Group:
In accordance with Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 A key decision needs to be included in the forthcoming decisions list with at least 28 clear days’ notice. The current list does not include any key decision to consider funds associated with planning on the potential Belle Vue proposal. Why is this key decision missing from the forthcoming decisions list?
6.5 Councillor Ward responded that at its meeting on 11th October 2018, Cabinet approved the earmarking of funds from Babergh’s portion of the 2018-19 Suffolk Business Rates Retention Pilot to support a number of proposed regeneration schemes in the district. £500,000 was earmarked to Belle Vue, Hamilton Road and the wider Sudbury Town Centre Development. Some of this money will be used to support the planning application for the proposed hotel and restaurant at Belle Vue. This Cabinet item first appeared on the forthcoming decisions list on 30th August 2018, reference CAB82.
6.6 Question 2 to Councillor Ward from Mr Register on behalf of Belle Vue Rescue, Restore and Revive Steering Group:
Please can you confirm that the costs for the Belle Vue proposal have been assessed under the key decisions requirements as per Part 1, 12.7.1 in the Constitution and what was the result of this assessment?
6.7 Councillor Ward responded that for correctness, the reference to the Paragraph in the Constitution should read Part 1, 12.9.1.
6.8 He then continued that he could confirm that the costs for the proposed hotel and restaurant were assessed under the key decisions requirements as per Part 1, 12.9.1 of the Constitution and this assessment was part of the evidence debated and approved by Cabinet on 12th July 2018. This was item 16 on the published agenda for that meeting and was discussed in confidential session. This Cabinet item first appeared on the forthcoming decisions list on 3rd April 2018, reference CAB36. It was then debated and approved by Council at the meeting held on 25th September 2018. This was item 15 on the published agenda for that meeting and again was discussed in confidential session. The minutes remain confidential and so I cannot provide full details of the assessment, but I can confirm that, based on the assessment, a) Council approved the development and its capital funding and b) the anticipated revenue effects over the initial 25 year lease will provide a net income to the Council every year from year 2 onwards