Venue: Wherstead Park, The Street, Wherstead, Ipswich IP9 2BJ
Contact: Committee Services
No. | Item | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS BY COUNCILLORS Minutes: 16.1 There were no declarations of interest.
|
|||||||||||||
BC/21/7 TO CONFIRM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 25 MAY 2021 PDF 274 KB Minutes: 17.1 On the proposal of Councillor Ward and seconded by Councillor Malvisi,
It was RESOLVED:-
That the Minutes of the meeting held on 25 May 2021 be confirmed and signed as a true record.
|
|||||||||||||
BC/21/8 ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE CHAIRMAN AND LEADER PDF 18 KB In addition to any announcements made at the meeting, please see Paper BC/21/8 attached, detailing events attended by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman.
Minutes: 18.1 On the proposal of Councillor Hinton and seconded by Councillor Maybury, a motion without notice to suspend Council Procedure Rule 1.4 of the Constitution was tabled. This was PUT to the Council.
It was RESOLVED:-
That Council Procedure Rule 1.4 be suspended.
18.2 The Chairman introduced his announcements which was for noting only.
18.3 The Chairman then invited the Leader to make his announcements.
18.4 Councillor Ward introduced his report and informed Councillors that he shared their frustrations at having to hold another Council meeting at Wherstead Park.
18.5 Whilst he welcomed the relaxation of social distancing measures as everyone began to live with Covid, the Council was still mindful of the current levels of local and national infection and therefore the need to remain vigilant and protect against the spread of infection remained.
18.6 In the workplace, which included Council meetings, there was specific government guidance which Councillors still needed to adhere to. Some Councils in Suffolk had cancelled their meetings this month as a result of the challenge of adhering to that guidance. Babergh District Council had taken a proportionate approach, as democracy needed to not just be done but seen to be done. The Council was therefore meeting to deal with motions, questions and urgent items of business. Whilst the Leader felt it was great to be meeting in person, the Council would return to Endeavour House to hold its Council meeting once the relevant guidance permits.
Covid-19 18.7 The Leader thought that everyone was surprised and pleased that there had been an unexpectedly quick turn-around in the rising infection numbers of the Delta variant in the third wave of Covid. This gave further optimism that the vaccination programme, coupled with a pragmatic response by the public in continuing to observe some restrictions and protection measures, was really bringing the virus under long-term control. Here in Babergh, cases had also started to decline in recent days and, while still the highest in the county, they were below the East of England and national figures.
18.8 Infections were still mostly in the 15-29 age group, but it was worrying that this group was showing increasing resistance to campaigns to get vaccinated. It did seem that relentless online disinformation, especially the particularly pernicious claim that the vaccines affect fertility, was having an impact, even among the well-educated. Councillors must do their best to support the government’s message and constantly promote the benefits and efficacy of the vaccination programme for all age groups.
18.9 On behalf of the Local Outbreak Engagement Board, Councillor Ward urged Councillors to continue with caution and reminded Councillors of the need to ‘jab, test and protect the rest’. He also urged Councillors to carry on wearing masks, use sanitisers and respect social distancing. In the words of our soundbite: ‘this summer we need to spread kindness, not Covid.’
Recent Announcements 18.10 Councillor Ward informed Council that a lot had been happening over the past two months since the ... view the full minutes text for item 18.
|
|||||||||||||
TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULES In accordance with Council Procedure Rule No. 11, 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: 19.1 There were no petitions received.
