177.1       There were no declarations of interests.

It was Resolved: -

That, with the following amendments, the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 September 2019 be confirmed and signed as a true record:

Paragraph 8.5: Councillor John Ward responded on behalf of the Cabinet Member for Economic Growth who had forwarded apologies.

Paragraph 8.10: change 811 attendances to 881 attendances.

178.2       Councillor Hinton enquired when responses would be forwarded to Members regarding employment created by the new developments in rural areas, in relation to the Cabinet Member for Economic Growth’s report CMU4. Officers responded that this would be forwarded to Members in due course.

In addition to any announcements made at the meeting, please see Paper BC/19/22 attached, detailing events attended by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman.

179.1         The Chair referred to Paper BC/19/22 which was for noting and invited the Leader to make his announcements.

179.2         The Leader had attended the Business Rates Member training yesterday and he noted that the training was not well attended. The training would be repeated the following day at 4.30pm and he urged everyone to go if possible. The Assistant Director for Corporate Resources and her team had put a lot of effort into the Finance Training Programme. The presentation was excellent, and the Leader urged Members to attend.

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.

180.1              None received.

The Chairmen 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.

181.1      A question had been received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.

181.2      Mr Lamming was in attendance and asked the following question:

The undated Report BC/19/20 from the Leader of the Council  (“Renaming Babergh District Council”) for consideration at an extraordinary meeting of the council convened for 22 October 2019 at 6.30 pm states (paragraph 3.1): “It is proposed to change the name of the district from “Babergh” to “South Suffolk” and that “If the name is changed the formal name of the council would be “The District Council of South Suffolk” though it will be usually rendered as “South Suffolk Council”.    The recommendation (at para 2.1) is: “Pursuant to Section 74 Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) to change the name of the district from “Babergh” to “South Suffolk” from 1 April 2020.”  However, a report in the East Anglian Daily Times on Tuesday 15 October (page 4) states that “the council’s leaders have opted to cancel the meeting and push back the debate to give councillors more time to consider it.”

In the light of the above, please:

(i)                Name the councillors who ‘considered [it] relevant and timely to now replace the name of Babergh with “South Suffolk”’ (see report, para 3.5) and identify the meeting (or meetings) at which the decision to propose the name change was made, stating where the minutes or record of such meeting(s) can be accessed;

(ii)        State how many representations respectively (a) for, and (b) against the proposal have been received, and where they can be accessed;

(iii)       State whether any detailed assessment was made of the financial costs of the proposed ‘rebranding’, specific to this council, and how it is proposed such costs would be financed.

Response Councillor Ward

(i)             This first question really concerns how policy ideas arise and get developed and there are various informal mechanisms and forums for this prior to them being submitted formally to either Cabinet or Council as appropriate for debate and voting. Specifically, in this case I originally raised this idea during an informal Cabinet discussion on 22 July 2019.  The topic of discussion was the future branding for Babergh and Mid Suffolk Councils.  I therefore took the opportunity to initially sound out my Cabinet colleagues about the idea of changing the name of Babergh District Council.  As this idea received in principle, indicative support from the Cabinet, officers were tasked to draft a relevant report.  As such a change requires two-thirds of Councillors present at an Extraordinary Council meeting to approve it, the report has not been taken to any other committee.  There are no minutes / records of the Cabinet’s discussions on 22 July 2019.  

(ii)            We have received 8 formal responses (5 from residents / parishes within Babergh) raising concerns about pronunciation, proposed name, history, costs and consultation. An anonymised summary of these can be produced on request. One of these (a parish council) wasn’t against the proposal but wanted more information and another missed the point entirely, thinking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 181.

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.

182.1         None received.

Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee

183.1         Councillor McCraw, Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, referred to report BC/19/23 and briefly summarised the main points of the report.

