Venue: King Edmund Chamber, Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich. View directions
Contact: Committee Services
No. | Item | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS BY COUNCILLORS Minutes: 1.1 There were no declarations of interests from Councillors. |
|||||||||
BC/22/17 TO CONFIRM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 21 JUNE 2022 PDF 114 KB Minutes: It was Resolved:-
That the Minutes of the meeting held on 21 June 2022 be confirmed and signed as a true record. |
|||||||||
BC/22/18 ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE CHAIRMAN AND LEADER PDF 62 KB In addition to any announcements made at the meeting, please see Paper BC/22/18 attached, detailing events attended by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman.
Minutes: 3.1 The Chair referred Councillors to report BC/22/18 for noting.
3.2 The Chair made reference to the recent sad death of Queen Elisabeth II and paid tribute to her for her long and loyal service.
3.3 The Chair invited Councillor Simon Barrett to take the opportunity to give an apology to Council as requested in a recent code of conduct complaint outcome from the Monitoring Officer.
3.4 Councillor Barrett apologised to Council for a lapse of behaviour, as requested.
3.5 The Chair invited the Leader of the Council to make his announcements.
3.6 Councillor Ward’s announcements were as follows:
LGA Conference The Leader reported that at the end of June, the LGA Conference was finally able to be held in person rather than the less than ideal virtual conferences of the past two years. It was particularly gratifying as this year the LGA was celebrating 25 years of supporting local government. The venue was the excellent Harrogate Conference Centre and the agenda was full of interesting and useful sessions. The only drawback was that it was, a super-spreader event and many from Suffolk returned with Covid.
The Leader highlighted a small part of the conference.
Chairman The conference began with an address from the LGA chairman, who spoke about the impact that local government has had over the last two years - from responding to COVID to rapidly providing support for the newest and most vulnerable members of our society who have arrived from Ukraine.
His speech focused on the immediate cost pressures facing councils and the issue of abuse faced by councillors - and echoed newly re-elected LGA President Baroness Grey-Thompson saying that we cannot allow this behaviour to be normalised. He also called for local government to start a conversation about our long-term vision which addresses the challenges that our communities will be facing in the next five to ten years.
Michael Gove In his keynote speech, Levelling Up Secretary Michael Gove outlined the principles underpinning the Government’s Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill to deliver an irreversible commitment towards strengthening local leadership. He committed to greater devolution by offering every part of England a new devolution deal by 2030. He also highlighted the need to improve the use of data to improve service delivery. He expressed his desire to strengthen innovation and the use of data by introducing a new Office for Local Government which would “shine a light” on performance and delivery.
He announced that, from next year, Government would introduce a two-year financial settlement to provide councils with certainty and confidence in planning budgets, whilst also promising to keep the financial situation facing councils under review. He also said he was “looking closely” at what the department could do to reduce the number of funding streams and associated burdens on councils.
However, as we all know, events can happen – have happened – and they do have a habit of derailing plans. We don’t yet know the new SoS’s views – since the Summer we are ... view the full minutes text for item 3. |
|||||||||
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: 4.1 There were no petitions. |
|||||||||
QUESTIONS BY THE PUBLIC IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULES PDF 68 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 Riley to Councillor Ward, Leader of the Council
At the last meeting you affirmed your belief that the redevelopment of Corks Lane would break even or make a profit. The draft minutes of the Council’s last full meeting record your saying that “Babergh has never said that the project might make a slight loss”. Yet, Report Number BCa/22/4 suggests that the range of outcomes would include losses. Please tell us why you have ignored the loss making potential of this project when your own officers were flagging up that possibility.
Response from Councillor Ward, Leader of the Council
As you will have seen from the Cabinet decision in June, six options were considered and, based on the evidence provided, the one chosen was the one that provided the best balance between risk and return for the council. The decision has been made and work has now commenced.
I have to disagree with your assertion that report BCa/22/4 suggests a range of outcomes including a loss for our chosen option and that we have ignored this. I think you have misread it. The report clearly states the following in section 2.2: ‘On this basis Phase 1 and Phase 2a currently show a break-even development with the potential for a small profit (c. £50-100k), further profit could subsequently be available from Phase 2b.
I know you claimed at June’s Council meeting that we/I have said that the development would break even or make a slight loss. This is surprising for I have never said any such thing and, I hope you don’t mind my reminding you, you acknowledged that I did, in fact, say the opposite – that it would make a small profit – in your own blog written three weeks prior to that meeting.