|
|||||||||||||
QUESTIONS BY THE PUBLIC IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULES PDF 53 KB The Chairman of the Council 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: Question 1 - Mr Morelli to
Councillor M Holt, Cabinet Member for Economic Growth “On the 5th July 2021, the Babergh Cabinet debated a report on Belle Vue Park in Sudbury – the recommendations from which the Council will consider today, at Agenda Item 11a of today’s meeting. “Prior to that Cabinet debate, Councillor Lindsay asked a question regarding the contract the Council has agreed with Churchill Retirement Living. “In his question, Councillor Lindsay pointed out that Babergh District Council will not be paid by Churchill until (and unless) Churchill is granted planning permission for the works it intends to carry out. In addition, Councillor Lindsay stated that – under the contract agreed with Churchill – Babergh does not have to start work on the retaining wall until that time. Councillor Lindsay therefore asked why money to pay for the retaining wall needed to be borrowed before Churchill receives planning permission (should that occur), and therefore before the contract with Churchill completes and the Council is paid. “In response, Councillor Holt stated that borrowing money in advance of contract completion was necessary because – to use Councillor Holt’s own words – if Babergh does “not start this work prior to completion of the Churchill contract, [Babergh] will have insufficient time to meet the contract obligations to start on the site within three months”. I therefore understand that – in essence – Babergh has signed up to a contract that requires it to borrow money before Churchill has even received planning permission for its intended development (again, should that occur). “Could I therefore ask Councillor Holt, in his position as Cabinet Member for Economic Growth: If I am correct in the understanding that I have described, why was a contract agreed that necessitated Babergh borrowing money prior to the said contract’s completion – from which funding is intended to be provided – especially given that there is no guarantee Churchill will receive planning permission for its development at all
Response:
The forward funding element proposed is predominantly to carry out design work, pre-build contract site studies and other work to enable construction to start on site within the timescales proposed in the contract with the purchaser.
Supplementary question from Mr Morelli to Councillor M Holt, Cabinet Member for Economic Growth The risk impact was previously rated as 4 catastrophic and is now 3 bad. Email correspondence has not fully ascertained why the risk that was previously described as 4 catastrophic does not still exist and has been removed. So, can I therefore ask Councillor Holt if he can provide me with a full and complete explanation as to why the risk was downgraded from 4 catastrophic to 3 bad? Response: In the earlier draft report, it had an incorrect risk rating as this was an administrative error, so the risk was not downgraded.
|
|||||||||||||
QUESTIONS BY COUNCILLORS IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULES PDF 77 KB The Chairman of the Council, the Chairmen 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 No. 13.
Minutes: Question 1 - Councillor Hinton to Councillor Malvisi, Cabinet
Member for the Environment. Firstly: Based on the Secretary of State decision on the matter of Swaledale Council v Quinn Estates Ltd and Mulberry Estates (Sittingborne) Ltd concerning the conditions and matters of their planning decision concerning in particular “Climate Change” A.) What is the relevance of this Council’s decision to declare a “Climate Emergency” in respect of any meaningful actions that we can take to help achieve any result? B.) How can the Cabinet’s decision to spend thousands of pounds on an audit of the trees in the District have any relevance?
Response:
A) The Climate Emergency that the world faces is so immense, and thoroughly entwined in every decision we make as human beings that it will not be solved solely by planning legislation. It will be tackled by us, you and I, our communities, our businesses all taking responsibility for the emissions we create and doing what we can to reduce that. Of course, our emerging Joint Local Plan pushes us further towards this goal, and this Council will continue to push further where we can. Just like we are in other areas such as:
- moving our fleet to Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil - decarbonising our leisure centre buildings, - piloting a water filtration system at Kingfisher Leisure Centre to reduce water use and reduce energy consumption - building solar car port - moving to green energy tariffs - investing in energy efficiency initiatives for our council homes - creating an energy prospectus for Suffolk - focusing on sustainable travel
…to name but a few!
B) This Council recognises the increasing pace with which natural habitat is being lost and that it too, has now become a biodiversity emergency. A biodiversity Task Force was established in July 2020. Whilst it would have been easy for the group to consider many ambitions, it was acknowledged by the Task Force that their focus should be on achievable actions that they have control or influence over. These centre on understanding and enhancing wildlife corridors and enhancing the Councils’ arboricultural and environmental resources and expertise. Trees provide a multitude of benefits to people. Whilst some of the social and aesthetic benefits can be difficult to measure, there are tools which help quantify and value some of the environmental benefits provided by trees, including carbon storage, carbon sequestration, stormwater reduction, and pollution removal. We have limited data on the numbers of trees on Babergh land (current estimate 10,000 trees) and even less information about the trees that cover the rest of the district.