The Leader of the Council

184.1         Councillor Ward introduced report BC/19/24, Corporate Plan (2019 – 2027) which the Cabinet had been working on in conjunction with Mid Suffolk District Council.  The current strategic plan was due to expire in 2020 and it was the intention that the proposed new Corporate Plan would be replacing the Joint Strategic plan. Appendix A provided a summary of the development of the revised Corporate Plan.

184.2         The draft Corporate Plan had been supported by the Senior Leadership Team and officers across both Councils and required the approval of both Cabinets and Councils.  The new Corporate Plan provided a joint vision for the future of the Council’s area and addressed opportunities and challenges facing the District in the foreseeable future.

184.3         The revised version and new mission statement would provide more confident leadership for the area through greater place-based workings. The interconnected strategic priorities in the plan were the environment, the economy, housing, well-being, our customers and communities.

184.4         The Corporate values were included in the Corporate plan to ensure that they were part of the objective to benefit communities and residents in the District.

184.5         Councillor Ward MOVED recommendation 3.1, which was SECONDED by Councillor Arthey

184.6         Councillor Ward invited the Chief Executive to present the Corporate Plan the Council.

184.7         After the presentation, Councillor Lindsay stated that the purpose of the Council should be to improve the quality of life for residents and he hoped that the Corporate Plan would provide the foundation for this. The Council was a public sector service and even if some of the services were conducted as a corporate body he felt that the use of the word ‘customer’ for the residents in the District was not appropriate as it set a mind-set that implied that residents were buying from the Council. This was not the case and he would prefer the word ‘citizens’ or ‘residents’, and he was unsure if he would be able to support a Corporate Plan using the word ‘customers’.

184.8         Councillor Ward responded that he was concerned if support for the Corporate Plan was based on the perception of one word.  However, he felt that the use of ‘customers’ worked well in this context as this implied private sector concepts of delivering services to customers’ satisfaction.

184.9         Councillor Malvisi agreed with Councillor Ward and thought these issues were related to the exchange of values to a mutual satisfaction.

184.10      Councillor Parker added that the Corporate Plan included everybody in the authority but that the Council also delivered to both communities, residents and customers in the District.

184.11      Councillor Hurren asked if the Chief Executive was confident that the Council would be able to deliver the Corporate Plan, as he had concerns about performance and hoped that future concerns would be responded to an appropriate manner.

184.12      Recommendation 3.1 was put to Members for voting and was CARRIED by 31 to 1.

It was RESOLVED: -

That the Council adopts the draft Corporate Plan (2019 – 2027)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 184.

The Monitoring Officer

185.1         The Deputy Monitoring Officer introduced report BC/19/25.

185.2         Councillor Ward MOVED recommendations 2.1 and 2.2 in the report, which was SECONDED by Councillor Arthey.

185.3         The recommendations were put to Members for voting and the vote was UNANIMOUS.

It was RESOLVED: -

1.1          That the Committees’ size and numerical allocation of seats be approved as detailed in Appendix A to the report.

2.1          That the revisions to the appointments to Committees as set out in Appendix B to the report be noted.

To elect a Vice-Chair for Overview and Scrutiny Committee

186.1       On the invitation from the Chair for nominations for the Vice-Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Councillor Ward PROPOSED Councillor Adrian Osborne. Councillor Osborne had served on the Committee for a number of years and would be an able person to take up this role.

186.2       Councillor McCraw agreed and SECONDED the proposal.

186.3       The proposal was put to Members for the vote and the vote was CARRIED by 30 votes to 2.

It was RESOLVED: -

That Councillor Adrian Osborne be elected as Vice-Chair for the Babergh Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

187.1         The Chair referred to Item 10 and asked Members if there were any changes to those already tabled in Item 10.