Ultimately the profitability of any development is reliant on sale prices and the market at the time of sales occurring. Having said that, the most important thing is that this scheme will deliver positive outcomes for Hadleigh and the wider district, by providing high quality housing and investing in our district.
Question 2
Mr Ferguson to the Cabinet Member for Finance, Assets and Investments
I understand that Gipping Construction has been selected as Babergh’s builder for the redevelopment of Corks Lane and that Gipping is a local company. Can the Cabinet Member for Finance, Assets and Investment tell me if Gipping was chosen through a competitive tender process, and if so, how many other companies bid for the work? Has the contract to Gipping been awarded on a firm/fixed price basis, and was it awarded to the lowest compliant bidder?
Finally, to fully understand the risks that Babergh potentially faces with completing this development on time and on cost, will you provide a copy of the Tender documents provided to bidders (not the responses as they are assumed to be "Commercial in Confidence"), and give me an indicative percentage of the differences in bid price between Gipping and the ... view the full minutes text for item 5. |
|||||||||
QUESTIONS BY COUNCILLORS IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULES PDF 69 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: Councillor Beer to Councillor Ward, Leader of the Council
Could you please advise me and the tax payers of Babergh, if the surplus £1,400,000 pounds that you have found can be allocated to offset any council tax increase that you may be thinking of introducing in the forthcoming 2023/24 budget as our residents are already struggling with the high cost of living, energy and fuel price increases, we don’t want to be seen as empire building or just increasing our reserves?
Response from Councillor Ward, Leader of the Council
We have started to consider the 2023/24 budget but it is far too early for me to make any comment about its contents. As you will see from the 2021/22 Outturn Report approved by Cabinet in July, we have made several transfers to reserves, including setting up a new £500k Inflationary Pressures Reserve. This will be used to mitigate the impact of inflation on our finances where this cannot be achieved through funding or other income. This is a one-off solution to help mitigate the pressure in the current year. The council is facing its own energy, fuel prices and inflationary pressures and in the current financial year are likely to overspend by £800k. These financial pressures will continue into 2023/24 and beyond and are likely to increase with diminishing reserves to cover this. This will need to be considered in the wider context of the cost of delivering essential services and the funding we have available will be a major factor in any budget considerations this autumn.
We are acutely aware of the impact of the cost of living crisis on our residents and in June Cabinet approved our Cost of Living Action Plan. This is a suite of personalised preventative measures which focuses on reaching those residents who are in most in need. These don’t just focus on cost of living issues in isolation, but also on our residents’ well-being. We will be appointing a Cost of Living Co-ordinator for 15 months, funded by a Government grant, and we are among the first districts in the country to do this.
We have provided Sudbury CA with a 30% uplift in funding this year so that they can respond effectively to increasing demand.
We are able to make Discretionary Housing Payments, funded by a Government grant of £85k, to assist those on benefits who are struggling with rent shortfalls. There is a £5.1m Household Support Grant across the Suffolk system to help households with the cost of essentials such as food, clothing and utilities.
SPSL has approved an additional £1m hardship costs support to the Collaborative Communities Board for the system-wide response in Suffolk.
Finally, you will know that we have the Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme which gives 100% reduction for low income pension age residents and up to 95% reduction in Council Tax for low income working age residents. Following the Cabinet decision on Monday, this will now be increased to 100% reduction – helping nearly 2,500 ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|||||||||
BC/22/19 COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY (CIL) - EXPENDITURE FRAMEWORK - FOURTH REVIEW PDF 261 KB Cabinet Member for Planning Additional documents:
Minutes: 7.1 The Chair invited Councillor Arthey to introduce paper BC/22/19.
7.2 Councillor Arthey detailed the purpose of the report and PROPOSED the recommendations contained in the report, which were SECONDED by Councillor Parker.
7.3 Councillor Maybury asked if galleries were able to apply for CIL funding, Councillor Arthey suggested that it should be explored as part of the next review.
7.4 Councillor Maybury also asked if funding restrictions for cycling and footpaths could be included in the next review, Christine Thurlow – Professional Lead Key Sites and Infrastructure stated that a pilot was ongoing to investigate LCWIP schemes and identify what was needed to develop those schemes and hopefully use CIL monies to attract match funding in order to bring those forward.
7.5 Councillor Maybury enquired if it was realistic to expect quotations for works and materials to be correct after 4 months as stated in the report. Councillor Arthey stated that the CIL team continued to be flexible in allowing bids to be revised and encourage groups who are bidding for CIL funding to be ready when they are awarded the funding so that quotes are as up to date as possible.