Our tree officers are managing an incredible natural capital asset, but until now we have had no way of quantifying what the combined asset is worth in terms of financial value or what the trees are providing us as ecosystem services. The tree canopy survey work will give us a complete picture and also makes the information easily available for all to see and understand.
Supplementary question from Councillor ... view the full minutes text for item 21. |
|||||||||||||
BC/21/9 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE REPORT PDF 230 KB Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny Committee Minutes: 22.1 Councillor McLaren introduced the report and apologised for not highlighting the footnote at the bottom of the report which stated that the June meeting had become inquorate at 1.27pm with all of the items of business still outstanding being transferred until the July meeting.
22.2 Councillor McLaren then invited questions from Councillors.
22.3 Councillor Lindsay made reference to the CIFCO report and sought clarification on when the £1.5m interest payments that were currently being withheld would be paid?
22.4 In response, the Chairman requested that Councillor Lindsay seek a detailed response from the relevant officer.
22.5 Councillor Dawson raised an issue about the formulation of Joint Task and Finish Groups and how the Chair would handle requests to place items on the work programme where there was a split vote between Councils.
22.6 In response, Councillor McLaren stated that she felt that Task and Finish Groups should be very focussed on the tasks that they were scrutinising and that the Joint Committee should think very carefully before setting up Joint Task and Finish Groups.
22.7 The Chairman thanked Councillor McLaren for her report.
|
|||||||||||||
COUNCILLOR APPOINTMENTS |
|||||||||||||
TO CONSIDER WHETHER TO CONFIRM OR NOT THE VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE IN THE CHAIRMAN OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY COMMITTEE To consider whether to confirm or not the vote of no confidence in the Chairman of Licensing and Regulatory Committee proposed by Councillor Maybury and seconded by Councillor Nunn at the Licensing and Regulatory Committee held on 11 June 2021. Minutes: It was RESOLVED:-
That the vote of no confidence be not confirmed and that Councillor Newman remain as Chairman of Licensing and Regulatory Committee.
|
|||||||||||||
ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY COMMITTEE (IF REQUIRED) Minutes: 24.1 Not required. |
|||||||||||||
APPOINTMENT TO OUTSIDE BODY - SUFFOLK JOINT EMERGENCY PLANNING POLICY PANEL To appoint Councillor Ward as the Council’s representative on the Suffolk Joint Emergency Planning Policy Panel. Minutes: It was RESOLVED:-
That Councillor Ward be appointed as the Council’s representative on the Suffolk Joint Emergency Planning Policy Panel.
|
|||||||||||||
TO NOTE THE FOLLOWING APPOINTMENTS Planning Committee Councillor Simon Barrett (replacing Councillor Melanie Barrett)
Overview and Scrutiny Committee Councillor Melanie Barrett (replacing Councillor Simon Barrett) Minutes: Planning Committee Councillor Simon Barrett (replacing Councillor Melanie Barrett)
Overview and Scrutiny Committee Councillor Melanie Barrett (replacing Councillor Simon Barrett)
|
|||||||||||||
MOTIONS ON NOTICE |
|||||||||||||
TO CONSIDER THE MOTION ON NOTICE RECEIVED FROM COUNCILLOR HINTON That the Council Procedure Rules be amended as follows—
1. For Council Procedure Rule 5 (Ordinary Meetings), subsection (i), substitute the following—
“(i) consider questions from, and provide answers to, members of the public, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12;”.