187.2         It was NOTED that there were none.

To consider the Motion on Notice received from Councillor Beer:

Sudbury/Hadleigh and other parts of Babergh district are growing: There are already parking problems at times in our towns and other places throughout Babergh, there is substantial new housing planned for our towns and in nearby communities. In Sudbury in particular, through the Vision for Prosperity and Economic Development Strategy, Babergh is committed to several regeneration projects in the town and encouraging business growth. There will also be increased tourism to the towns and District as a whole. Civil Parking Enforcement and the remodelling of the Market Hill will soon result in much less on-street parking, with an extra demand for off-street parking places.

Alternative parking will be needed for residents of Cross Street, a designated Air Quality Management Area, to reduce pollution and improve the traffic flow. As a result of all these things, there will be increasing pressure on parking in the town, which needs to be addressed before the current capacity is exhausted.

This Motion calls for the Council to review parking provisions in Sudbury, Hadleigh and other areas of Babergh and identify what extra capacity will be needed to make the current shortfall and any additional demand in the years to come and where this should be placed, nothing should be ruled in or out, all options should be looked at working with our partners Suffolk County Council and the Town/Parish Councils, it will identify parking needed to support the following:

1.     SCC’s imminent measures to restrict parking in Cross Street.

2.     The implementation early next year of Civil Parking Enforcement Regulations.

3.     SCC’s and STC’s proposals for the remodelling of the Market Hill.

4.     The Hamilton Road development, which is planned to include a new Cinema.

5.     The additional residents that will be living in the towns and nearby communities.

6.     Hadleigh growth and other areas of Babergh.

7.     The extra visitors that will be coming to the town as a result of the Gainsborough’s House and St. Peter’s Church projects.

Proposer – Councillor Beer

Seconder – Councillor Newman

188.1         The Deputy Monitoring Officer informed Members that the Motion was related to a Cabinet Decision and therefore once the Motion had been duly moved, seconded and debated the Motion would be referred back to Cabinet for decision.

188.2         The Chair invited Councillor Beer to move the Motion.

188.3         Councillor Beer MOVED the Motion as detailed in the Agenda and said that this motion provided Members with the opportunity to get involved and to call on the public to come up with suggestions and solutions as to how the Council should go forward, He said that he may be a voice for the motorist, but that the voice of the Green agenda, other road users and safety organisations were required as there were issues with the District’s major town of Sudbury. Improvement to air quality had been achieved in Cross Street, but considerations had to be made for future parking provision as visitor numbers would increase as a result of the work of the ‘Growth and Visitors’ projects. Loss of parking spaces would generate issues with parking in side streets and residential areas. He also thought that other parts of Babergh District were likely to require new parking areas due to housing developments and increased tourism in some parts of the District. 

188.4         He asked Members to have a fresh approach and an open mind to investigate all aspects of opportunities for parking options and also set up a small group to report back to Council. He then read out the motion:

“This Motion calls for the Council to review parking provisions in Sudbury, Hadleigh and other areas of Babergh and identify what extra capacity will be needed to make the current shortfall and any additional demand in the years to come and where this should be placed, nothing should be ruled in or out, all options should be looked at working with our partners Suffolk County Council and the Town/Parish Councils, it will identify parking needed to support the following:

1.          SCC’s imminent measures to restrict parking in Cross Street.

2.          The implementation early next year of Civil Parking Enforcement Regulations.

3.          SCC’s and STC’s proposals for the remodelling of the Market Hill.

4.          The Hamilton Road development, which is planned to include a new Cinema.

5.          The additional residents that will be living in the towns and nearby communities.

6.          Hadleigh growth and other areas of Babergh.

7.          The extra visitors that will be coming to the town as a result of the Gainsborough’s House and St. Peter’s Church projects.”

188.5        Councillor Newman SECONDED the Motion.

188.6        Councillor Lindsay then asked to MOVE an amendment to the Motion as detailed in the tabled papers and said that although he agreed that a review of parking was required, he thought there were a couple of assumptions in the Motion, one of which was that extra capacity for parking would solve the issues.  However, car drivers could not be considered in isolation, and he referred to a study from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 188.