7.6 Councillor Lindsay asked if there was flexibility on the rule of only providing funding for spade ready projects. Councillor Arthey replied that the purpose of reviewing the CIL funding was to review what projects would benefit most.
7.7 Councillor Holt asked for assurance that there were processes in place to enable decisions to be made quickly to deal with fixed price quotations. Councillor Arthey stated that funding under £10,000 was able to be given under delegated decision, but larger funding amounts do take longer because of the administrative work needed to present them to Cabinet for approval.
7.8 Councillor Maybury asked if there had been any tightening in procedures regarding collecting CIL monies from developers and if it could be confirmed that the Council were debt controllers for CIL collection monies. Councillor Arthey confirmed that there was a CIL debt recovery officer in post who had been successful in recovering CIL monies from developers recently.
7.9 Councillor McCraw and Councillor Beer praised the success of the CIL programme and gave thanks to Christine Thurlow and her team for their work, Councillor Arthey also thanked the Councillors on the Joint Member Panel.
By a vote of 25 votes for.
It was RESOLVED:
1.1 That Babergh Council approve the amendments to the CIL Expenditure Framework– July 2022 (arising from the fourth review) - (Appendix A) and the CIL Expenditure Framework Communications Strategy – July 2022 (Appendix B).(Appendix C comprises the yearly Key CIL Dates Calendar which is produced under delegated powers (to the Assistant Director of Planning and Building Control in consultation with the Cabinet Members for Planning and the Cabinet Members for Communities) each year (as part of the outcomes of the first review of the CIL Expenditure Framework.) Appendix C (Key CIL dates for 2022/23) together with Appendices E and F (which comprise the current annual ... view the full minutes text for item 7.
|
|||||||||
Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Biodiversity and Sustainable Travel Minutes: 8.1 The Chair invited Councillor Ward to Introduce report BC/22/20 in the absence of Councillor Gould which was for noting only.
8.2 Councillor Maybury asked for clarification of paragraph 7 on page 147 of the report and asked if the visitor numbers quoted were visitors to Suffolk, visitors to Babergh or just visitors to the consultation website? Councillor Ward confirmed the number was visitors to the consultation website only.
|
|||||||||
BC/22/21 LOCALISM ACT 2011 - APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT PERSONS PDF 62 KB Monitoring Officer Additional documents: Minutes: 9.1 The Chair invited the Emily Yule – Monitoring Officer to introduce report BC/22/21.
9.2 The Monitoring Officer explained the purpose of the report and asked for a proposer and seconder for the recommendation detailed in the report.
9.3 Councillor Simon Barrett PROPOSED the recommendation which was SECONDED by Councillor Arthey.
9.4 Councillor Maybury queried why all the proposed Independent Persons were female. The Monitoring Officer stated that 20 applications had been received and the five candidates proposed were deemed the best five following the application process and then an interview which was undertaken by the Deputy Monitoring Officer and Monitoring Officers from other partner councils
By a vote of 24 votes for and 1 abstention
It was RESOLVED:
1.1 That the individuals listed in Appendix A of this report be appointed as the Council’s Independent Persons pursuant to section 28(7) of the Localism Act 2011 for a term of two years with an option to extend the appointment for a further two years.
|
|||||||||
BC/22/22 APPOINTMENT OF MONITORING OFFICER PDF 70 KB Chief Executive Minutes: 10.1 The Chair invited the Chief Executive to introduce report BC/22/22.
10.2 The Chief Executive explained that as Emily Yule was leaving it was necessary to appoint a replacement Monitoring Officer to the authorities and it had been hoped that the person named within the report would be recommended for appointment, however that person was no longer able to take up the appointment therefore this item was withdrawn by the Chief Executive.
10.3 The Chair paid tribute to the outgoing Monitoring Officer and on behalf of the Council wished her every success in the future.
|
|||||||||
Chief Executive Additional documents: Minutes: 11.1 The Chair invited the Chief Executive to introduce report BC/22/23 which was for noting only.
11.2 The Chief Executive introduced the report which detailed that the urgent decision was needed to be taken in order to enable Freston Parish Council to continue to be able to make decisions.