2. For Council Procedure Rule 5 (Ordinary Meetings), subsection (j), substitute the following—
“(j) consider questions from, and provide answers to, Councillors, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 13.2;”.
3. For Council Procedure Rule 4.1 (Order of Business, Annual Meeting of Council), omit subsection (n) and insert the following at the end—
“(n) consider questions from, and provide answers to, members of the public, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12;
(o) consider questions from, and provide answers to, Councillors, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 13.2;
(p) consider any business set out in the notice convening the meeting.”.
Explanatory Notes (not part of the Motion) This Motion proposes to amend the Council Procedure Rules, such that Questions by Councillors and Questions by the Public will be able to be taken at Annual Meetings of the Council as they can currently be taken at Ordinary Meetings of the Council. At present, if a question arises at a time when the Annual Meeting is the next scheduled Meeting of the Council, the potential Questioner must either ask their question outside of the formal context of a Council Meeting (if this is possible) or wait until the next Ordinary Meeting of the Council for the same privilege. In 2021, the time between the Annual Meeting and the next Ordinary Meeting was a little under two months. In the interests of democratic accountability, the signatories to this Motion believe that the rights of Councillors and Members of the Public to ask questions of elected officials should be the same at Annual Meetings of the Council as is currently the case with Ordinary Meetings of the Council. This is because – given that one Meeting a year will inevitably be an Annual Meeting – the signatories to this Motion do not believe that it is fair to require questions that would otherwise be answered at this meeting to wait until the next Ordinary Meeting to receive an answer.In addition to adding items for Questions by the Public and Questions by Councillors to the statutory Annual Meeting Order of Business (Motion 3), this Motion also clarifies the wording of these items (including as they currently appear on the Ordinary Meeting Order of Business – Motion 1, 2), such as to make clear that the validity of any questions are governed by Council Procedure Rules 12 (for Questions by the Public) and 13.2 (for Questions by Councillors)
Proposer – Cllr John Hinton Seconder – Cllr Alison Owen
Cllr Sue Ayres Cllr Leigh Jamieson Cllr Trevor Cresswell Cllr John Nunn Cllr Margaret Maybury
Minutes: 28.1 Councillor Hinton MOVED his motion on notice and informed Councillors that the Council was in danger of losing the confidence of the public by not being open and transparent in its democratic dealings with the public.
28.2 Before 2016, questions from members of the public and Councillors were allowed at the Annual Council meeting, since then it seems to have disappeared at a time when the number of council meetings was also reducing.
28.3 Councillor Hinton felt that the ability to ask questions at the Annual Council meeting should be restored for both members of the public and councillors and that this be made a formality by the Council.
28.4 Councillor Owen SECONDED the motion and reserved the right to speak.
28.5 Councillor Ward stated that he had no objection to the principle of having questions at the Annual Council. However, he felt that the Motion was to wordy and should be more succinct and that the exact wording should be agreed by the Constitution Working Group or the Monitoring Officer.
28.6 Councillor Ward then moved the following amendment:-
This motion proposes that this council allows questions from councillors and members of the public at the Annual Meeting. At the moment, questions have to be held over until the next ordinary meeting following the annual meeting, which can sometimes interfere with democratic accountability because questions may no longer be current and thereby lose their relevance.
As this is a straightforward change to the Constitution, this motion proposes that council instructs the Monitoring Officer to make the appropriate changes to the Annual Meeting Order of Business in the Constitution.
28.7 Councillor Jan Osborne SECONDED the amendment.
28.8 Councillor Arthey queried the effect of the amendment and whether the result would be the same as the original.
28.9 The Chairman confirmed that this was the case.
28.10 The Chairman asked Councillor Hinton if he accepted the amendment?
28.11 In response, Councillor Hinton stated that he did not accept the amendment and asked Councillor Ward why if he had no objections to the Motion was he tabling an amendment?
28.12 In response, Councillor Ward stated that the amendment was essentially around how the Constitution was amended. This was normally carried out by either the Constitution Working Group or the Monitoring Officer rather than being directed by a motion.