It was RESOLVED:
1.1 That Council notes the Urgent Action taken under delegated powers by the Chief Executive as detailed in Appendix A.
|
|||||||||
COUNCILLOR APPOINTMENTS Minutes: 12.1 There were no appointment changes. |
|||||||||
MOTIONS ON NOTICE |
|||||||||
TO CONSIDER THE MOTION ON NOTICE RECEIVED FROM COUNCILLOR JAMIESON Motion
As set out in the recently approved HRA business plan, retrofitting insulation and other energy-saving measures to the council’s housing stock is expensive, and progress is limited by the constraints of HRA funding. A group of seven councils in Sussex have set up a project, known as the Lewes Model, pooling resources, adopting a consistent approach and gaining economies of scale in order to facilitate the retrofitting of up to 40,000 social homes.
This motion is calling on Babergh to agree to research this model and to start dialogue with other local authorities and external stakeholders, to investigate if a similar project could be initiated in Suffolk to improve the pace of retrofitting. This work should involve Council members.
Proposer: Cllr Leigh Jamieson Seconder: Cllr Jane Gould
Minutes: 14.1 The Chair invited Councillor Jamieson to introduce and PROPOSE his motion.
14.2 Councillor Jamieson elaborated on his motion that was in the agenda and Councillor Owen SECONDED the motion.
14.3 Councillor Jan Osborne confirmed that officers from Babergh Council had previously worked with the Suffolk Hub relating to grant-based claims for the green homes grant, business energy and industrial strategy funding and the funding bids had been successful across the partnering authorities. Babergh and Mid Suffolk had also requested that the Suffolk Housing Board investigate a method for decarbonizing social housing stock and a short descriptive paper had been completed which if agreed by the Suffolk Housing Board would be distributed to all councillors in due course.
14.4 Councillor Osborne also confirmed that officers would carefully review the paper which the Suffolk Housing board has prepared and complete any necessary research to assess if Babergh Council could work with other partners across Suffolk to deliver a similar stock investment approach to the proposed within the Lewes initiative.
By a vote of 22 votes for and 3 against.
As set out in the recently approved HRA business plan, retrofitting insulation and other energy-saving measures to the council’s housing stock is expensive, and progress is limited by the constraints of HRA funding. A group of seven councils in Sussex have set up a project, known as the Lewes Model, pooling resources, adopting a consistent approach and gaining economies of scale in order to facilitate the retrofitting of up to 40,000 social homes.
It was RESOLVED:
That Babergh agree to research this model and to start dialogue with other local authorities and external stakeholders, to investigate if a similar project could be initiated in Suffolk to improve the pace of retrofitting. This work should involve Council members.
|
|||||||||
TO CONSIDER THE MOTION ON NOTICE RECEIVED FROM COUNCILLOR BARRETT Motion on Notice
This Council has no confidence in the current Vice-Chairman to undertake his role impartially and in the spirit of the code of conduct and therefore resolves to remove Cllr Derek Davis as Vice-Chairman of Babergh District Council.
Reasons for Motion:
Cllr Derek Davis re-posted a derogatory and disrespectful comment on his Facebook page about Tories. The post said: ‘If you start with the basic and fundamental premise that all Tories are utter bastards, no one will ever prove you wrong.’ No accompanying comments were added to tone down the original post. It must be assumed that Cllr Davis agrees with the post. The post is in the public domain. Cllr Davis is Vice-chair of Babergh District Council. The council’s constitution explains the roles and responsibilities as follows: · The chairman of the council will be impartial and not act in a party political way when carrying out that role particularly when exercising a casting vote in the event of deadlock at a Council meeting, · To preside over meetings of the Council so that its business can be carried out efficiently and with regard to the rights of Councillors and the interests of the community.
Cllr Davis’ actions have shown that he is unable to remain impartial, to ensure fair representation for Conservative Cllr’s in debate and crucially to use his casting vote impartially. Cllr Davis’ comments were not confined to elected Cllr’s. This post also applies to members of the public who are Tories. Under the constitution the Chairman of the council is responsible for promoting public involvement in Council’s activities and to be the conscience of the Council. If he is seen as being biased against Tories he will be unable to retain the confidence of the public to promote their involvement. It is disappointing to see that despite reporting this post to the Leader and Dept Leader, both former Tories one may add, neither have responded in any way to express their shock or condemnation. We consider that if members now support Cllr Davis they are actually condoning this failure to act with integrity. In addition to this motion we feel he should consider his position as a Councillor.
Proposer: Cllr Simon Barrett Seconder: Cllr Mick Fraser
Minutes: 15.1 The Chair invited Councillor Simon Barrett to introduce and PROPOSE his motion as detailed in the agenda.
15.2 Councillor Barrett outlined his motion and gave his reasons for bringing it before council.
15.3 Councillor Beer SECONDED the motion and gave his reasons for doing so.
15.4 Councillor Davis apologised for any offence caused by his error of judgement but rejected that it affected his impartiality as Babergh Vice Chair.