28.13 Councillor Hinton said that the Constitution belonged to the Councillors and that the matter should be dealt with by the Council.
28.14 The Monitoring Officer gave a point of explanation and clarified that either way would be acceptable however it was custom and practice that the Monitoring Officer would supply the definitive wording for changes to the constitution.
28.15 The amendment was PUT to the Council and CARRIED.
28.16 The substantive motion as amended was PUT to the Council and CARRIED.
It was RESOLVED:-
This motion proposes that this Council allows questions from councillors and members of the public at the Annual Meeting. At the moment, questions have to be ... view the full minutes text for item 28.
|
|||||||||||||
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET |
|||||||||||||
BC/21/10 BELLE VUE PARK (SUDBURY) FACILITIES AND ENTRANCE - PART 1 PDF 253 KB Leader of the Council Additional documents: Minutes: 29a.1 Councillor Ward introduced the report on behalf of the Cabinet and informed Council that they were not here to discuss the part sale of the site or the house to Churchill Retirement Living as this was now part of the planning process and not appropriate for discussion tonight. Similarly, the Council have already decided that they would like to see a welcoming new entrance to the park with café and toilets funded from the sale both of these decisions had been taken by Cabinet on the 11th March 2021.
29a.2 This report was to seek Council approval and addition to the Capital Expenditure Programme, of the scheme to create a retaining wall, new high quality secure and accessible park entrance and new café/toilet block facilities (to Changing Places Standard).
29a.3 The report also sought forward funding for essential works by borrowing until the sale to Churchill went through and the capital receipt was received and to ensure that the overall site delivery programme including the retirement living development remained on track and in line.
29a.4 The forward funding would allow the work to progress on that basis and minimise the disruption and duration on site.
29a.5 Councillor Ward made reference to 2.1b in the report which would enable the commissioning of a multi-disciplinary team to support and deliver the stakeholder and community engagement, detailed design work, surveys and investigations, planning application, principal contractor procurement, liaison with the retirement living professional team and construction delivery within the required time frame.
29a.6 These works were likely to cost within the region of £80k to £100k and although no physical works would start on site with regards to the retaining wall until planning permission was secured by Churchill and the contract with the Council was completed. The pre work did mean that construction could commence in accordance with the purchaser’s programme ie within 3 months of the contract’s completion.
29a.7 Councillor Ward clarified that this was the amount the Council was seeking funding for and not the full investment amount of £1.12m that it had already committed to spend on further improvements to the park and to the entrance all of which were detailed in the Vision for Prosperity for Sudbury.
29a.8 Councillor Ward added that a stakeholder group had been set up which included the Town Council and County Highways. This would enable stakeholders to have input in the design and thereby deliver an exceptional scheme in planning terms ensuring that the park will be a great asset for the town, residents and visitors. This group has been kept fully informed of the council’s plans particularly the need for the retaining wall due to the significant difference in the two lands levels to ensure that the entrance was accessibility compliant.
29a.9 A public event will be held in the park in late summer to present a detailed design to members of the public.
29a.10 Finally, Councillor Ward informed Council that Cabinet had reviewed the benefits against the key risks and ... view the full minutes text for item 29a
|
|||||||||||||
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC (WHICH TERM INCLUDES THE PRESS) To consider whether, pursuant to Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, the public should be excluded from the meeting for the business specified below on the grounds that if the public were present during this item, it is likely that there would be the disclosure to them of exempt information as indicated against the item.
The author of the report proposed to be considered in Part 2 of the Agenda is satisfied that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
Minutes: It was RESOLVED:-
That pursuant to Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the business specified below on the grounds that if the public were present during discussion of this item, it is likely that there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as indicated in the report.
|
|||||||||||||
CONFIDENTIAL APPENDICES - BELLE VUE PARK, SUDBURY Leader of the Council |