15.5 The Chair allowed Councillor Ward as Leader of the Council to respond to the motion. Councillor Ward addressed the reference in the motion regarding his failure to respond to the post and clarified that the email drawing attention to the post was received while he was on holiday.
15.6 Councillor Beer objected to not being able to debate the motion.
15.7 The Monitoring Officer informed Councillors that the rules state that there is no debate on appointments and the motion being considered was effectively the reverse of an appointment so the same rule applied. The Chair had only allowed Councillor Ward to speak because he was mentioned in the motion.
By a vote of 7 votes for, 16 votes against and 2 abstentions.
It was RESOLVED:
That Councillor Davis remain Vice-Chairman of Babergh District Council.
|
|||||||||
TO CONSIDER THE MOTION ON NOTICE RECEIVED FROM COUNCILLOR LINDSAY PDF 71 KB Preamble
Residents of our district are deeply concerned about water quality and the impact ofregular wastewater discharge, which includes untreated sewage, into our local rivers and seas and the impact on wildlife and on human health. We know that there were 288 sewage storm overflow spills into our rivers, including the Stour, in 2021 for a total duration of 1,861 hours. That was from just the 18 storm overflows that are monitored. Another 17 storm overflows are not monitored. The Stour is widely used for swimming, boating and fishing. As the district’s population rises with new housing, releasing sewage into rivers is no longer an emergency-only situation occurring as a result of severe storms, but an everyday occurrence even in ‘normal’ rainfall.
Local and national planning policy requires a robust approach to both water quality and pollution. The National Planning Policy Framework* makes clear that it is Babergh Council’s responsibility to prevent developments causing unacceptable levels of water pollution. A recent legal opinion (attached as Appendix A) from the Environmental Law Firm clarifies that a local authority can consider the cumulative impact of developments on pollution and does not have to accept the view of the sewerage company. Yet it has not been the practice for Babergh planners to ask Anglian Water to report on cumulative impact i.e. whether or not development may lead to any potential increase in ‘emergency’ discharge into rivers and seas.
Motion
This Council resolves to:
1. Recognise the Council’s obligation to protect its rivers and seas, including from the cumulative impacts of pollution, in line with the National Planning Policy Framework*
2. Recognise that nationally there is clear evidence of deterioration of water quality due to cumulative impact of multiple sewage discharge events or ‘sewage overload’.
3. Ensure that in gathering evidence for future iterations of the local plan the council consider the cumulative impact of sewage when deciding the overall level of housing and other development.
4. Draw up a dashboard collating data on discharge so that the cumulative impact of wastewater discharge in the district can be easily seen.
5. The council will take a lead in protecting its watercourses from pollution, including by joining the relevant Catchment Partnership (such as Essex and East Suffolk) and working with other agencies to tackle this issue.
6. Ask the chair of the scrutiny committee to invite the Chief Executive of Anglian Water plus senior representatives from the Environment Agency and Natural England to attend a meeting to answer questions about plans for tackling levels of sewage discharge. 7. Ask Anglian Water, from this date onwards, in its planning consultation responses for major development, to clarify which treatment works will be managing the sewage; whether it has the information available to assess the impact on the number or duration of sewage discharges into local rivers or seas, and if it does have this information to share it (noting that this can only be requested not required).
8. Request that planning officers, from now onwards, include ... view the full agenda text for item 16. Additional documents: Minutes: 16.1 The Chair invited Councillor Lindsay to introduce and PROPOSE his motion as detailed in the agenda.
16.2 Councillor Lindsay explained his motion and informed council of an amendment to the recommendations.
16.3 Councillor Jamieson SECONDED the motion.
16.4 Councillor McCraw began the debate by discussing works undertaken at the Suffolk Flood Risk Management Scrutiny sub committee which he had been the council’s representative on for some time and supported the motion especially that a request be made to the Suffolk Flood Management Scrutiny Sub-Committee about development impact.
16.5 Councillors agreed to the sentiment of the motion but thought the recommendations needed clarification.
16.6 The Monitoring Officer gave councillors the option to use Rule 15.1d of the constitution that allows the council to move to refer a matter to the appropriate body or an individual, in this case this could be referred to officers to do further work before coming back to council with a more complete and rounded proposal.
By a vote of 18 votes for.
It was RESOLVED:
That in accordance with rule 15.1d of the Constitution this motion be referred to officers for clarification.
|